Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)Z
Posts
0
Comments
291
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • Airbus has a ton of new planes grounded due to engine failures since before the door blowout. But you won't hear about it because shitting on Boeing is what got clicks instead.

  • Fuck off Mitt.

  • He could plainly see what was coming. Tore it down. People laughed and let it happen anyway.

  • They think they're leftists. But they're too "me first" on consuming to realize they're not.

  • He fired his PR team a few years ago. That's been the difference.

    He said plenty of dumb shit prior with people cleaning it up. One of my favorites was probably 10 years ago now. He claimed Model 3 assembly line automation would move so fast they'd have to worry about wind resistance.

    My friends and co-workers still laugh about that one now. It's such an absurd "business" mentality of go fast = good. So go crazy fast = more good. With a technology that doesn't exist and kinda doesn't need to. It makes more sense to increase system capacity (multiple lines) when you're chasing throughput like that. But what makes even more sense is accurately forecasting your production so you don't have to slap a full car together in 30 minutes to keep up with demand.

  • Sure dumbass. Way to discount all the labor wins the UAW has fought for recently.

  • They won't because part of it is slave labor.

  • Now this I can get behind. We should fight back by subsidization of production as heavily as China is theirs.

  • That $10k Chinese car cost $20k to make. A competitor undercutting the market that much leads to monopolization. When that competitor is being bankrolled by a foreign government it's potentially even a hostile act.

    People have been mad for decades about what Walmart did to retail in the US. Taking steps to prevent that from also happening with the auto industry should be appreciated.

  • Hell just say NATO is a defensive alliance and they go off the rails. I've picked up a few long bans for that alone.

  • Russia's air defense had a backbone of Cold War era tech before the war started. Ukraine has been consistently plinking away at it. Most of it is naturally positioned near borders to prevent penetration. If you sneak past the coverage thins out quickly. Russia is a huge country so it's also understandable to not have high density coverage throughout.

    At one point Russia had a great setup. But that time was long ago. And oil money going to modernization efforts means less yacht money. Air defense also isn't that critical when you're mostly concerned about beating up on small countries like Georgia and Chechnya that can't fight back.

  • My serious answer guess; it's a demo of what can happen if fall prevention harnesses are not properly worn. Would help if there are a few more pixels.

  • It's also terribly inefficient. We could do what we already know works better which is train some people who then help others. That way people can become a specialist at a skill they're suited for.

  • Boeing issues are plane side of the business for sure.

    From little I'm aware, part of why Boeing sought a partnership with Lockheed is because they weren't sure what to do with the aerospace pieces of McDonell Douglas and Rockwell they acquired in the late 90's. Meaning most of the "Boeing" contribution to ULA came from other companies already serving NASA for decades. Mainly with the Delta rockets.

    None of that was core Boeing business. Which is why ULA has been run by Lockheed people the whole time it has existed. Current ULA CEO Tory Bruno was an engineer at Lockheed for a long time before working his way up to where he's at now. Something like 30 years in the industry.

  • Sure but the rocket being used is Atlas V which is from the Lockheed half of the partnership.

    Delta series is what Boeing brought to the ULA partnership. Which they acquired from buying out McDonnell Douglas.

    Boeing didn't design either rocket ULA has flown.

  • ULA is a whole separate entity though. It's not part of Boeing or Lockheed directly. And even then it's main engineering teams are former Lockheed and Rockwell people. There is very little about ULA that's truly Boeing. And Atlas V is based off Atlas III which Lockheed made on their own before ULA became a thing in 2006.

  • Sadly the launch was scrubbed. Because ULA noticed something they didn't like with a valve on the 2nd stage of their rocket.

    Hopefully something ULA can fix without having to take the whole stack apart.

  • Probably not much. The capsule has already been tested and flown to ISS without a crew. This is finally the first crewed test. It was supposed to happen I think last year. But NASA tore down the capsule one more time and asked Boeing to change out some wiring harness shielding just to be extra careful about high oxygen environment fire potential.

    ULA's Atlas rocket which is taking the capsule up has been successful in every launch as far as I've paid attention back to 2007 when it first started being used. Including I believe all of the Mars rover missions.

    I get all the hurr durr Boeing jokes are going to happen. But that's commercial airline Boeing. Not MIC/NASA Boeing. And ULA has a fantastic track record. I'm going to be sad if Blue Origin really does end up buying them out.