Can C++ become your new scripting language? - <AUTHOR> http://www.nu42.com/2015/05/cpp-new-scripting-language.html <comment><USER2> As the author of a program that's both scripting-centric and performance- centric [1], I've looked at this question in detail. I needed the fastest possible embeddable scripting language and interpreter. When I say "fastest possible", I mean for signal processing, so my application is different from the article at hand, which is about shell scripting rather than application- embedded scripting.

C / TCC was great, but TCC doesn't attach much importance to final speed optimization. I had a working prototype but ended up scrubbing it for that reason.

C++ / Clang / LLVM has the best end speed and optimizer, and as the article points out, the language is looking better and better. However, as a library it's pretty massive, difficult to embed, and compilation would probably be too slow for a REPL/JIT type of situation, though I haven't tested this with a working prototype.

Lua / LuaJIT is what the project is currently using. Since this is HN, I guess I don't need to say anything about how fast it is. However, my application (and many others, I suspect) would get a large performance improvement (I estimate 3x) if the compiler was capable of working with float32 operations and of optimizing them into vectorized SIMD instructions. This is why I'm currently looking at the next possibility:

Javascript. With the recent introduction of different float widths and SIMD in major Javascript JIT compilers, this option is starting to be the fastest possible (in my case). I'm planning to make a prototype to verify this, and I'm not too keen on joining the JS bandwagon, but if LuaJIT development continues to be basically halted, I'll have to get with the times. What I need is at the bottom of an epic TODO list for LuaJIT [2] that hasn't really moved for years. I don't know who's in a position to make a move on those LuaJIT open sponsorships, I really wish they would do it! I for one don't really feel up to the task.

[1]: [http://osar.fr/protoplug](http://osar.fr/protoplug)

[2]: [http://wiki.luajit.org/Open-Sponsorships](http://wiki.luajit.org/Open- Sponsorships)

<comment><USER3> Since you're already using Lua, maybe you'll have an easier time switching to Terra. It supports SIMD, and you only need to deal with embedding LLVM.

[http://terralang.org](http://terralang.org)

<comment><USER2> Interesting, I looked at Terra before but hadn't noticed the SIMD. The fact that it only supports doubles (instead of float32 which Javascript now supports and vectorizes) makes this a bit less awesome though. SIMD becomes more powerful when you can use smaller data types, which is why JS engines are proud of the float32 + SIMD combination that they now have.

And ideally, you shouldn't need to always specify vector operations, the compiler should optimize your loops (for example) into SIMD instructions. But as far as I know, very few compilers are capable of doing this now. I think some C/C++ and Java compilers are among the only ones, though the example given here suggests that Spidermonkey should also do it to some extent:

[https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=894105#c2](https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=894105#c2)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> It's interesting to note that High Energy Physicists all around the world will answer "yes", in fact they even created a C++ interpreter: [https://root.cern.ch/drupal/content/cint](https://root.cern.ch/drupal/content/cint).

<comment><USER5> Oh, the memories. Haven't used CINT (or rather, root) for quite some time, though.

But if I remember correctly, then CINT wasn't actually developed by the root- team, but rather already existed when work on root started.

<comment><USER6> Ironically written by someone with a last name of Goto; the jokes just write themselves.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Considering how contrived the implementation of this is, there's no wonder it looks terrible in two languages.

For example, this Python is both better behaved and much, much simpler:

        import sys

        for filename in sys.argv[1:]:
            try:
                with open(filename, "rb") as file:
                    word_count = sum(len(line.split()) for line in file)
            except IOError as e:
                print(e)
            else:
                print("{}: {}".format(filename, word_count))

I'd suggest you think up an example that justifies its implementation before making such a comparison. If the aim is to make both implementations do the same dance, not just to make them give the same results, even Haskell won't look much different to C++.

<comment><USER8> Yours doesn't hash unique words though

<comment><USER7> The original implementation's bucketing was completely irrelevant to the goal - it still ended up counting the number of words, duplicates included.

<comment><USER8> They're not counting duplicates though... Both perl and C++ one use a hash table.

<comment><USER7> They use a <word → word frequency> mapping, and then sum the values. This gives the total number of words. The hash table is totally pointless.

<comment><USER9> The author did have a point he wanted to put across with the hash table - _" Obviously, a frequency distribution was not necessary for just the counts, but I did want to highlight basic autovivification"_

ref: [http://www.reddit.com/r/cpp/comments/369lcn/can_c_become_you...](http://www.reddit.com/r/cpp/comments/369lcn/can_c_become_your_new_scripting_language/crcklhr)

<comment><USER7> That doesn't feel like a good reason. The author could easily have come up with a better task (eg. count the number of words with more than one occurrence). This allows you to approach the problem in the optimal way in each language.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Basically this whole thing is crazy.

First, this can be done with one line in Python.

Second, it's almost a page of C++.

Third: if done in a 10 lines in python it is around 30% faster than the C++ version and 2x faster than the perl version.

Here is my reference Python version that also counts the words in the same non-code golf kind of way:

        import sys
        from collections import defaultdict

        def wc(path):
            d = defaultdict(int)
            with open(path) as f:
                for line in f:
                    for w in line.split():
                        d[w] += 1
            return sum(d.values())

        if __name__=='__main__':
            path = sys.argv[1]
            print(path, ':', wc(path))

EDIT: They are counting new lines correctly.

<comment><USER7> Some quick points:

* You need to loop over sys.argv[1:].

* You could use binary mode to avoid decoding (which the C++ avoids).

* You could use collections.Counter() and its `update` method, which should be both cleaner and faster on Python 3:

        d = Counter()
        with open(path) as f:
            for line in f:
                d.update(line.split())

<comment><USER8> Counter is a lot slower though because it uses a heap underneath.

<comment><USER7> It doesn't - it directly inherits dict.

I'm wrong, though; the optimizations Counter applies only make it faster when each `update` takes an iterable of a large number of elements. This is unlikely to happen in our case.

You can actually bypass the Counter wrapper and use its accelerator directly:

        from _collections import _count_elements

        def wc(path):
            d = {}
            with open(path, "rb") as f:
                for line in f:
                    _count_elements(d, line.split())
            return sum(d.values())

However, this uses implementation details and is as such bad code.

<comment><USER8> Yup, I just checked. They're only using heap for most common.

Nevertheless, defaultdict == win for counting things like if we actually wanted unique words in this case.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> No, because compilation takes longer than your typical script. And there's no REPL either.

C++ is improving, which is to be applauded. But all of these examples seem to be "look, C++ used to be a lot worse than Python, now it's only a little bit worse than Python". Show me the USP, the compelling use case where only C++ will do.

<comment><USER11> A REPL is not necessary.

<comment><USER12> Speak for yourself. Shitty developer here, I love my REPL.

<comment><USER13> Speak for yourself. Low-Mid range developer here and I've never seen the need for REPL.

<comment><USER14> >Speak for yourself

I think that was the case here.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I sometimes use C++ as a scripting language in MVC++. I'll gladly take the compilation time if it means I get to use the debugger when stepping through my code.

<comment><USER8> I had to use debugger on regular basis in Java and C++, but never in Python, because Python programs end up being much simpler.

Also, you can simulate large parts of the program in IPython and not only find what the problem/bug is, but solve it right there and copy the solution back to the original program.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> I use lua for most scripting. A big reason for this is that the entire lua environment is in lua.exe. This allows for me to distribute scripts easily without having to include a C++ installer with them.

<comment><USER17> Lua is an underrated gem in my opinion if it comes to scripting.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> One thing I don't get is why do people prefer functions like accumulate? Why not:

        int sum = 0;
        for(auto&& wc : word_count) sum += wc.second
        return sum;

It's shorter, more general, more familiar, possibly has better performance[[citation needed]], and gives better errors if you mess something up.

<comment><USER19> Its more composable, and because its less general, it more clearly articulates intent and iis easier to scan for bugs.

Or at least it would in an ecosystem where functional programming is embraced, but I don't know how practical it is in practice. Its not composable if you can't expect any other given piece of code to be written in a way conducive to composing with accumulate.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> For simple things on the command line it is usually easiest to use a language you're comfortable with if there is also good libraries availible. If you write C++ all day you can use C++ for file mungling if you find the libraries you need (for example html-parsing or xml-parsing).

I used to write scripts in Ruby since I liked the syntax, it was very easy, nowdays I have tried javascript since I use it anyway in web projects and Node/NPM has a lot of modules ready. One thing I like with scripting languages is that I usually need to tweak the script a bit over time and that is very easy to do with scripting languages, even on different computers which may or may not have a compiler.

</comment><comment><USER21> Also Perl has lambdas, and for some tasks like string manipulation is the best option out there. Sometimes you think you need to learn another language, but, sometimes the smarter choice is to improve the knowledge of the tools you already use.

</comment><comment><USER22> Considering C++ as scripting language makes companies have to pay more to high quality programmers and wait longer time for simple scripting. You may want to consider Rust and Nim as C's superiors rather than C++. Both Rust and Nim are as speedy as C++. Rather than C++ with boost, they also have leaner and extensible syntax fpr specified purpose called DSL. For example, nim can prevent SQL injection from compile time.

</comment><comment><USER23> No, because I work on public internet facing apps, I want evented programming to be easy, and have async libraries widely available.

<comment><USER24> PHP? :|

<comment><USER23> PHP doesn't have evented either

<comment><USER25> PHP has something called reactphp. However, since most PHP libs and core libs are blocking on the i/o level, it's not that useful.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> While C++14 is quite an improvement over C++98 code bases that are still out there, maybe a ML like language is a better option.

</comment><comment><USER27> Could it be my new scripting language? It sounds pretty avant-garde... maybe a little too much for me. My mindset is just not there. As others have mentioned - I also like the interactive environment that is available with traditional scripting languages.

Ah yes, auto! I've been using that a lot since I saw Herb Sutter's talks.

</comment><comment><USER17> So the answer I derived from the comments is "Yes but it will do you no good."

</comment><comment><USER28> Betteridge's law seems apt here: "Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no."</comment>


Ask HN: Where to submit an iPhone app for coverage? - <AUTHOR>

There's some discussion regarding a post on where you can submit you startup for some coverage on http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1756924
I'm wondering if there are counterparts for iPhone apps, or mobile apps in general. For those who have or are developing iPhone apps, where have you submitted your app?  Which sites were actually helpful in getting some honest reviews and/or coverage, and which ones were essentially existing in a vacuum?  Some review sites make me wonder if they have any end users reading them at all, or if their visitors are mostly just developers hoping to find buyers.
There's some related discussion on http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1527010 but that focuses on iOS games. <comment><USER2> I need help on this too! The huge update to my app just got released, and so far I've just emailed some bloggers about it. It got featured on TUAW, but so far that's been it - not complaining of course!

Any ideas?</comment>


Using shapeless's Sized type to eliminate real world off by one errors in Scala - <AUTHOR> https://speakerdeck.com/d6y/let-the-type-system-do-it-for-you

<comment><USER2> I love this kind of thing - but I found that the compile times for types that require resolving more than about 6 levels of recursive implicits (i.e. lengths bigger than 6, if I'm reading the Nat source correctly) were just too long to be tolerable to the rest of the company. Is there any hope for improvements to the scala compiler or similar that will speed this up?

<comment><AUTHOR> The compile times for things of similar complexity to the running example in this presentation are pretty much negligible. If you haven't given it a try recently you really should.</comment></comment>


US refuses to ground Boeing 737 Max - pierre-renaux https://www.bbc.com/news/business-47548083 <comment><AUTHOR> As someone who flew a Boeing plane for a long time, if it's true they released a stick pusher (automatic trim) that would dump the nose,[1] couldn't be overridden by pulling back on the stick as in previous versions of the aircraft,[2] but only by disconnecting the automatic trim then manually trimming the aircraft, was tied to only one AOA sensor, and then felt this was too much information for "pilots".[3] Wow. Seems like engineers on the ground and business leaders making decisions that ended up costing lives. Pilot error seems like a scapegoat here. Even a well trained pilot on a bad day might not handle a nose down situation after takeoff well, especially when the intuitive solution of pulling back on the stick had been disabled.

While this may not be the cause of the most recent crash, the Lion crash alone seems to indicate a problem with Boeing and the FAA's relationship. This probably extends to Airbus and other regulators as indicated in another comment about his or her carriers safety incidents tripling due to flying two aircraft of the same "type" but not really.[4] At a minimum the MCAS changes should have been communicated to pilots and indicates a process problem at Boeing with insufficient pilot involvement and too much engineering and business input. And the FAA probably needs to be much stricter in the training and documentation requirements between models.

[1] [https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing- aerospace/u-s-p...](https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing- aerospace/u-s-pilots-flying-737-max-werent-told-about-new-automatic-systems- change-linked-to-lion-air-crash/)

[2] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19077371](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19077371)

[3] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18438607](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18438607)

[4] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19376565](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19376565)

<comment><USER2> > if it's true they released a stick pusher (automatic trim) that would dump > the nose,[1] couldn't be overridden by pulling back on the stick as in > previous versions of the aircraft,

In the case of the 737MAX the elevator input _cannot compensate_ for the trim wheel adjustment. I believe this was highlighted in the Lion Air case.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Some points from personal experience from working at Boeing, family working at Boeing, and a close friend on the flight line for the 737-8;

\- not everything is back from the Lion Air incident, but internally there was strong confidence that a lack of pilot familiarity with the adjusted mechanics of MCAS contributed to the disaster

\- reproducing these failures has been extremely hard and has required a lot of cooperation with other airlines and agencies, and that has been difficult

\- training for the 737-8 and -9 was just short of non existent because in practice, these planes don't fly differently.

\- since Lion Air, Boeing has been in somewhat of a "panic mode" but confidence isn't that the airframe and engine mechanics are at fault

\- Lion and Ethiopian Air are near the bottom when it comes to maintenance and follow up with Boeing

\- as of this morning, it sounded like there are more uncertainties with this incident given that the pilot indicated troubles after take off, but I'm find it hard to back up that claim in what's already been published

This isn't about greed or the FAA being in the pocket of Boeing, it's that there were already adjustments made to fix MCAS and the investigation from Ethiopia isn't in yet.

<comment><USER4> > \- training for the 737-8 and -9 was just short of non existent because in > practice, these planes don't fly differently.

Have you read this complaint from an actual pilot?

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19374386](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19374386)

Quoting the HN post:

"My post flight evaluation is that we lacked the knowledge to operate the aircraft in all weather and aircraft states safely.

The instrumentation is completely different - My scan was degraded, slow and labored having had no experience w/ the new ND (Navigation Display) and ADI (Attitude Director Indicator) presentations/format or functions (manipulation between the screens and systems pages were not provided in training materials. If they were, I had no recollection of that material).

We were unable to navigate to systems pages and lacked the knowledge of what systems information was available to us in the different phases of flight. Our weather radar competency was inadequate to safely navigate significant weather on that dark and stormy night. These are just a few issues that were not addressed in our training."

<comment><USER5> To me - having had a 25 year career in customer-facing systems engineering and support, this just reeks of dismissing the first-hand account of UX.

If the problem is lack of training, (or even "possibly maybe failing sensors") - and your failure mode includes "maybe killing 150+ paying customers in one shot" ... seems like a no-brainer, to me, to fucking ground the planes, and take immediate corrective action.

And again: just my opinion, it just reeks of someone who spends their days in a "spreadsheet-facing" position, making the decision to not ground these planes, not take their users' (pilots) reports seriously, and continue to risk hundreds of customers' lives (and thousands of their own employees livelihoods) on a daily basis.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I am still convinced there is a problem with the plane based on simple probabilities. These are brand new planes so they shouldn't be in a phase where failures multiply, and maintenance should be irrelevant unless these planes were delivered faulty. It's a very small fleet compared to other models. Two extremely rare crashes (plane crashes are rare in general) within months of each others, with the same model, same phase of the flight, what is the probability that it is not related to the plane? It has to be statistically insignificant.

Now it may be a lack of pilot training, but by Boeing's own account a B737 pilot should be qualified to pilot a Max. Then how come a small, insignificant feature can result in the crash of the plane? It would have to be not insignificant at all.

<comment><USER7> Speaking as an engineer, we, sometimes, underestimate the relevance of a relatively minor system. We can't imagine all possible scenarios and that's why in every single decision with systems that are responsible for human lives there is a lot of people involved - because we rely on someone, at some point, imagining the scenario everyone else didn't. This reduces the odds of letting something important slip through, but it's not perfect and can't hope to be (and, sometimes, we have the grim reminders we aren't all-knowing)

We should not rush to conclusions, since one of the investigations is in its infancy, but, from all the pilot reports that have been accumulating since the introduction of these models, it looks like the impact of the differences between models in the 737 family on crews were underestimated and training for them was not as thorough as it should have been.

<comment><USER8> Quick question, and this is meant sincerely and not flippantly: have you worked as an aviation or avionics engineer?

The focus on error conditions is truly impressive during the development of these systems. I've spent plenty of hours writing requirements, and writing and running tests, for cockpit software, and the sheer variety of error conditions tested is very high. Not that they'll catch everything, but the idea that a single AOA sensor could cause the MCAS to fail seems like something that would have been analyzed and discussed by the engineers working on this.

<comment><USER7> No. I worked in other embedded control settings, but nothing as sensitive.

I understand what you say, that the AOA sensor malfunction or misread should never cause MCAS to fail and that any such situation (misread, malfunction, excessive actuator response, etc) should have been spotted sooner, by someone among the many people involved in its design, all the way from sensor to servo, well before any passengers were carried in the aircraft but everything indicates otherwise if we assume good faith. It's very likely all flaws will be identified and corrected, but reality has a way to stress those vanishingly small probabilities.

It's not impossible that a lot of very smart people who are dedicated to think about corner cases all day long will, eventually, let something important escape. We are all human and, in the end, everything is human error.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Someone shared this on a different forums, it's a recent NPR interview of a pilot for American Airlines.

[https://overcast.fm/+nmn7rqq0/06:04](https://overcast.fm/+nmn7rqq0/06:04)

It's a short interview but in short,

* Boeing left out info on the new flight control system in the pilots manual they trained with

* the training to fly the new planes was 56 minutes of PowerPoint presentations on an iPad

* he would not have known how to correct the system in the Lion Air crash had he have been the pilot

<comment><USER10> If he doesn't know how to correct for runaway stabilizer trim, then he probably should be decertified. It's a memory item: [https://www.theairlinepilots.com/forumarchive/b737/b737memor...](https://www.theairlinepilots.com/forumarchive/b737/b737memoryitems.php#i) And the checklist is 4 items long. Item 3 disables MCAS.

<comment><USER11> I am curious regarding item 4:

      STABILIZER TRIM WHEEL - GRASP and HOLD

How does the trim wheel work? Is it mechanically connected to the stabilizer?

<comment><USER12> Yes I believe it's mechanically connected.

<comment><USER11> Ok, so in the worst case you are still able to block the motor that does the automatic trimming with your bare hands. Which seems like a reasonable fall- back. Thanks!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Lots of jumping to conclusions going on in this thread, blaming the FAA, lobbyists, and politicians for being in the pocket of Boeing.

 _Nobody knows why this plane crashed._ The flight recorders have just been recovered and so far there has been nothing in the news about what was on them.

The plane might be to blame. The airline or the pilots might be to blame, and by the way, that airline has a bad safety record. It might have been a bomb, or a fire caused by a passenger, or many other things.

The sudden rush to judgment on this case is unjustified by the evidence. If it turns out this was not Boeing's fault, a lot of people are going to have to eat their words, and millions of dollars will have been wasted for nothing.

<comment><USER14> _Nobody knows why this plane crashed. The flight recorders have just been recovered and so far there has been nothing in the news about what was on them._

Yes. And the recorders have angle of attack data. We'll know within days if it's another AOA sensor problem.

Southwest, the biggest US operator of 737 MAX aircraft, bought the "AOA Disagree" option on their aircraft, and recently added an AOA indicator. Many operators didn't get that option; Lion Air didn't have it. If you have that, you get a warning that the flight control system is seeing bogus AOA data. It is somewhat less of a safety issue if you have the backup systems.

Why this aircraft was ever offered without "AOA Disagree" sensing is unclear. The single active AOA sensor can force the nose down. The pilots can switch to the other flight control computer and use the other AOA sensor, but at that point they're losing control of the aircraft.

<comment><USER15> > Southwest, the biggest US operator of 737 MAX aircraft, bought the "AOA > Disagree" option on their aircraft...If you have that, you get a warning > that the flight control system is seeing bogus AOA data

How can something that important be an option?

<comment><USER16> > How can something that important be an option?

Based on other comments here and in other discussions, it seems like adding that feature would increase the training requirements for the pilots since it is an additional instrument in the cockpit. I don't know whether it was Boeing, Boeing's customers, or both who pushed for the instrument to be an option. Any combination is plausible, and I'm not going to rush to judgement like a couple of my sibling commenters just because it's the fun and popular thing to do.

<comment><USER15> Makes sense, thanks for the explanation.

Basically everything about this plane boils down to "it should require more training but it didn't"

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Quite frankly I think it's a bit sensationalist for people and the media to point fingers at the FAA for making "irresponsible decisions" and being beholden to lobbyists while conveniently ignoring their track record.

The FAA is notorious for their draconian ways which has become the impetus behind why air travel is now the safest mode of transportation today. In fact, there hasn't been a hull loss on US soil since 2009, a magnificent safety record.

The FAA is a very hands-on agency. There is an inherent difference to how planes are maintained that touch US soil vs. those in other parts of the world. For example, many planes that fly in South America would never pass FAA inspection and would never be considered airworthy. That means a flight itinerary of LAX-SCL vs. LAX-PTY-SCL are very different when it comes to safety since the plane that departs from Panama is not inspected by the FAA.

So not only is the FAA risking an insurmountable amount of fallout for making this statement, they also have the credibility and processes to stand behind it. With that said, I think it makes prudent sense for other countries to ground their 737 MAX planes since they simply don't have the FAA.

<comment><USER18> > there hasn't been a hull loss on US soil since 2009

Until 3 weeks ago: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_Air_Flight_3591](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_Air_Flight_3591)

<comment><USER19> GP must have meant "hull loss of a passenger flight with mass fatalities". Asiana 214 was a hull loss on US soil, as was American 383, etc

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> From the Southwest Airlines Pilots Association statement released yesterday:

 _I have been in numerous conversations today with Southwest Vice President of Flight Operations Captain Alan Kasher, who informed me that the MAX aircraft has 17,000 recordable parameters and Southwest has compiled and analyzed a tremendous amount of data from more than 41,000 flights operated by the 34 MAX aircraft on property, and the data supports Southwest 's continued confidence in the airworthiness and safety of the MAX.

I have also had conversations with TWU 556 President Lyn Montgomery, who represents Southwest Flight Attendants, AMFA National President Bret Oestreich, SWAPA Safety Committee and SWAPA Government Affairs Committee members, as well as leaders from other Pilot labor unions. I relayed to them that SWAPA is extremely confident that our entire fleet, including the MAX, is safe based on the facts, intelligence, data, and information we presently have. We fully support Southwest Airlines' decision to continue flying the MAX and the FAA's findings to date.

I will continue to put my family, friends, and loved ones on any Southwest flight and the main reason is you, the Pilots of SWAPA. We have lobbied hard for our training to continue to evolve and improve, and due to having the finest union Training and Standards Committee in the industry, that is occurring.

We now have Extended Envelope Training (EET) in addition to our regular annual training and since SWAPA and others have brought awareness to the MCAS issue, we have additional resources to successfully deal with either a legitimate MCAS triggered event or a faulty triggered MCAS event. SWAPA also has pushed hard for Angle of Attack (AOA) sensor displays to be put on all our aircraft and those are now being implemented into the fleet. All of these tools, in addition to SWAPA Pilots having the most experience on 737s in the industry, give me no pause that not only are our aircraft safe, but you are the safest 737 operators in the sky._

[https://swaparesources.s3-us- west-2.amazonaws.com/assets/pdf...](https://swaparesources.s3-us- west-2.amazonaws.com/assets/pdf/Press_Releases/Ethiopian_Airlines_Flight_302_Update_2.pdf)

via [https://www.swapa.org/](https://www.swapa.org/)

</comment><comment><USER21> I don't get it. Airline workers, Ted Cruz, Mitt Romney and democratic senators are for suspending it, which China, the EU and Australia have already done.

What's going on at the FAA?

<comment><USER22> All the listed people are in the legislative branch. The FAA is part of the executive branch. Short of passing a law that grounds the 737 MAX, legislators don't really have a say here.

Interestingly, Trump has also come out against the plane, but his uninformed Twitter ramblings are by and large (rightfully) ignored by the executive branch. And he's not against the 737 MAX for valid reasons, but for luddite ones.

<comment><USER23> Yep, Trump says a lot of really stupid stuff (like his comments about the electromagnetic launchers on the new Ford carrier). But in this case, even if his reasoning is stupid, it'd be better if the executive branch actually followed his lead and grounded the plane.

<comment><USER22> Just happened. Twitter ramblings rightfully go unignored, but a properly filed executive order does not.

Trump shares some blame here because he's never had, nor even appointed, an FAA commissioner. Maybe with someone confirmed in charge they would've been more proactive.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> If the Max was built by Airbus rather than Boeing, more likely than not the U.S. would have grounded it by now.

</comment><comment><USER25> What I dont understand is why the airlines themselves (Southwest and American) are refusing to halt the planes - this seems totally irresponsible with what is known at this point.

<comment><USER26> It's pretty safe to assume that at this point every fricking pilot out there knows about MCAS and how to deal with it if this specific problematic behavior occurs.

<comment><USER27> But not if you have 20seconds to recover?

<comment><USER28> It's 2.5 degrees every 15 seconds. There's time to recover

"MCAS will trim the Stabilizer down for 10 seconds (2.5 deg nose down) and pause for 5 seconds and repeat if the conditions (high angle of attack, flaps up and autopilot disengaged) continue to be met. Using electric pitch trim will only pause MCAS, to deactivate it you need to switch off the STAB TRIM SUTOUT switches." [http://www.b737.org.uk/mcas.htm](http://www.b737.org.uk/mcas.htm)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> What does the US know that the EU or China doesn't which gives them such confidence? Any clues?

<comment><USER30> They know Boeing makes up 10.5% of the Dow... [1] or it did before these crashes, currently under 10% due the the stock price dropping

[1] [http://indexarb.com/indexComponentWtsDJ.html](http://indexarb.com/indexComponentWtsDJ.html)

<comment><USER31> The FAA was intentionally made independent of airline advocacy to avoid conflicts of interest that previous government agencies overseeing air travel in the past had. So it's odd if it's not based on the data.

<comment><USER32> If it's based on data why not publishing it?

<comment><USER33> That's exactly the thing. There is no data to the contrary. You can't prove that the FAA is wrong, because we don't know why both planes crashed.

We have assumptions, and there's a public perception - but it may not be correct.

<comment><USER34> > You can't prove that the FAA is wrong, because we don't know why both planes > crashed.

From an outsider's perspective is the FAA's task to prove that both those crashes were unrelated to each other, because for a very safe industry like aviation a slight correlation (two almost identical planes crashed in a span of 6 months in clear-weather conditions) is often times seen as causation by most of the people directly involved: potential customers, the general public that helps pay the taxes that keep both Boeing and Airbus making airplanes etc.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> 787's were grounded in 2013 for battery related issues, when it was a new airplane make/model. There were emergency landings, but no crashes. Here we have crashes, and no grounding. At the time of the grounding there were 50 affected aircraft, lasting from January to April. Grounding 737 MAX 8's would be ~350 groundings, and ostensibly could include MAX 9's.

<comment><USER36> Looks like it only took two events for the FAA to ground them. I think they were instantly grounded because everyone knew the dangers of lithium-ion batteries catching fire.

[https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-lithium- ion-b...](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-lithium-ion- batteries-grounded-the-dreamliner/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> 'But the FAA said that other civil aviation authorities had not "provided data to us that would warrant action".'

Pretty sure the data is that two planes crashed in five months in perfect weather conditions, killing everyone on board. Statistically, that's sufficiently improbable that it warrants investigation.

<comment><USER38> > Pretty sure the data is that two planes crashed in five months in perfect > weather conditions

Not only that, but the data we have so far from the second crash (ADS-B data showing irregular vertical speed, see [https://www.flightradar24.com/blog/flightradar24-data- regard...](https://www.flightradar24.com/blog/flightradar24-data-regarding- the-crash-of-ethiopian-airlines-flight-302/)) is consistent with both accidents having a similar cause. Grounding all airplanes from the same model until preliminary data from the (already recovered) flight recorders can confirm or discard that hypothesis is prudent.

<comment><USER39> If it was a "similar cause", it is absolutely pilot error.

The MCAS system, at fault in the first crash, may be disabled via a cockpit control. In other 737s, moving the stick was sufficient to disengage it. For some reason, this was changed in the Max, and you must use the other control. However, any competent pilot would know every control in the cockpit. The captain of the latest flight to crash allegedly had 8,000+ hours of flight time.

If an aircraft begins behaving incorrectly, the first thing a flight crew should do is disable automation and try and fly it manually. That wasn't done if MCAS caused the crash. This was an emergency that developed over minutes, not seconds, and there's really no excuse.

<comment><USER40> Unless I am mistaken, the regular 737s do not have the MCAS installed,just the MAXs ([https://theaircurrent.com/aviation-safety/what-is-the- boeing...](https://theaircurrent.com/aviation-safety/what-is-the- boeing-737-max-maneuvering-characteristics-augmentation-system-mcas-jt610/))

Additionally it has been suggested that documentation for this physical switch is not well laid out or presented in the manual because Boeing was confident that it would simply stay out of the pilot's way during flight.

Assuming pilot error would seem to be premature if these points are in fact true.

<comment><USER41> As far as I'm aware, the previous versions gave an audible warning when the flight parameters were exceeding limits. The new system attempts to actively take control and sink the nose. If you know the system from previous aircraft, you'd expect the same behavior in the new one. I'm certain they mention this in training, but if English is not your first language, you'd have to pay particular attention to this part or you're screwed.

<comment><USER42> There was no new training for this is what I've read. Boeing thought the new system was simple and similar enough that no retraining was required for the new model.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> Will this basically be negated by enough other countries grounding it though? It seems to me that if the EU, China, the UK, and other major countries are all grounding it then many others are likely to follow suit basically making it irrelevant if there are one or two holdouts (even if one of them is the U.S.)

<comment><USER44> There are a ton of these aircraft flying in the US domestically and on US- Canada routes.

<comment><USER43> Got it, can states/airports decide unilaterally not to serve them? I imagine if the highest volume airports banned these flights it would ground the vast majority of them

<comment><USER45> No? FAA makes these decisions.

<comment><USER46> Yes, an airport could reject any flightplan filed with type B38M or B39M citing operational reasons. The exception to this in the USA is when the airport is in receipt of FAA improvement grants, when they are obliged to accept all compatible traffic.

Or more subtly adjust landing and handling fees to astronomical levels for those types. That's how Gatwick in the UK discourages small turboprops, for example.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> I wonder pilots are feeling about it?

It will cause a very big stink if one crashes in the US.

<comment><USER48> At that point, not only will Boeing be at fault, but heads at FAA as well.

On the other hand, FAA is known to be very strict when it comes to safety. So, I feel like they must think that US pilots are trained for what the alleged issue seems to be (MCAS).

<comment><USER49> Still, that wouldn't help foreign planes crashing into our cities.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> From a customer perspective I would have appreciated a joint approach of the major aviation agencies. The way it is handled right now, I can't judge whether the EU is reacting shortsighted or if the US is too careless. One seems to be true?

<comment><USER51> It's easier for the EU, they don't have many MAX planes. It's likely too early to say something definitive and in times of social medial pressure one conformes if possible.

<comment><USER52> The US doesn't have many MAX planes either.

Southwest have 35/755 planes

American 22/956

Norwegian by comparison have 18/163 - a far higher proportion (of course Norwegian isn't an EU airlin but they have EU subsidiaries included in that total)

<comment><USER53> Norwegian is technically an EU airline because despite the name they're also headquartered in EU countries. This is so because being EU-based they're free to use all EU airports to base flights out of, which they use to good extent to make flights between the US and the French Caribbean islands, something that would be impossible had they been solely HQd in Norway :)

Check out this video about it (Norwegian starts at about 10 minutes in): [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thqbjA2DC-E](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thqbjA2DC-E)

edit: turns out they're registed in several countries, not just Denmark.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> Can someone with flight experience help me with this question?

So, MCAS is watching the AOA sensor and dipping the nose to prevent aerodynamic stall. When activated (and altering the pilots loudly) what would happen to airspeed in the valid-AOA and borked-AOA sensor states? I would have thought in the bogus-AOA case, airspeed would be increasing MUCH faster? Is this factored into regarding validation of the AOA input? Or are airspeed indicators unreliable near aerodynamic stall? Or ..? It just feels like MCAS should be able to detect the contradiction state from other variables without requiring the pilot to act.

<comment><USER55> Airspeed and angle-of-attack are different measurements, whether the AoA is borked or not would make no difference to airspeed measurements, and vice versa.

Without AoA though, airspeed alone is not enough to determine a stall. If one or both sets of probes are incorrect or inoperable, detection of stall conditions would be unreliable at best, either reporting a stall when there isn't one, or failing to report one that is valid.

As for MCAS, it would likely be able to see that two AoA probes disagree, but would be unable to choose the "correct" probe. A third AoA probe _might_ address that, but I never saw that kind of configuration on aircraft I worked on, and it isn't on the MAX. Regardless though, from what I've read, MCAS only applies gradual nose down trim, so ignoring whether or not MCAS even knows enough to disable itself in abnormal conditions, the pilot/first officer should have more plenty of time to react to it (I believe it was something like 2.5deg of trim every 10s). Either the pilots in these situations are not aware that it is a trim issue, which seems very unlikely, or they are overloaded and don't remember in time to set the stab trim to cutoff which would disable those inputs. Very much still on Boeing in my opinion, but it isn't like the aircraft is just diving into the ground the second MCAS starts nosing down.

</comment></comment><comment><USER56> It is all PR and public perception at this point.

I feel that the US have lost in reputation here while, e.g. China has gained. It didn't have to be that way.

China was the first to ban the 737 MAX. When they did it people could counter that it was political. But since so many countries, including some of the US's closest allies, have followed suit then they have come out as being serious and safety-conscious.

On the other hand, by refusing to ban the US are seen as putting corporate interests above safety.

</comment><comment><USER57> Personally, I think the least risky/safest approach is for the FAA to follow its normal procedures.

Changing them on-the-fly leads to ambiguity up and down the line, which leads to mistakes and gaps.

Of course, I don't know for sure what that actually means in this case. But I'd guess if the lobbyist head of the FAA were blocking a grounding recommendation, that would leak in about a millisecond, so I'm guessing the FAA is investigating this normally.

<comment><USER58> I think the FAA needs to do a better job explaining why every other aviation authority in the world seems to be grounding the plane, but they're not.

</comment></comment><comment><USER59> Does anyone know if this system could just be safely turned off? It seems to be a system that automates the stall avoidance when the plane hits a stall warning. It seems that all pilots should know how to avoid stalls and how to deal with them when they happen. As long as the stall warning still happens, I don't see an issue with turning off the stall avoidance system.

<comment><USER60> The issue is that the system is necessary to make the plane self-certifiable. I.e. Boeing has to show that the aircraft is not essentially different in flight characteristics from the original airframe it was based on. This allows them to avoid the very costly retreating and type certification they would be required to do otherwise with a 'novel' airframe.

Frankly, as soon as the Erodynamics changed sufficiently that a new automated system was required to maintain parity with older airframe's flight characteristics, I think the case should have been made for requiring a new type cert, or at least far more extensive change notification/documentation update requirements.

</comment></comment><comment><USER61> It looks like the US has reversed its position and the 737 Max is being grounded. [1]

[1] [https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/13/business/canada-737-max.h...](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/13/business/canada-737-max.html)

</comment><comment><USER62> Boeing suffered more than 10% drop in the stock price because of the recent crash and Lion Air (an Indonesian airline) plans to drop a $22 billion order. Boeing failed to address the numerous complaints and FAA is reluctant to ground the 737 Max 8 putting lives at risk.

</comment><comment><USER63> they stopped flying 737 Max even in Russia. That is in the country where drunk (not to mention heavily hanged over) pilots isn't something out of ordinary :)

Anyway, reading for example this [https://theaircurrent.com/aviation- safety/what-is-the-boeing...](https://theaircurrent.com/aviation-safety/what- is-the-boeing-737-max-maneuvering-characteristics-augmentation-system-mcas- jt610/) for a layman like me it sounds like making 737 (statically stable plane) into the Max Boeing produced a kind of F-16 - a statically unstable (and thus a great dogfighter) plane which cant be flown manually and requires constant controls adjustments by software.

</comment><comment><USER64> 2 crashes in less than 6 months for a plane that's been in service less than 24 months, yet "no systemic performance issues". Somebody's going to die so US companies can make a some extra profits. Business as usual here.

</comment><comment><USER65> If you are a pilot for one of these American airlines, would still stand your ground and not fly?

<comment><USER66> no because everyone is aware of what the issue is and how to overcome it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER67> I'm hoping that we aren't seeing a situation where acting FAA administrator Elwell's past service as an Aerospace Industries Association VP and company advocate is biasing his reasoning towards the interest of industry players over public safety.

</comment><comment><USER68> Nothing that another crash and huge human toil can't fix.

</comment><comment><USER30> It's scary to think how complicit the FAA was in granting Boeing's wish that this 30 year newer plane with substantially larger engines only required 2-3 hours of new training and said training was able to miss covering entire systems like MCAS. Now 350 people are dead, all the FAA can be thankful of is the dead are foreigners so it's unlikely they'll be held properly accountable.

<comment><USER69> While you may end up being entirely correct, it is too early to start finger- pointing before the investigations are finished.

Neither Lion nor Ethiopian had stellar safety records, e.g.

* [https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/22/world/asia/lion-air-crash...](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/22/world/asia/lion-air-crash-safety-failures.html)

* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethiopian_Airlines_accidents_a...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethiopian_Airlines_accidents_and_incidents)

The training hours should also be looked in the context of the total hours flown on that specific model - a pilot who just sat through the short training session would have a different perspective than a pilot who sat through the same training session but has also flown the plane for hundreds of hours.

It's also not a brand new airplane - it's a modification of 737, so the training is transitional. It's not like Boeing took a freshly minted Cessna 152 pilot, gave them a 2-hour seminar, and type-rated them for the 737 Max.

<comment><USER70> Nonsense.

Ethiopian airlines is rated Category 1 by the FAA and can thus fly direct to the US and they are a member of the star alliance.

Just because they are the largest carrier in Africa does not imply dubious safety or maintenance.

<comment><USER71> They had a 200 hour pilot flying in the right seat of the crashed airplane. Star Alliance or not, who in the hell defends a low-time student pilot flying right seat in an airliner? In the US, that would be illegal as a first officer has a 1500 hour requirement along with significant multi-engine turbine training. That copilot wouldn't even have enough hours for a commercial certificate, let alone ATP.

<comment><USER72> You conveniently forgot to mention that the captain of the flight was highly experienced with 8'000 hours of flight time.

<comment><USER73> We don't know which pilot was the flying pilot on this takeoff.

<comment><USER72> That should not be relevant at all.

During the critical phases of flying both pilots will be engaged with the operation. While it's true that the first officer may execute the take-off the captain will be at the controls, alert and ready to intervene at any time.

Later during cruising the responsibilities may be split. For example: The captain may deal with administrative stuff while the first officer is actually flying the plane.

Especially since the crew knew that the plane can potentially behave in an erratic manner you can bet on the fact that an experienced captain is standing by and observing very closely what's happening.

Source: I had the oportunity to sit in the cockpit during an entire (short haul) flight, when that was still possible. Both pilots were always engaged during all critical periods of the flight and very specifically during take off and landing. Even when the first officer executed the operations.

As a sidenote: It's not like driving a bus up there. Both pilots were focused, concentrated and busy during the entire flight (this may be somewhat different on a long haul flight ).

<comment><USER73> It is relevant because MCAS is tied to the AOA sensor on the side of the active flight computer. Even if the Captain intervened, he may not have thought to switch flight computers to rule out a malfunctioning AOA sensor.

I'm well aware of cockpit procedure; my brother is a 30-year captain, now retired and our family has been flying since before I was born. One of my earliest memories is of using the barf bag in a 172 while my father was shooting landings.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER74> The current head of FAA appointed by Trump was a lobbyist for Southwest, AA, United Airlines. No wonder he doesn't ground the Boeing 737 Max. Southwest alone operates the biggest 737 Max fleet in the world, with 280 planes. They'd lose a lot of money if their former employee grounds the plane [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Elwell](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Elwell)

<comment><USER75> > Southwest alone operates the biggest 737 Max fleet in the world, with 280 > planes.

Incorrect, they operate 35 Max8's, and have 237 total firm orders for Max8 and 30 for Max7.

[https://www.planespotters.net/airline/Southwest- Airlines](https://www.planespotters.net/airline/Southwest-Airlines)

[http://www.southwestairlinesinvestorrelations.com/news- and-e...](http://www.southwestairlinesinvestorrelations.com/news-and- events/news-releases/2018/10-25-2018-113001340)

</comment></comment><comment><USER76> max crash aircraft - what a headline

</comment><comment><USER77> Can't the MCAS simply be disabled until further investigation takes place?

</comment><comment><USER78> The title itself is unnecessary fear mongering. I actually went to confirm if the BBC actually wrote "crash aircraft" or it was just the poster that altered the title.

It seems that not even the once respectable newspapers can keep away from easy sensationalism these days.

<comment><USER79> If you're familiar with the BBC, you'll know it's not fear mongering at all. It's their writing style and it simply serves to inform that this is the model of the plane that was involved in the crash. It's actually a question of grammar. Now if it had said "crash-prone aircraft" or"crashy aircraft," that would be a different issue altogether.

</comment></comment><comment><USER80> This is a "fifth risk" scenario, where the FAA misjudges other countries' aviation authorities as mere America bashers. The Feds also misjudge their own threat environment, gambling that the rate of hull losses due to MCAS problems is low enough to fly through.

The question, "What if we're wrong?" doesn't get asked. Instead, the FAA Administrator's boss tweets a complaint about aircraft being too complicated. No, the problem isn't overcomplication, it is failure to build, document, and train for the aircraft and pilots you have, not the ones you want.

The Trump FAA are clueless political hacks, not professional safety experts and airmen. They don't handle black swans well, and think of economic costs before human costs.

<comment><USER77> [The Trump FAA are clueless political hacks, not professional safety experts and airmen.]

Surely you have the FAA employee turnover % numbers available since Trump took office?

<comment><USER81> Not to defend the parent comment, but the Director of the FAA was replaced with a Trump appointment about a year ago after completing a 5 year term.

The FAA went from being led by a Democrat, civilian, and life-long civil servant to Republican Air Force LtCol. I would be surprised if they had similar views on how best to lead the agency.

From the wikipedia article about our current FAA Director:

> Elwell was named Vice President of the Aerospace Industries Association[5] > in 2008 where he stayed until 2013. Elwell was a civil aerospace > manufacturer representative in this capacity where he was an advocate for > various companies.[2]

[https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/the-swamp-earns-its- wings...](https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/the-swamp-earns-its-wings- airline-lobbyist-takes-control-of-the-faa)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER82> You are not allowed to bring more than 100ml of water because of safety concerns but we will fly you on on airplane model that has failed twice in 2 years of service.

<comment><USER83> With the X-ray scanners installed at modern airports you're allowed to bring filled bottles into planes again. Also don't have to remove anything from your luggage, it's great!

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> US just grounded the 737 Max. FAA waited until Trump could take the credit.

</comment><comment><USER84> Meanwhile Samsung Galaxy Note 7 and hover boards still banned.

</comment><comment><USER85> But if you bring your own water then you wouldn't have the privilege of spending $4 for a single bottled water[0] at an airport vendor.

Sounds like the common ground there is profits come before anything else.

[0]: You could also bring your own empty water bottle and ask one of the bartenders to fill it up which is what I usually do and then drop them a $1 tip.

<comment><USER86> Why not just use one of the many water bottle filling stations?

<comment><USER85> Not all airports have these.

Also if you're an inexperienced flyer and have a tight connection, you may not have the time to find one in an unfamiliar airport but a bar or restaurant is almost always in sight.

<comment><USER75> Not all airports have sinks?

It's not like they filter what's coming out of water fountains anyway.

<comment><USER85> > Not all airports have sinks?

I haven't seen any, unless you're talking about using the bathroom sinks?

In which case, no thanks. Even with a touch less sensor people can still (and do) touch the area where the water comes out. Flying is stressful enough as it is. I don't want to have to think about potentially drinking tainted water (pun intended).

<comment><USER87> If you think no one has ever touched the nozzle of the drinking fountain with their dirty hands, boy are you in for a surprise.

<comment><USER85> I don't doubt it, but I also don't use those stations. I've never even seen one in the few airports I visited.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER88> How can this possibly be a surprise. It's public interest vs a multitude of companies: airlines, Boeing, their suppliers etc. It's absolutely no contest in current the US system.

</comment><comment><USER89> There will be a point in time when CEOs of those airlines in the US that do not ground 737 MAX planes get into a lot of trouble if something happens to one of their planes. Then they play with jail time instead of payments to victim relatives.

<comment><USER79> No, there won't. It's not a CEO's job to make kind of call because they're not expected to have that kind of insight into such technical safety matters. Their job is to run the company based off of what the experts tell them; the FAA is literally absolving companies of having to make the decision and shoulder the burden themselves.

<comment><USER89> Yes it is, the same way a CEO is responsible if the systems of the company are hacked and millions of emails and passwords are lost. They do what security experts tell them. Equifax for sure had lots of experts. Or Sony for that matter. There is a point when a court will decide that "you should have known" and the "expert" defense will not work.

It's funny on HN, if it's security the CEO should go to jail for listening to experts, if it's Boeing - one of the holy cows beside Tesla - it's "follow expert advice".

I bet $100 if an US 737 MAX crashes the CEO will go to jail.

<comment><USER79> Also, you seem to be replying under the impression that I'm talking about the Boeing CEO. I'm not. That comment was about CEOs of airlines not having to make the decision to ground or not to ground their fleet.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER90> Now imagine if AA grounds a MAX, Boeing will go bankrupt. Extremely high risk they dealing with now.

</comment><comment><USER91> If one plane crashes every year, it would still be safer to fly than to drive a car.

Even if boing is at fault, and FAA failed in their validation process, I doubt there is any evil doing in any way. Indeed, they had a fantastic track record for decades compared to pretty much any other industrial equivalent.

As an european, and as much as I would love boing to take a hit in favor or EADS, it would be unfair to them and the FAA. They have been doing a great job for so long, on so numerous complicated systems we forget that as human, we can fuck up.

Nobody can guaranty to ever do perfectly fine all the time, and certainly not in such a huge endavour. Of course, the outrage is understandable given mistakes cost lives, so the situation sucks for all the sides in this story.

<comment><USER92> Nobody can guarantee absence of errors, but you can stop using machines where you have good reasons to believe that something is wrong until you've figured out what's the problem and how to fix it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER93> How does the plane's safety record compare against that of motorcycles or sub- compact cars? Should we ban them as well, until they can attain safety parity?

My girlfriend has two intercontinental flights coming up in the next month. Flights that are very important to her life goals and fulfillment. I would hate to see a wrench thrown into those plans, because of a risk that she already takes on every weekend when she goes on a long drive.

More importantly, there are so many more pressing issues that we as a society need to be dealing with. Issues like fatalities caused by automobile accidents, inadequate healthcare coverage, medical errors and poor diet. Issues that are being starved of the attention they deserve because of our fixation on sensational deaths, as opposed to the banal but common ones [https://outlookzen.com/2015/02/15/all-lives- matter/](https://outlookzen.com/2015/02/15/all-lives-matter/)

<comment><USER94> There are about 350 of these planes flying, and they've been in general use for about two years. That implies 1/350 odds of a fatal crash per plane per year. I can't find similar statistics for motorcycles, but that's still wildly unacceptable.

And even if it weren't, you're arguing that problems can only be addressed one at a time in strict order of severity, in a nation of 326 million people. That's ridiculous.

<comment><USER23> What's more, this isn't an issue just for a nation of 326M people, this is global.

There are other issues which IMO are worse: how many people in America are killed by guns because we refuse to do anything about those legislatively? How many are killed by auto crashes because we refuse to build better trains and public transit?

However, other countries (like those in the EU) see this plane as problematic, and are grounding it. That's something that they can do. EU nations don't have any control over America refusing to fix its problems with guns and cars and public transit, but they _do_ have the power to ground unsafe planes in their airspace, so that's what they're doing.

As for the US, the US isn't doing anything about this plane at all; that's why we're arguing about it here, combined with the fact that other nations _are_ doing something about it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER95> How improbable was two Malaysian Airlines Boeing 777-200ER flights crashing within five months? Should all Boeing 777-200ER airplanes be grounded? Or all Malaysian Airlines flights?

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_370](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_370)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_17](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_17)

By the way it took years to figure out how exactly these crashed.

<comment><USER96> -Quite different scenario. One was shot down by a Russian-made surface-to-air missile (And one can hardly fault Boeing for not providing ECM equipment as standard!), the other was (probably) wilfully flown into the great void.

Here, on the other hand, there are two eerily similar cases where the likely -mind, likely- common denominator is a new 'feature' which has been undercommunicated to the pilots flying the things.

<comment><USER97> MH 370's crew and passengers went hypoxic.

(edited from 17 to 370)

<comment><USER98> That's one theory. It's certainly not confirmed.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


6-year vesting - <AUTHOR> http://venturehacks.com/articles/6-year-vesting

<comment><USER2> This violates the five-year rule, so if I was ever in a position to consider something like it, I wouldn't.

Whenever anyone, in any field, posits anything on a greater than five-year timeline, it is more than likely bunk. An engineering feat, economic projections, anything. It's not necessarily the thing being projected that's bunk, but the projection itself--past five years it's pure speculation, and you probably have no idea. Six-years? You might as well say twenty years, or two weeks. My assumption isn't that you're in it for the long haul, it's that you can't do projections. Which is troublesome in the case of options, the point of which is to have an upside. If a company isn't targeting some kind of material upside within five years, I don't know why they're issuing options at all--just pay people better, and/or let the mission be its own reward.

I know there are instances where the five year rule doesn't apply, but it serves well as basic test for what to take seriously.

</comment><comment><USER3> > The clock on long-term capital gains starts today.

The clock on long-term capital gains starts from the date of _exercise_ of the options, not from when they are awarded or when they vest.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, thanks and fixed. :-)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Smart. I like it. Very European, having a long-term view.</comment>


GOP Rep. Peter King: Journalists Should Be Punished For Exposing Classified Info - <AUTHOR> http://www.mediaite.com/tv/gop-rep-peter-king-to-anderson-cooper-journalists-should-be-punished-for-exposing-classified-info/

<comment><USER2> Sure. Let's classify everything and thus subvert democracy.

A free press is essential for democracy. Who elects these idiots?

<comment><USER3> The same idiots tweeting "I'm not worried by the NSA. I have nothing to hide." I imagine.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Regarding the testimony by Director Clapper: Is it legal to lie under oath if it is to avoid revealing classified information? Would it have been so difficult for the guy to just say "that's classified" instead of lying?

</comment><comment><USER5> How can a guy like that be elected? Is he in the most gerrymandered district in country?</comment>


Teaching honeybees to do arithmetic - <AUTHOR> https://www.quantamagazine.org/what-scarlett-howard-learns-from-the-bees-she-teaches-20200122/ <comment><USER2> Cool article. So the final goal is to understand something about the way human brain operates.

I remember reading that human visual perception has some patterns like "Objects with same shape/color appear to be similar" and why visual illusions play with our mind.

Do we have information that animals do share those patterns or are vulnerable to some of the illusions?</comment>


Show HN: Send a Custom Postcard to Anywhere, from Your Phone, for $2.99 - <AUTHOR> https://postcardbot.co/#hn2 <comment><USER2> I worked on a few postcard apps about 5 years ago, for my experiments the economics were very difficult unless a) you charged a lot b) of recurring revenue c) for a niche. I gave up even when I found a viable model because I didn't want to spent the next 5 years working on this, thought I could make a lifestyle business but I think to be successful here you have to move a lot of postcards and that takes marketing muscle and ensuring a high CLTV. Margins are good but absolute profit is tiny. Also support costs will be high, people will be emailing you about lost postcards (inevitable given the many ways they can be lost, and they will be pissed) when you stand to make 30 cents. Giving one away for free seemed to help "validate" that delivery has an existence proof for a given address, but is very expensive.

Anyway free info: the thing that seemed to have legs was an app that lets parents send monthly postcards of babies. (Recurring, high margin.) Grandparents and other relatives still have the ones my friends sent on their fridge. I think if you took this idea and executed well you could be successful, but you would need marketing capital or capital to get a partnership with a big brand.

Good luck!

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the input. I don't intend on putting in full time work on this (maybe just a couple hours a week). It's a side project and will remain as such indefinitely.

I actually built it solely for myself to use when I travel, and I thought it would be fun to build.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> This is a full rework of my original project, Postacard.io. The entire project has been completely rewritten. The new version includes a Messenger bot for international use without the SMS fees, as well as statistical NLP in address parsing for faster creation (from start to finish) and better accuracy internationally.

FYI, for those of you using "UK" as your country code. The postcard service this uses recognizes "GB" as the country code for United Kingdom. I'll be putting in an alias for this.

<comment><USER3> Amazing work!

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> There's somehow a contradiction between the service you're offering and the name of the service. Postcard BOT feels impersonal, cold and automated, while you associate a postcard with something warm, handwritten, personal. There's a risk that your target market (postcard lovers) might get turned off by the name (bot).

<comment><USER5> I tend to kindly disagree - while what you say is true for the people who love to write and receive postcards - this service is perfect for lazy people like me. The real postcard lovers will still want to buy the real thing and hand- write the message on there and probably wouldn't consider this kind of service either way.

<comment><USER6> Postcards without handwriting are just email.

I'm not even a postcard lover, I send maybe one a year, but the one I will send is going to be personal. All the personality and expressiveness that you give to a written postcard is lost once you use a font. Even a really really nice one.

<comment><USER7> "The real postcard lovers will still want to buy the real thing"

Sounds like you are in that group.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This isn't a new Show HN since you've posted this before[1] with the domain postacard.io. What's changed since then?

[1]: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12427505](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12427505)

<comment><USER9> Well, there is a penny difference in the title. A holiday discount?

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah, I'm playing with the pricing model. As a side project, I'd like it to at least break even. The NLP required for parsing addresses uses quite a bit of memory, so this increases the monthly costs to keep it online. Also, sending a postcard outside of the US costs substantially more than within the US. I wanted to find a good pricing structure that's flat, regardless of where the postcard is going.

There's room to reduce these costs as more people use the service. As long as I'm breaking even on servers I'll be happy :).

<comment><USER10> Sorry if you answered this somewhere else. But does it use LOB's API to send the postcard?

I wonder if there is data/logic on what would be the optimal locations (countries/cities/towns) where it is cheapest and fastest to send a postcard to that country or neighboring countries.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Nice, but you could make it alot more accessible with naming it something friendlier, postcardbuddy, or something and have some "cute" logo. Its quite tech geek bare metal now

<comment><USER12> I've read and analyzed a large number of stories on IndieHackers and not a single one mentioned the name being an issue, or something they wished they had changed.

There probably are a few stories out there of companies rebranding successfully and meaningfully, but it doesn't seem to matter that much in the general case.

<comment><USER13> I can think of many startups with horrible names. A decent chunk of the failed.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> > Depending on the platform, we will provide you either a secure link or > method to pay once you've contructed your postcard.

This is not very informative. You should provide some examples there.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, will do. Still a work in progress.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> I love the idea. I travel internationally quite a bit and would love to be able to easily send a picture to my wife or parents in the mail. True, a text message is easier, but there is something fun and more personal about getting a physical thing in the mail.

<comment><AUTHOR> Exactly. I think we're a bit too impersonal and anti-social with Snaps, Grams, etc. Taking something digital into the analog world makes it more meaningful :).

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> I've been using The Simple Postcard [1] for a few months now and really like it. How does this service compare?

[1] [https://www.thesimplepostcard.com/](https://www.thesimplepostcard.com/)

<comment><AUTHOR> This project was actually pointed out to be when I originally built postacard.io. The difference between the two is I support international postcards, and include a Messenger bot (also an international perk). Other than that, they're essentially the same service, and I think The Simple Postcard is incredibly well built!

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Pretty awesome! Just used it and it worked easy-peasy! Now if I could only upload a boat load of addresses...

<comment><AUTHOR> At some point I'll create a web interface and allow CSV address components. Whenever I find the time though :p.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> This is similar to Bill Atkinson's postcard app. [1]

[1] [http://www.billatkinson.com/Pages/aboutPhotoCard.html](http://www.billatkinson.com/Pages/aboutPhotoCard.html)

<comment><AUTHOR> Except it isn't an app :), which is the reason for the original inspiration behind the project. Postcards aren't a very popular thing anymore (hopefully that changes!), and I don't quite believe a dedicated app is justified when you can do it straight from SMS or Messenger.

<comment><USER19> Postcards aren't popular, you are right. I don't think they will be anymore. Kids my age are sending snaps, and even archaic image texts. I think we are are more interested in showing our friends "I'm here, look at what's behind me", then in sending some generic, impersonal postcard which doesn't prove anything.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> If you could nock the price down you could market this to HAMs for QSL cards.

</comment><comment><USER21> I really like this idea!

I've been wanting something similar, but instead for the postcards to be sent from the country that you are traveling from. Such a service would be hard to implement though.

<comment><USER22> If you're already there, then why not send them yourself? I liked the adventure of finding postcards (when you're not in a touristy area) and then finding a post office. You get to see aspects of the country that hasn't been changed for tourists.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Sending a physical postcard from a mobile phone is a standardised activity: [https://www.nowsms.com/oma-mms-postcard- conformance](https://www.nowsms.com/oma-mms-postcard-conformance)

<comment><USER24> The end user (my mother, sister etc.) definately wouldn't know that.

I remember when Youtube came out, and all the nerds said "I could write that easily, not that big a deal".

This is why knowing who your customer is (and what problem you're trying to solve) is essential.

<comment><USER23> There was a load of publicity ~a decade ago about this, with lots of mobile operators pushing the service. They did do the marketing, but MMS was the success we know it was(!), cameras in phones weren't top notch, and the service was used once only by lots of people who have now forgotten all about it...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I'd like to use this! But I have questions. Tell me more about the automatic rotation, and in general about how images are fit to cards when the aspect ratio differs. I'm also curious about print resolution.

<comment><AUTHOR> Well essentially the platform simply looks at the difference between the width and height, and rotates to fit a 4x6 aspect ratio, gravitated towards the center of the photo. It works best with photos taken directly from a smart phone, uncropped. It also scales the resolution if its not high enough, but this typically isn't an issue if the photo was taken with a modern smartphone today.

You can read a bit about this in FAQ

[https://postcardbot.co/faq](https://postcardbot.co/faq)

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Any plans to send gifs as well? (gifpop.io is good inspiration)

<comment><AUTHOR> At first I actually wasn't sure if you were joking or serious, but gifpop.io looks awesome. I'll start looking into how/if I can integrate.

However, If I sent my grandma a postcard that moved, she'd probably collapse :p

<comment><USER26> Haha, totally serious about the gifs.

I'm surprised that none of the postcard bots (yours included) have targeted the Christmas/holiday card or wedding gift thank you market. None of them seem to offer bulk discounts or options for uploading a csv or better yet integration with iOS or Gmail contacts.

Average number of wedding guests in America is 150, iirc.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Neat implementation, but loses the human being portion that makes postcards special.

</comment><comment><USER28> Any plans to integrate with Apple Pay in the messenger bot? I'd love that.

</comment><comment><USER29> Does anywhere include countries that the USA has embargos (Cuba) with?

</comment><comment><USER30> Include real, photographed physical examples on the landing page.

<comment><AUTHOR> Here's an example. Found in FAQ.

[https://postcardbot.co/examples/psc_58b3f6b96b4b9b44.pdf](https://postcardbot.co/examples/psc_58b3f6b96b4b9b44.pdf)

<comment><USER30> That doesn't give me an idea of what the finished product looks like in hand. Card stock, etc.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Just connects a service like Twilio with Lob API, right?

</comment><comment><USER32> what a bargain</comment>


'Impossible' Space Engine May Actually Work, NASA Test Suggests - <AUTHOR> http://www.space.com/26713-impossible-space-engine-nasa-test.html <comment><USER2> So, it's not "impossible", DUH!</comment>


Swiss parliamentary postulate: Bitcoin is a currency - <AUTHOR> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=364555.0

<comment><USER2> I'm not sure whether I'd prefer Bitcoin to be considered a currency or a commodity. I'm sure there are strong for/against arguments that I could find on Google, but (in the purest expression of HN-as-crowdsourcing) would really appreciate a curated list of blogs, papers, theory, opinions, etc.

<comment><USER3> In countries with VAT, considering Bitcoin a commodity would make it unusable as means of payment. When paying with a commodity (gold is explicitely excempt, but not silver), the transaction is legally considered as two purchases. The seller selling the car to the buyer, and the buyer selling the Bitcoins to the seller, thus triggering two taxable transactions under VAT law and effectively doubling the tax rate (e.g. from 8% to 16% in Switzerland). It is obvious that this would be catastrophic for Bitcoin when competing with other means of payment.

Edit: note that there also is some middle ground. For example, Germany considers Bitcoin as means of payment for VAT purposes without declaring it a currency or commodity.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> It is interesting to see policies made in regards to Bitcoin vs. making a policy for all virtual currencies of similar type. I guess the main reason for focusing on Bitoin is that without naming Bitcoin you are forced to create a well defined definition of what virtual currency you are referring to which will probably happen later on down the line.

<comment><USER5> Right. The move to create specific legislation around Bitcoin could be construed as a move to denature the present Bitcoin economy and pull it closer to conventional financial regulation. This seems ultimately pretty pointless from a government perspective, however, since the move will happen anyway and there are already popular alternatives that would remain unaffected. Essentially it could weight development investment towards Bitcoin instead of towards financial innovation in general. Such a strategy, if properly considered and so motivated, would be an act of resistance - stalling the inevitable - rather than one of any real efficacy. I think this is really just some people trying to get recognition for Bitcoin: the full story may only be available by speaking to them or reading German.

The potential significance of Switzerland in Bitcoin recognition this should be clarified. SIX Interbank Clearing, the organization that act as registrar for ISO4217-A3 currency codes (ie. codes like 'USD', 'EUR', etc.) on behalf of the ISO, and also SWIFT BIC codes (IIRC), is based in Switzerland. Jon Matonis from the Bitcoin Foundation approached them earlier this year about issuing an official XBT codepoint for Bitcoin, but they denied the request claiming that requests for codepoints much be made in writing from an existing national bank (subtext: from a UN-recognized country in that other ISO list).

My own proposal is to sidestep the ISO entirely and use IANA to register currencies or currency-like commodities as a means to achieve the unambiguous identification of such within multi-currency financial transfer systems, such as present era math based currency exchange businesses like my employer (Payward/Kraken). More details on that over here: [http://www.ifex- project.org/our-proposals/x-iso4217-a3](http://www.ifex-project.org/our- proposals/x-iso4217-a3)

Ultimately even if the Bitcoin Foundation doesn't support such standardization (and it probably will; I literally have a draft in my inbox to Jon since Friday) I am fairly confident that the new self regulating industry body we have founded, DATA, will. [http://info.datauthority.org/](http://info.datauthority.org/)

We live in interesting times, and the goal is clear. As Iain Coke, Head of Financial Services Faculty, Institute of Chartered Accountants (UK) said so eloquently in _The Telegraph_ last year: _In order to regain trust in banking, what is needed is a real change in culture, embedding integrity and eradicating the 'what can I get away with' attitude._</comment></comment>


Understanding JavaScript Arrays - <AUTHOR> http://javascriptweblog.wordpress.com/2010/07/12/understanding-javascript-arrays/

<comment><USER2> Isn't this faster for iterating over the elements:

      var a = ["banana", Math.min, 4, "apple"];
      for (var i=a.length; i; i--) {
        console.log(a[i]);
      }

<comment><USER2> Actually, I just realized this does not work, there is an off by 1 error here. jacksoncarter's piece of code works though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I want to stress that the following will work, but get you in trouble. Javascript does not support associative arrays.

      var myData = new Array;

      myData['key1'] = 'value1';
      myData['key2'] = 'value2';
      myData['key3'] = 'value3';

      myData.length; //0

<comment><USER4> I would say that JS does support associative arrays, since it is the fundamental data type behind objects and arrays. Arrays are basically associative arrays, since the index is converted into a string and used as a key. E.g. myData[7] is equivalent to myData["7"].

The length property does not return the number of items in the array though. It returns the value of the key with the highest numerical value if parsed as a integer plus one.

<comment><USER5> Also you can use associate array notation to access an object property. Found this out after previously using eval to access a dynamic property name.

<comment><USER6> yes, that's right - item.akey is interchangeable with item['akey'], but the latter form accepts expressions as the key value.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> forEach,map, and several other ECMA5 methods look like a joy to use

</comment><comment><USER8> This isn't your father's Array. Sigh.</comment>


Infographic: Who Buys All Those Google Ads? | Visual.ly - <AUTHOR> http://visual.ly/who-buys-all-those-google-ads <comment><USER2> The information was interesting, but the representation was pretty bad. If you're going to have a chart with names, numbers and bars of different sizes, please make the bars proportional to the metric. I should see a chart and understand it immediately.

<comment><USER3> I do not think you understand what an infographic is. An infographic is not the same as a chart, they are orthogonal, they have different purposes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I get modded downwards by the Google fanboys everytime I say that Google is just an advertising company.

Now I admit I was wrong all along. Google is only 96% an advertising company!!!

Yeah yeah, hit me with your downvotes, because karma is _so_ important. Lol.</comment>


PCall: Common Lisp library for parallelism at function call granularity using thread pools - <AUTHOR> http://marijn.haverbeke.nl/pcall/

<comment><AUTHOR> I'd also like to point out the background discussion, which talks about multithreading in Common Lisp in general: <http://marijn.haverbeke.nl/pcall/background.html>

(I consider these two pages one item, but the concept here is one URL = one idea.)</comment>