I suppose the thing the circle is really informing is the "perfectness" of the curve. You cant just draw in curves and extend it to a circle (wont be perfect). I guess Im not sure how you get "perfect" curves.
I suspect its a stencil or something. So in some sense the circle does exist first, even if they only draw the curve from it initially (before marking it up with the full circle after the fact).
If I were trying to do something like this I would sketch it out first with imperfect curves and then worry about making it perfect once I was at the computer. It would look slightly different but I don’t think it would make that much of an impact in the initial design process.
>Driving a gyrobus has the added complexity that the flywheel acts as a gyroscope that will resist changes in orientation, for example when a bus tilts while making a turn, assuming that the flywheel has a horizontal rotation axis.
So you have a giant blender than can travel one mile in a straight line before needing to be recharged
No medical condition has higher priority than getting out of a burning plane as fast as possible.
You may not survive a day without insulin, but the people behind you might not survive the next few seconds if they can't get out in time because you were fumbling with a bag
I hate your opinion not because leaving one's bag isn't a fair take most of the time but it is underpinned by a the fundamental contempt for the decision making of people who are actually there. It's like when a child gets a math problem right but the shown work makes it clear they're very wrong.
You don't know what's in that luggage. Maybe it's hard to source medication. Maybe it's very important legal documents. It's clearly not big enough to be typical low value personal belongings. The plane isn't even full of smoke yet.
I get that folks are going to make suboptimal choices in the heat of the moment, and I could see myself similarly making a dumb choice in the rush of an airplane evacuation. I don't think we should judge anyone's character too harshly, but that doesn't keep us from discussing what the actual optimal choices are.
>The plane isn't even full of smoke yet
The plane previously had some pretty impressive flames in the process of landing, and depending one what sort of fire gets going there might not be time for everyone to get out. That being said, insulin isn't actually a valid excuse nor are very important legal documents. Every second counts, and could be the difference between life and death for passengers and crew not yet evacuated. There's a reason that air traffic controllers ask pilots in emergencies for the number of "souls on board" referring to living humans and not important legal documents or medicine.
Optimal for who and in what situation? What is the optimal default practice for a single variable (lives saved) in the general case is not necessarily optimal in all cases.
In the case of this aircraft not only were the maximum number of lives saved but the some people also got their luggage reducing the sum total of BS and PITA the passengers involved had to endure. This is a superior overall solution than following the "rules" because that solution would have saved the same number of lives and increased the overall PITA because a greater number of passengers would have been without their luggage.
Basically the people involved rightly judged they could allocate some resources away from GTFOing and allocate them toward PITA reducing and we're all screeching about it like idiots because had the situation been different they would not have been able to make such a tradeoff and get the same results.
This entire topic of comments is in the same category as complaining about people ignoring the speed limit on empty highways or hopping some queue control ropes to skip a bunch of zig zagging when the queue is short enough they're not cutting anyone by doing so.
I think they do, there was a bunch of footage of the AA collision it just took a little while for it to surface online. People publishing to social media is faster than an investigation
Earning highly does not universally command respect the way being a doctor does. Some would even see earning that much as being immoral (i.e. actually negative)
Those "low view" is out of jealousy and the idea that they're "doing evil" to get that money. It's a personal bias, which i personally also would ignore.
I have respect for lawyers, and i have respect for investment bankers (who make huge merger/acquisition deals work).
To be fair, the term "lawyer" is generic in the US. It can mean many different things: (1) in-house corporate counsel, (2) external corporate counsel (advise on merge/acq/deals/contract), (3) civil lawyer (sue/divorce/personal injury/intellectual property, etc.), (4) defender (public or private), (5) public prosecutor (work for attorney general office), (6) law professor, (7) judge (Can you be a judge in US without a law degree? It seems hard to imagine in 2025.). And there must be other categories that I forgot. My point: Most people will have differing views on each category. Example: Most people would view public defenders, law professors, and judges as honorable, socially beneficial jobs.
Indeed. And this is an interesting counterpoint to the idea that higher income (always) confers status. Because the corporate jobs will typically be higher paid but lower status.
Regardless of how that bias is formed it's a relevant opinion. A not insignificant amount of the population holds a negative opinion of lawyers and views them as trashy or shady. So much so that in many neighborhoods real estate brokers will off a casual caveat if one of the neighbors is a lawyer.
You miss the point. why the low view exists is irrelevant.
Frankly, while I acknowledge their necessity, I have a poor (default) view of both bankers and lawyers. I don't see them as bad people, but people in their professions do many bad things.
If my son brings a banker home as a prospective mate, well, let's say they're not earning status points from their profession.
You (may have) and I (do) have respect for people in tough jobs like see workers. Doesn't mean my mom wouldn't prefer I date a nice doctor. My point being that social respect does not come with your personal respect.
One thing to consider about investment bankers: Many of them do pretty mundane work, like work on non-national/federal gov't and corporate bond issuance. (In most countries, national/federal gov't can directly issue bonds without investment bankers.) There is literally trillions of dollars of these bonds issued each year (usually to roll-over maturing debt) across all highly developed nations. It is fundamental to modern capitalism. I would estimate that 99.5% of these bond deals use "vanilla term sheets" (my term) -- literally copy and modify from the last deal. And, the buyers of these bonds are 99% institutional: our pension funds, mutual funds, and bond ETFs.
Also, secondary equity issuance is pretty non-controversial, and an important fund raising option for publicly-listed corporations.
> You miss the point. why the low view exists is irrelevant.
It's very much relevant to this conversation. Without specific negative factors like a "predatory" aspect, increasing earnings will increase prestige. ATC doesn't have those factors.
They brought up bankers and lawyers in response to someone asking "Which very highly paid job does not command respect in society? I can’t think of any"
So yes it is irrelevant in the specific context of that sub-conversation. Which isn't to say that your point arguing why that might not be applicable to ATCs isn't also a relevant thing to say to being the conversation back to the main topic of this thread.
> Which very highly paid job does not command respect in society?
Banking? Sales?
> Outside of anti-capitalist circles ofc
Well that's quite the point. Maybe those circles are small in the US, but they aren't in most of the rest of the world.
Let me just say that if I called my parents and told them that I had gotten a well-paid job at, say, a hedge fund, they would not be impressed and would likely think less of me for it.
One doesn't need to be anti-capitalist to dislike bankers, salespeople, or many other similar careers. They, in many cases at least, rely on information inequalities to deceive and rip off people. I love capitalism, but I loathe sketchy behavior done in the pursuit of money. They are two very different things.
Crane operators, any equipment operators really. Plumbers, HVAC tech, Boat Mechanics, the guy that climbed down in my septic tank to retrieve whatever he used to clear the line is making $300 an hour.
Lawyers, CEOs, hedge fund managers, investment bankers, congresspeople are all widely despised. To a lesser extent dentists, influencers and advertising executives are not well-loved.
I think most people would rather have their car circle the block indefinitely, rather than pay for parking and wait for their car to summon, which would create so many new traffic problems.
I'm picturing herds of empty Model 3's endlessly circling every city's downtown office district
It's like up-badging a car. Most people won't care about it. Those who are knowledgeable about it will see through it. And those who actually do care about superficial things like that are probably not the kind of people whose respect should matter to you
