When the jet was 2,500 feet above ground and the pilot began to climb, the passenger panicked and reached for something to hold onto.
Unfortunately, that something was the ejector seat button -- and the 64-year-old flew from the fighter jet.
He was uninjured.
Hmm, I would have assumed for any situation that would normally warrant ejecting from a fighter jet, that pulling the eject handle would eject both seats, as that could save the life of the second person if they were unconscious or incapacitated. Though perhaps it's a trainer version and set up that way so such dumb incidents are less likely to result in the loss of the aircraft.
The article I read elsewhere mentioned that the pilot should've been ejected but wasn't due to mechanical failure resulting in the breaking of the cockpit glass and his suffering minor facial injuries, but the CNN article doesn't. I'll see if I can find my earlier source.
Although to your point, it seems like in any modern military aircraft in which you are carrying civilians, you would want to disable just about everything they could possibly reach.
If the ejection process had gone as intended, the pilot, too, would have been launched from the jet. The pilot’s canopy was shattered, but because of a technical malfunction his seat remained in the plane, and he was able to return to the airbase and land safely. He suffered minor cuts to his face.[/quote
Well, it is a legitimate safety feature. On the aforementioned P-51 ride, the pilot went through a quick rundown of what to do if he determined I or both of us needed to bail midflight.* I'm sure the ejection seat would have been included in that if the passenger seat had one.
*"Duck so you don't get decapitated when I release the canopy" sure is a thing to hear!
When the jet was 2,500 feet above ground and the pilot began to climb, the passenger panicked and reached for something to hold onto.
Unfortunately, that something was the ejector seat button -- and the 64-year-old flew from the fighter jet.
When the jet was 2,500 feet above ground and the pilot began to climb, the passenger panicked and reached for something to hold onto.
Unfortunately, that something was the ejector seat button -- and the 64-year-old flew from the fighter jet.
When the jet was 2,500 feet above ground and the pilot began to climb, the passenger panicked and reached for something to hold onto.
Unfortunately, that something was the ejector seat button -- and the 64-year-old flew from the fighter jet.
Only 18000 Euro to find out how many ways you can pass out and/or shit yourself in a half hour in a MiG 29 doing a suborbital supersonic flight, seems reasonable.
I've taken a 40 minute spin in an F-16c, I'm still proud of myself for not puking or blacking out, though I came damn close of the latter during a 6g turn. Was in civilian airspace, so no supersonic, but we did hit about 650 straight cruising.
BlackDragon480 on
No matter where you go...there you are. ~ Buckaroo Banzai
Decision Desk HQ projects @judgekarofsky will win the Wisconsin Supreme Court election.
Decision Desk HQ is an election tracker.
Turns out when you force people to go out during a pandemic to vote, the now pissed off voters don't vote for you.
+17
Options
ShivahnUnaware of her barrel shifter privilegeWestern coastal temptressRegistered User, Moderatormod
edited April 2020
Is that "smart person thinks they know everything about all fields" thing actually universal? I feel like I see it a lot less from biologists and chemists than I do from economists, doctors, and physicists (probably on that order). But I don't know if that's a broad truth, a complete lie, or an artifact of the fact that crazy economists and doctors are politically useful*.
Not sure why the physics thing seems to be the case, though. I'm extremely tired of these suggested articles I keep getting with titles like (literally the first thing in my feed, the thing that triggered me making this post) "Physics Can Explain Human Innovation and Enlightenment."
(actually, I think "computer scientists" are also pretty bad re: this, but that is primarily an artifact of the extremely disproportionate power they have over modern society. Also, a lot of the wacky computer scientists don't actually have advanced degrees, so I'm not sure it counts.)
*actually the economist thing also sticks out to me because I'm a biologist subclass and economists seem to love thinking that they can explain evolution.
Not sure why the physics thing seems to be the case, though. I'm extremely tired of these suggested articles I keep getting with titles like (literally the first thing in my feed, the thing that triggered me making this post) "Physics Can Explain Human Innovation and Enlightenment."
I'd argue it's better than "Physics Can't Explain Human Innovation and Enlightenment".
0
Options
MichaelLCIn what furnace was thy brain?ChicagoRegistered Userregular
The fact that he got to find out his ejection seat is broken without being in a situation needing an ejector seat is basically the best piloting discovery he could've asked for.
Also, you know, really good for all the other folks on the ground that would have been in danger with the plane suddenly being sans pilot.
Couldn't they just use the wire to fly it to a safe location?
One of my epidemiologist friends is complaining about a microbiologist sounding off about epidemics. But I do think some fields seem to instill their practitioners with more overconfidence than others. (Or maybe the cause/effect goes the other way)
Being a programmer has only served to convince me that getting things correct on the first try is really, really hard.
+22
Options
Inquisitor772 x Penny Arcade Fight Club ChampionA fixed point in space and timeRegistered Userregular
Smart people tend to overvalue their expertise and undervalue difficulty in fields which they are not themselves expert precisely because they are smart and they assume that, given enough time and focus, they can achieve and understand anything. A message which is generally reinforced over their lifetimes. I think most of us are guilty of this fault in varying degrees for various things.
Wisdom lies in knowing that the additional time and experience are often what make all the difference.
Physics is the science of making approximations to things I've seen before, so it makes sense that that attitude will carry across into other knowledge areas.
I think part of it is the prestige that some fields have. Doctors are put on a high pedestal in our society which can lead to arrogance and an inflated sense of intellect.
Economist are highly regarded because the economy is super important so they must be too. Or maybe they're just frustrated they can't do any experiments.
Physicists I have no clue. I've heard Niel Degrasse Tyson is kinda arrogant so maybe that's just him.
0
Options
Inquisitor772 x Penny Arcade Fight Club ChampionA fixed point in space and timeRegistered Userregular
medical doctor = human body mechanic
economist = self-loathing social scientist who pretends to be a mathematician
experimental physicist = probabilistic engineer
theoretical physicist = naturalist philosopher
Is that "smart person thinks they know everything about all fields" thing actually universal? I feel like I see it a lot less from biologists and chemists than I do from economists, doctors, and physicists (probably on that order). But I don't know if that's a broad truth, a complete lie, or an artifact of the fact that crazy economists and doctors are politically useful*.
Not sure why the physics thing seems to be the case, though. I'm extremely tired of these suggested articles I keep getting with titles like (literally the first thing in my feed, the thing that triggered me making this post) "Physics Can Explain Human Innovation and Enlightenment."
(actually, I think "computer scientists" are also pretty bad re: this, but that is primarily an artifact of the extremely disproportionate power they have over modern society. Also, a lot of the wacky computer scientists don't actually have advanced degrees, so I'm not sure it counts.)
*actually the economist thing also sticks out to me because I'm a biologist subclass and economists seem to love thinking that they can explain evolution.
I think biologists at least are experienced in 'shit just happens, 10% measurement errors is a good result, everything is a mess' as opposed to expecting clean confident models.
The relatively low pay of a lot of bioscience positions doesn't inspire master of the universe thinking either.
Is that "smart person thinks they know everything about all fields" thing actually universal? I feel like I see it a lot less from biologists and chemists than I do from economists, doctors, and physicists (probably on that order). But I don't know if that's a broad truth, a complete lie, or an artifact of the fact that crazy economists and doctors are politically useful*.
Not sure why the physics thing seems to be the case, though. I'm extremely tired of these suggested articles I keep getting with titles like (literally the first thing in my feed, the thing that triggered me making this post) "Physics Can Explain Human Innovation and Enlightenment."
(actually, I think "computer scientists" are also pretty bad re: this, but that is primarily an artifact of the extremely disproportionate power they have over modern society. Also, a lot of the wacky computer scientists don't actually have advanced degrees, so I'm not sure it counts.)
*actually the economist thing also sticks out to me because I'm a biologist subclass and economists seem to love thinking that they can explain evolution.
I think biologists at least are experienced in 'shit just happens, 10% measurement errors is a good result, everything is a mess' as opposed to expecting clean confident models.
The relatively low pay of a lot of bioscience positions doesn't inspire master of the universe thinking either.
Biology is also just intrinsically complex. There's too much there to reasonably even feel like you know most of. Physics is, in a way, less complicated (not that it's easier, just that there is not as much in terms of raw volume as the diversity of life on Earth), so I could see that being relevant, too. There's also the sense that physics can garner where "everything can be explained, ultimately, through this," which is kinda-sorta true, if not useful.
Doctors are the outliers here, but they're not biologists, really, and I think that's more of a status thing than anything else.
Biology is also just intrinsically complex. There's too much there to reasonably even feel like you know most of. Physics is, in a way, less complicated (not that it's easier, just that there is not as much in terms of raw volume as the diversity of life on Earth), so I could see that being relevant, too.
I think it's more that physics tries very, very hard to be able to isolate and control variables. When you have complex interacting systems (as is the norm in biology and social sciences), that gets extremely tricky.
In principle, "the diversity of life on earth" is a subset of "physics" - and is therefore susceptible to the same approaches available to physics (cf. that cartoon continuum of social sciences to physics). The problem is controlling the variables, and anyone with lab experience will no doubt have a bunch of fun stories about that from their own personal experience!
0
Options
Tynnanseldom correct, never unsureRegistered Userregular
Biology is also just intrinsically complex. There's too much there to reasonably even feel like you know most of. Physics is, in a way, less complicated (not that it's easier, just that there is not as much in terms of raw volume as the diversity of life on Earth), so I could see that being relevant, too.
I think it's more that physics tries very, very hard to be able to isolate and control variables. When you have complex interacting systems (as is the norm in biology and social sciences), that gets extremely tricky.
In principle, "the diversity of life on earth" is a subset of "physics" - and is therefore susceptible to the same approaches available to physics (cf. that cartoon continuum of social sciences to physics). The problem is controlling the variables, and anyone with lab experience will no doubt have a bunch of fun stories about that from their own personal experience!
I'm hesitant to accuse any field of disproportionately overvaluing its understanding of other fields since the members of that field who don't overvalue their own understanding aren't speaking, by definition.
My favorite musical instrument is the air-raid siren.
Physists think they can solve everything because their job is to express things in a perfect mathematical formula, so there must be such a formula for every problem that can identify and fix it.
Economists think they can solve everything because everything they deal with involves changes in behavior due to market forces and supply/demand, so by creating the right economic environment you can get anyone to do anything.
Doctors think they can solve everything because they are given massive amounts of money and prestige for what they do, and why would that be the case if they weren't smart enough to solve everything?
+4
Options
Inquisitor772 x Penny Arcade Fight Club ChampionA fixed point in space and timeRegistered Userregular
I think most laypeople think physicists think that they know and can describe anything, when most physicists know better and appreciate that they are just describing conceptual models.
The issue is that physicists think they can apply the same standards to their work to other fields, and that's where it falls apart. It's really easy to create a model for something when you can control every variable (or at least pretend to control every variable, and hand-wave the rest as "dark matter" or "phlogiston"), particularly when you have the benefit of probability as an acceptable sort of proximate a priori standard. Other sciences do not have that luxury because they work at least one level of abstraction beyond physics.
Being a programmer has only served to convince me that getting things correct on the first try is really, really hard.
Being a programmer has taught me that it's okay to put out a broken product as you can fix it later and probably charge extra for the privilege.
I'm honestly surprised more programmers don't go into politics.
Isn't that how science works as well?
n.... no. Research at public institutions operates on modular fixed budgets. You either get your grant funded or you don't, and you don't get to "charge extra for the privilege" later.
Being a programmer has only served to convince me that getting things correct on the first try is really, really hard.
Being a programmer has taught me that it's okay to put out a broken product as you can fix it later and probably charge extra for the privilege.
I'm honestly surprised more programmers don't go into politics.
Isn't that how science works as well?
n.... no. Research at public institutions operates on modular fixed budgets. You either get your grant funded or you don't, and you don't get to "charge extra for the privilege" later.
Scientists don't put out one paper and then retire, they get repeatedly given grants to improve their own or others' flawed or incomplete work.
0
Options
Tynnanseldom correct, never unsureRegistered Userregular
Being a programmer has only served to convince me that getting things correct on the first try is really, really hard.
Being a programmer has taught me that it's okay to put out a broken product as you can fix it later and probably charge extra for the privilege.
I'm honestly surprised more programmers don't go into politics.
Isn't that how science works as well?
n.... no. Research at public institutions operates on modular fixed budgets. You either get your grant funded or you don't, and you don't get to "charge extra for the privilege" later.
Scientists don't put out one paper and then retire, they get repeatedly given grants to improve their own or others' flawed or incomplete work.
Developing a hypothesis, testing it, revising it, and at some point in that loop telling people what you did and how you did it is pretty different from "put out a broken product as you can fix it later." But maybe you're more of a nihilist than I am.
Being a programmer has only served to convince me that getting things correct on the first try is really, really hard.
Being a programmer has taught me that it's okay to put out a broken product as you can fix it later and probably charge extra for the privilege.
I'm honestly surprised more programmers don't go into politics.
Isn't that how science works as well?
n.... no. Research at public institutions operates on modular fixed budgets. You either get your grant funded or you don't, and you don't get to "charge extra for the privilege" later.
Scientists don't put out one paper and then retire, they get repeatedly given grants to improve their own or others' flawed or incomplete work.
Developing a hypothesis, testing it, revising it, and at some point in that loop telling people what you did and how you did it is pretty different from "put out a broken product as you can fix it later." But maybe you're more of a nihilist than I am.
That’s basically a verbatim description of lean software development
+2
Options
Ninja Snarl PMy helmet is my burden.Ninja Snarl: Gone, but not forgotten.Registered Userregular
Science tries to explain how things work, the explanation doesn't make those things work in and of themselves. The entire basis of science is to understand the rules of a given circumstances in order to try and control or understand the outcome. The explanation for how planes fly isn't what makes planes fly, but science does let us build better planes without pure brute-force trial-and-error. The more we understand and in finer detail, the more amazing things we can do.
Programming is building something to work and, when the made-up rules aren't right, that something fails. If a program is released and breaks under circumstances it should be able to handle, it's just bad programming. But because of the modern business world, companies are generally pretty comfortable just releasing half-assed things and hoping not the many people hit the ass part.
This is just quibbling, there's no way ongoing scientific research is equivalent to program development in the modern business world.
That’s basically a verbatim description of lean software development
I think this risks obscuring that software assumes an outcome in advance, and science never should.
Although, software development that does not actually have a designed, preordained result in mind would explain a few things about the modern world I suppose ...
I am not trying to equate the two, I just wanted to point out what was a funny coincidence to me that Tynnan basically quoted Eric Ries, the author of “Lean Startup”
I am not trying to equate the two, I just wanted to point out what was a funny coincidence to me that Tynnan basically quoted Eric Ries, the author of “Lean Startup”
Oh, I agree that there are pronounced similarities in approach - I'm not disagreeing with you!
I just wanted to emphasize that science and engineering can actually different in some important ways; while at the research level there's so much overlap that "engineer" and "scientist" aren't all that useful as differentiators, people often confuse science and engineering in everyday contexts.
That’s basically a verbatim description of lean software development
I think this risks obscuring that software assumes an outcome in advance, and science never should.
Although, software development that does not actually have a designed, preordained result in mind would explain a few things about the modern world I suppose ...
Not if you think of management/business as the ones running the experiment :razz:
Posts
Well, it is a legitimate safety feature. On the aforementioned P-51 ride, the pilot went through a quick rundown of what to do if he determined I or both of us needed to bail midflight.* I'm sure the ejection seat would have been included in that if the passenger seat had one.
*"Duck so you don't get decapitated when I release the canopy" sure is a thing to hear!
edit: fixed quote tags
You can get fighter jet flights?
Brb, heading to France
Gone right: They failed.
Decision Desk HQ is an election tracker.
From a quick googling: https://www.flyfighterjet.com/
Only 18000 Euro to find out how many ways you can pass out and/or shit yourself in a half hour in a MiG 29 doing a suborbital supersonic flight, seems reasonable.
I've taken a 40 minute spin in an F-16c, I'm still proud of myself for not puking or blacking out, though I came damn close of the latter during a 6g turn. Was in civilian airspace, so no supersonic, but we did hit about 650 straight cruising.
~ Buckaroo Banzai
Turns out when you force people to go out during a pandemic to vote, the now pissed off voters don't vote for you.
Not sure why the physics thing seems to be the case, though. I'm extremely tired of these suggested articles I keep getting with titles like (literally the first thing in my feed, the thing that triggered me making this post) "Physics Can Explain Human Innovation and Enlightenment."
(actually, I think "computer scientists" are also pretty bad re: this, but that is primarily an artifact of the extremely disproportionate power they have over modern society. Also, a lot of the wacky computer scientists don't actually have advanced degrees, so I'm not sure it counts.)
*actually the economist thing also sticks out to me because I'm a biologist subclass and economists seem to love thinking that they can explain evolution.
I'd argue it's better than "Physics Can't Explain Human Innovation and Enlightenment".
Couldn't they just use the wire to fly it to a safe location?
Wisdom lies in knowing that the additional time and experience are often what make all the difference.
Economist are highly regarded because the economy is super important so they must be too. Or maybe they're just frustrated they can't do any experiments.
Physicists I have no clue. I've heard Niel Degrasse Tyson is kinda arrogant so maybe that's just him.
economist = self-loathing social scientist who pretends to be a mathematician
experimental physicist = probabilistic engineer
theoretical physicist = naturalist philosopher
I think biologists at least are experienced in 'shit just happens, 10% measurement errors is a good result, everything is a mess' as opposed to expecting clean confident models.
The relatively low pay of a lot of bioscience positions doesn't inspire master of the universe thinking either.
I'm honestly surprised more programmers don't go into politics.
It's taught me:
1) To doubt anything that works right the first time
2) The harder it is to find a bug, the smaller and dumber the mistake
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
Biology is also just intrinsically complex. There's too much there to reasonably even feel like you know most of. Physics is, in a way, less complicated (not that it's easier, just that there is not as much in terms of raw volume as the diversity of life on Earth), so I could see that being relevant, too. There's also the sense that physics can garner where "everything can be explained, ultimately, through this," which is kinda-sorta true, if not useful.
Doctors are the outliers here, but they're not biologists, really, and I think that's more of a status thing than anything else.
Something working on the first try is a source of great suspicion.
If something works on the first try, it's just 2 bugs cancelling each other out.
Also, "It's highly unlikely that the fault is in your framework, it's probably you, until you know, there's totally a bug in the framework"
I think it's more that physics tries very, very hard to be able to isolate and control variables. When you have complex interacting systems (as is the norm in biology and social sciences), that gets extremely tricky.
In principle, "the diversity of life on earth" is a subset of "physics" - and is therefore susceptible to the same approaches available to physics (cf. that cartoon continuum of social sciences to physics). The problem is controlling the variables, and anyone with lab experience will no doubt have a bunch of fun stories about that from their own personal experience!
Understatement of the week :rotate:
Something compiling on the first try usually means you were editing files in the wrong tree
Economists think they can solve everything because everything they deal with involves changes in behavior due to market forces and supply/demand, so by creating the right economic environment you can get anyone to do anything.
Doctors think they can solve everything because they are given massive amounts of money and prestige for what they do, and why would that be the case if they weren't smart enough to solve everything?
The issue is that physicists think they can apply the same standards to their work to other fields, and that's where it falls apart. It's really easy to create a model for something when you can control every variable (or at least pretend to control every variable, and hand-wave the rest as "dark matter" or "phlogiston"), particularly when you have the benefit of probability as an acceptable sort of proximate a priori standard. Other sciences do not have that luxury because they work at least one level of abstraction beyond physics.
Isn't that how science works as well?
Politics involves talking to other people and public speaking, eww
n.... no. Research at public institutions operates on modular fixed budgets. You either get your grant funded or you don't, and you don't get to "charge extra for the privilege" later.
Scientists don't put out one paper and then retire, they get repeatedly given grants to improve their own or others' flawed or incomplete work.
Developing a hypothesis, testing it, revising it, and at some point in that loop telling people what you did and how you did it is pretty different from "put out a broken product as you can fix it later." But maybe you're more of a nihilist than I am.
That’s basically a verbatim description of lean software development
Programming is building something to work and, when the made-up rules aren't right, that something fails. If a program is released and breaks under circumstances it should be able to handle, it's just bad programming. But because of the modern business world, companies are generally pretty comfortable just releasing half-assed things and hoping not the many people hit the ass part.
This is just quibbling, there's no way ongoing scientific research is equivalent to program development in the modern business world.
People are maddeningly buggy.
I think this risks obscuring that software assumes an outcome in advance, and science never should.
Although, software development that does not actually have a designed, preordained result in mind would explain a few things about the modern world I suppose ...
Or rather Ries stole his lexicon from science
Oh, I agree that there are pronounced similarities in approach - I'm not disagreeing with you!
I just wanted to emphasize that science and engineering can actually different in some important ways; while at the research level there's so much overlap that "engineer" and "scientist" aren't all that useful as differentiators, people often confuse science and engineering in everyday contexts.
Not if you think of management/business as the ones running the experiment :razz: