Just about all humor derives from some degree of suffering. Compared what the core could have done, the three deaths from the accident are nothing. Even things that are joked about often have much higher death tolls like wars and natural disasters.

This is just a 185 stage device, but later ones would have thousands of stages, and could be chained together for even longer delays. Sample rates could also be much lower then 40 kHz as low as 6 kHz was used for echo effects.

Competition is generally good for consumers, forcing companies to make a better product then the other guy, rather then the crappiest thing people will buy.

> Competition is generally good for consumers, forcing companies to make a better product then the other guy, rather then the crappiest thing people will buy.

If by "better," you mean "crappier but even cheaper." IMHO, we're kind of in a race to the bottom with product quality. You can't really tell what's good and what's bad online, so people gravitate the what's cheapest to minimize the risk of getting really taken advantage of. A lot of the stuff that's still good quality has massive luxury premiums tacked on, and a lot of the stuff that used to be good quality has been debased by some bean counter trying to convert goodwill into cash money.

Kind of hard to tell, because sort of an optimal successful product is made from the worst possible hardware.

If you were to look at this in terms of a CPU chip, the cheapest chip would be the chip with the most defects that runs, while the chip with the fewest defects would be overpriced to sell, or extra-overpriced and overclocked to barely running.

Think about it - do you run out an buy a Xeon Gold blah blah for $15k or a core i7 for $200? Marketing keeps you from thinking the core i7 is "crappier and cheaper"

This is why I prefer to underclock than overclock.

I'm not an expert on this, but there don't seem to be any reported cases of hearing loss from sounds above 30 kHz, but there are documented cases of unpleasant effects. In any case, I'd keep some distance, just to be safe.

Easy, the natural angle of attack is determined by the elevator position. Flying upside down is totally possible with the right inputs.

Almost none of this is intuitive without hundreds of years of hindsight. The more subtle aspects of stability, such as avoiding oscillation mostly had to be determined experimentally. Then there is also the matter of actually constructing a plane, if you want it to be useful, it's going to need to be a lot more then some folded paper.

Thrust was definitely also a problem, a glider is not particularly useful unless it has a huge lift-to-drag ratio, which is only possible with modern materials and a solid understanding of airfoil design, which is a whole other can of worms.

Even things that seem so basic that we don't even think about them, like high were not at all obvious: just look at Sir George Cayley's gliders.

Paper planes have been a thing for a long while, but I guess no one thought that could scale?

It's like fire, super obvious in retrospective, and yet took thousands of years to become a technology.

It’s not easy to scale materials and retain the necessary rigidity. Like if you tried to scale up a primitive kite to support a human it would either be too heavy or too bendy. You need better materials and better construction techniques.

>Paper planes have been a thing for a long while, but I guess no one thought that could scale?

... and they were right, because aerodynamics is not scale-invariant.

Well, airplanes do exist now, so that did definitely scale.

That's the trick, you invert the logic. If you hear the word vegan, assume the person saying it is not.

NVIDIA and one step down the chain OpenAI are making lots of money, mostly by convincing people that LLMs solve all problems.

LLMs are perfect for this, super flashy, with a ton of hype. In reality, LLMs are really bad at most applications, they are a solution in search of a problem.

Very nice.