The diagram says that (Cyrillic ∩ Greek) - (Cyrillic ∩ Latin) is 3 letters, П Ф Г but as the sibling comment says, Λ/Л, Δ/Д and Κ/К are similar enough. That only leaves you with Θ/theta (th as in thin), Σ/sigma (s as in soft), Ξ/xi (x as in fox), Ψ/psi (ps as in lapse), and Ω/omega (o as in ore.) A lot of those are close enough that you can sort of guess, if you know the English names for the letters!
I don't think it's particularly American; people these days read at a lower level around the world. Language aside, most bookstores in Europe and the US have a fair bit in common.
The history of Soviet electronics manufacturing is fascinating, but there are some huge differences and I actually don't think the private sector is the largest. One is the pace and type of innovation. In the 70s and 80s the landscape was incredibly dynamic and technology went through several huge changes. If you wanted to run a clone of the US tech industry then, you would need a distributed, dynamic effort across many fields and not a top-down directed Manhattan Project. In 2025 we do have rapid technological change, but things are much more consolidated. In terms of strategically important recent innovations I can only think of EUV and AI. That's much more Manhattan-Project-able.
The other difference - which is even more significant - is that China is already far ahead in advanced manufacturing. The US was lightyears ahead of the Soviets in advanced manufacturing, which is what allowed us to win in the 70s and 80s. Now, we're so far behind it's not even funny. Sure, the West still makes some ultra-precise machines for EUV, but look where most of the components in those machines are made...
At the start of the microchip age, the US wasn't that far ahead. The techniques for manufacturing microchips weren't anything special and the Soviets could do so easily. The problem was the top-down mandate to clone, not lack of internal capability.
I don't know when you want to define as the start of the microchip age (50s? 60s?) but the Soviets were always behind the Americans in advanced manufacturing. In 1931 Stalin said "We are 50–100 years behind the advanced countries" [1.] In WW2 the Soviets relied on the US for advanced machine tools and in 1943 Stalin said: "The most important things in this war are the machines.... The United States is a country of machines. Without the machines we received through Lend-Lease, we would have lost the war." Khrushchev echoed this in his 1964 memoirs and there is a 1963 recording of Zhukov concurring. Now onto the 50s; the US invents NC machines, transistor manufacturing, chemical processing, miniaturization. The Soviets really only have the lead here in a few metal-related subjects: titanium production and rocket engine metallurgy. This is probably the closest the Soviets came; at this point they did indeed mass produce more tonnage of simple heavy machinery, but cannot mass-produce almost _anything_ cutting edge; look at their cars or consumer electronics of this time period. Onto the sixties; now the gap widens once more, the US pulls far ahead with ICs, microelectronics, CNC manufacturing, advanced alloys and composites, extreme precision manufacturing and precision manufacturing on a large scale. Look at the Saturn V vs the N1 or anything else in the aerospace/space industry at the time; the US was lightyears ahead. They could do things the Soviets could not even dream about. By the 70s the game was lost entirely; the US had advanced electronics manufacturing on a massive scale, laser cutting, even wider deployment of CAD/CAM, and was building the Space Shuttle. The Soviets essentially stagnated and were relegated to making cheap copies years later that looked similar but didn't work well in practice; see the Buran, TU-144, etc.
The reality is that the Soviets never really managed cutting-edge mass manufacturing. There are only a few countries that have: first Britain from the screw-cutting lathe in 1800, then the US, then later Japan, Germany, China, Taiwan and South Korea. In 225 years it's a fairly short list of countries, and most only made the list for a few decades!
The closest the Soviets ever came, of course, was aerospace, but to use that as an example of advanced manufacturing leadership would be a stretch. Sputnik was impressive, but advanced manufacturing it was certainly not; it was a simple sphere with a simple radio transmitter. Look at the tolerances, finishes, materials, manufacturing methods, etc of N1 vs Saturn V, Buran vs the Space Shuttle, TU-144 vs the Concorde.
Depends on the specific issue, but race would be an interesting one. For most of recorded history people had a much different view of the “other”, more xenophobic than racist.
This discussion comes up from time to time on HN. I actually think the country _has_ accomplished a lot given their geopolitical situation. Just to list a few things in the 21st century: 1) they had years of (at times fairly successful) proxy wars with three of the most militarily powerful US allies until the recent collapse, 2) a nuclear program, 3) the largest ballistic missile attack in history against the US, and 4) the most significant development in modern warfare (the Shahed drone.) Imagine any other relatively poor country, sanctioned and hated by the West, with substantial brain drain, ruled by an anti-Western theocracy for nearly fifty years; they wouldn’t manage a tenth of that. Imagine what they could do if they set down their weapons…
probably less, your examples are related to weapons and an arms industry innovation is accelerated by sanctions and boycott. This has happened to the Israeli weapons industry due to lack of access to weapons especially in the 1960s and 1970s
I can't stand the conflation of "satisfied" and "happy." It's insane. There is more happiness in one Zimbabwean (country "happiness" rank: 143) than in one hundred Icelanders (country "happiness" rank: 2, worldwide antidepressant consumption rank: 1.) Go stand in a crowd of people and count the fucking smiles and the fucking laughter.
It is all part of this broader wave of newspeak. If you can quite literally redefine happiness, you can redefine anything. Nothing has meaning anymore. You will live alone, you will consume antidepressants, you will be protected from the sunlight, you will not smile, you will not laugh, and you will be happy.
This hits the nail on the head. The happiest people I've met in my life, and I've been literally around the world, are in some of the poorest "developing" countries. Their basic needs were met, food and shelter, at least for the day. But they didn't have much more, except their friends, family, and the nature around them - forests, rivers, mountains and ocean.
The saddest people I've seen were in the richest countries, like the U.S. and Germany. Yes, the homeless population, I've met them too - but more surprisingly, the wealthy ruling class. They've conquered the land, covered it with concrete and asphalt, colonized their own public, produce and broadcast mass media entertainment, and command the largest militaries. Yet their culture has clearly devolved and degenerated, propped up by drugs, cosmetic surgery, nice clothes, nice houses, nice cars. But it's not enough to fill that emptiness inside.
It's a simplification of course, there are many very miserable poor people, that's the base majority of humanity, on whom the pyramid of modern civilization is built. But I have no respect for those at the top, the self-styled kings of today. They're deeply unhappy people who are not fit to lead the world, much less themselves.
What always surprises me is that a lot of the most comfortably well off people in the US, and a lesser extend the UK, seem to live in a state of perennial fear.
I agree. I'm interested to hear other's thoughts on happiness without contention vs contention without happiness. To me, the former "feels" preferable, but I'm not sure whether it actually is.
The part was claimed to be ABS-CF. UK AAIB tested the part and found it to have a Tg of approximately 53C. The Tg of ABS is far higher, around 100C. I suspect that the part may have been accidentally printed with PLA-CF (which has a Tg of approximately 55C.)
The original part was fiberglass/epoxy with the epoxy having a Tg of 84C.
HDT does, kind of, but that’s already covered by the load being defined for the various conditions. HDT is always defined at a specific load so it also does not change with load (since load is fixed).
Isn't Tg a poorly defined metric? It seems like thermoplastics will lose their strength as temperature goes up and there's no abrupt transition where there's a near step-change in behavior
I doubt there is any form of ABS filament with such a low glass transition temperature. As the original poster said, it was probably PLA.
I find it odd that the report didn't name the manufacturer of the part, and that the part was not listed on the LAA modification form. There can't be many people selling such parts at airshows, so you'd think the investigators would have been able to find out who made it.
Now I wonder if the previous owner (who installed the new fuel system) printed the part himself, then claimed he bought it overseas to avoid blame.
Maybe "load" includes the heat that comes from the changes forces from the vibrations? But even then, that would be additional heat sources, rather than a change in the temperature where it happens.
Polycarbonate shows little change vs pressure [1]:
Glass-liquid transition temperature, which is approximately where plastics and other materials change from hard and relatively brittle into flexible and rubbery.
As the other comments here noted, it doesn’t exactly mean that the material is safe to use for a rigid part below that temperature, and the transition extends over a range in temperatures, but it does give you a rough idea about the behavior of a material at various temperatures.
>Did you know Orange dash error lights are non critical?
That's not even remotely true for most cars. One of the most critical alarms you can get in a car is a flashing check engine light, which are usually orange.
I’ve driven a lot of different cars around the world and nearly all check engine lights are orange. Almost all the Google image search results are orange. To be sure I checked the most popular ICE car models worldwide: Toyota Corolla, Toyota Rav4, Ford F-series, Honda CR-V, Chevrolet Silverado. All of those use orange. In fact, the only red CEL that I’ve ever seen is on Minis and BMWs - not the actual physical indicator (which is orange!) but the mini-LED screen warnings.
That works, but be sure to use a wool or cotton cloth.
——-
The proper method to deal with an oil fire: turn off the heat and smother the fire with a metal lid, metal baking sheet, or wool/cotton cloth. Do not use a fire blanket made of polyester or nylon; it will melt and burn producing toxic smoke. Do not use flour or any other flammable/explosive powder. Do not use water, as the liquid water will get into the oil and expand 1600 times its original size as it turns to steam; this rapid expansion will fling burning oil everywhere. If you do use an extinguisher, be careful not to spread the burning oil.
For small NON-OIL, non-electrical fires, smothering with a wet non-synthetic cloth is the best way to stop the fire.
I've seen a lot of AI-generated PRs but I think this one is actually a very unique and interesting case. Most of these are written by novices, don't work, are for less-technical projects, and there isn't any real conversation or changing opinions. This was completely different; it was complex and actually worked, the poster Joel Reymont has 30 years of software experience and not exactly on simple bullshit either (from what I can tell, he was writing device drivers 20 years ago and had an HN account "wagerlabs" since 2008.) There was a real discussion here (the OCaml maintainers had an impressive amount of patience!) and the poster eventually laid out his side coherently with a human-written comment and changed his mind about contributing to OSS with AI.
Don't get me wrong, I still think these AI-generated PRs are a total waste of time for everyone involved and a scourge on OSS maintainers. As it stands today I haven't seen any serious project that's able to use them productively. This PR was still 13k largely incomprehensible lines with several glaring errors. And yet this specific PR is still not like the others!
He didn't even realize (and apparently doesn't care) that portions of the code were attributed to another author.
> Here's my question: why did the files that you submitted name Mark Shinwell as the author?
> Beats me. AI decided to do so and I didn't question it.
---
Maybe he is having some kind of mental episode, is trolling, or genuinely doesn't care. But I would hardly hold this up as an example of an intelligent attempt at an AI generated PR.
reply