Recent submissions

Comment · 2 years ago
Maintenance and operation is a big factor, but engine-outs do happen.

It also seems like you are talking about helicopters, which have a special exemption: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/91.119

In a fixed wing, altitude is absolutely your friend and gives you more options to land, which equates to a higher probability of finding a nicer emergency landing spot.

And to your point, power lines that are shorter than 199ft don’t have to be on the charts. I could erect a tower off major airways or near an airport to that height without prior warning.

Comment · 2 years ago
I’m going to disagree unless you are in a specific area of aviation, because it severely reduces your emergency landing options.
Comment · 2 years ago
Those pilots are in the minority, and already accept a much higher level of risk. Also, drone flights that have been problematic are typically in congested areas (much like laser problems).

What might have been better is if the FAA had created a way for those pilots to create mini low-level TFRs or protected airspace to warn drone pilots not to fly their during inspections. It’s also worth mentioning that many survey jobs are being replaced by more advanced drones due to cost.

I do respect what you are saying, but having a foot on both sides of the fence can’t help but feel like the FAA had a knee-jerk reaction to drones.

If I fly a 600g drone below treetop level in a heavily forested, rural area, it will have 0 impact to aviation. This is currently illegal without licensing, additional hardware, or a flight notification. I find this silly.

Comment · 2 years ago
As a pilot, this has always been weird to me. I’ve come to the conclusion that people just don’t like drones. I think selling them to the masses is part of the answer.

I can build a tower (with exemptions for protected airspace) that’s 199ft in the US without any problem. To me, that basically says to any pilot “expect the unexpected if you fly lower than that,” which insanely low to aircraft (not helicopters) not near an airfield.

Comment · 2 years ago
Yeah - I forgot about their opaque pricing tiers.

One other benefit of paying up front is that I think you are less restricted on S3/Cloudfront in what you can host. I think Cloudflare has some restrictions (video files?) to keep costs more sane. Otherwise, you could spin up a YouTube clone extremely cheap.

And just to reiterate, AWS pricing can be absurd.

Comment · 2 years ago
Out of curiosity on the marches, was it due to electrolyte imbalance? I know army types can drink a ton of water in hot climates!

I’m in the Rocky Mtns, so it’s pretty dry up here with lots of unprepared people (maybe confirmation bias in my end).

Comment · 2 years ago
Maybe it’s confirmation bias, but I have heard of very few over-hydration cases whereas medical dehydration seems pretty common.

Granted the pressures for dehydration are a lot more common (hiking with too little water, running competitions, maybe little access to water in a hot climate, etc). Once one has ample access to water, I doubt there is much pressure to keep drinking to over-hydration.

Comment · 2 years ago
I like Cloudflare, but this is also what makes me skeptical. There's no such thing as a free lunch, and I've had the rug pulled out from underneath me many times before. I wish they at least charged a sustainable amount for egress, because I feel like it's coming eventually.
Comment · 2 years ago
I actively quit producing content and deleted my account.

Maybe it’s confirmation bias, but I do feel like the quality of discourse has taken a nose dive.

Comment · 2 years ago
It was just an example of complexity - I would imagine a new coal plant is still more complex than a solar farm.
Comment · 2 years ago
Is that 14% different with solar? I’m just bringing this up, because solar is dead simple compared to engineering studies and infrastructure required to build something like a new nuclear plant. I wonder if the simplicity of solar and storage will start to change how power generation is approached.
Comment · 2 years ago
That’s not entirely true - aliases to AWS resources are free (their suggested “workaround”).
Comment · 2 years ago
Totally agree with this. In their defense (not that I like it), obviously the market is willing to pay what they charge. It’s unfortunate that the other big cloud providers haven’t driven prices down that much.
Comment · 2 years ago
It’s still a huge problem for people that have purchased domains. I bought one that apparently used to be a BT tracker, and gets on the order of several hundred NXDOMAIN requests per second.

I understand it’s still hitting Route53 infrastructure, but I’m not using it, and it’s not commonplace to charge for NXDOMAIN records. Because of this, I’m unable to host at AWS (prohibitively expensive for my use-case).

It’s worth mentioning that DNS infrastructure for things like this are very cheap (I used to self-host the DNS infrastructure for this domain for ~$2.5/mo), so the up charge is even worse that what AWS is charging for bandwidth. If they brought it in line with actual costs, I wouldn’t have as much of a problem.

Live from the official Hacker News API

A modern reader for Hacker News · SvelteKit + Skeleton