97
considering the vast majority of drivers can barely handle two axes without being a danger to others, adding in more is a very bad idea
It's pretty hard to hold two axes while driving.
Yaw and roll would be too much.
well really it would be pitch that's new. Cars control yaw (tire scrub), motorcycles and bikes additionally control roll (leaning).
Gonna be so fun trying to teach your average burger about elevator control authority versus airspeed
Ngl this one seems like it has relatively simple analogies. Flying at low speeds looks similar to driving in low traction conditions: need to make larger control inputs for same effect, but too large and you'll just stall/skid. Available control choices are narrowed. Of course most people are bad winter drivers and you need to practice to get good at it.
3D "rules of the road" would be much funnier. Getting smashed to pieces by a flying Escalade that blew the 8-way stop sign
I'm certain that I understand the Bayesian False Confidence theorem correctly, and it says that the more you increase your degree of freedom (axes), the lower the risk of collision, so jot that down.
We have flying cars... They are called helicopters... The new ones are just oversized drones (helicopters with more propellers).
Besides, Joe Average Potato-brain can't drive for shit and now you want 2 tonnes of shit falling out of the sky when some idiot fucks up?
Car crashes are one of the leading causes of death for several demographics. You could easily argue we should still be carrying flags.
Oh my god I love tiny helicopter quacks.
The forum changed its theme and everything is fucked but its one of my favorite internet interactions of all time.
That's right up there with the bodybuilding.com thread where the guy couldn't understand that 7/2=3.5
I hate HOA busybodies as much as the next guy, but those libertarians are crazy. They actually expected OP to do nothing about his next door neighbor trying to teach himself to fly a helicopter. They were saying he should wait until the rotors are flying onto his property, otherwise he hates freedom.
My favorite detail is that he spent $40k of his $100k scratch off lotto winnings on it.
The whole story is just unbelievable at every step, yet OP continues to provide proof to counter it.
Stockton Rush energy
Move fast and lithobreak the helicopter I made out of scrap in my garage.
They also have moral obligations to make their own deep sea submersibles out of bargain basement carbon fiber.
One commenter “you could power them with a generator”
Ok yeah let me get my Mr Fusion hooked right up, jeez why didn’t I think of that
You want flying cars. I want flying trains. We are not the same.
flying trains
maglev coming for ya 
This is why flying cars are one of my least favorite sci-fi tropes. Clearest example of just replicating the present world but in a futuristic way.
On that note, apparently flying cars are one of Trump's 2024 campaign promises.
the flying car already exists! it's called the hot air balloon, and it is piloted only by those of upstanding moral character.
This is why flying cars are one of my least favorite sci-fi tropes. Clearest example of just replicating the present world but in a futuristic way.
I really hate "futurology" that just involves the same stagnant and unjust and ruinous status quo but with more bazinga toys and maybe immortality and superpowers. A glaring example of that was when 
posted a picture that he said was his vision for Mars. It was just a big many-laned highway with cars on it with a red lens filter. 
My biggest related pet peeve is liberal sci-fi. When I'm reading a book about some way far-future people in deep space and they casually bring up money, or a recent war, it just completely takes me out of it. Like, motherfuckers, how did your species survive this long? Shouldn't you have outgrown that shit by now?
In the fantastical far future, your protagonist may have a space truck and goes space trucking to pay bills. 
Moral duty to build a flying machine to defy an oppressive regime you say?
planes were as dangerous as cars they wouldn't be allowed to exist.
Hmmm, that doesn’t say anything about cars, does it? 🚙⃠
Commercial airlines are like trains - that's why they're safe.
Small personal aircraft are like cars - they crash ALL THE FUCKING TIME.
they're the most irritating dorks on the planet but I honestly love libertarians. their fantasy world is so whimsical.
Lol, had me in the first half of the title. Thought they were calling for an airborne people's war.
Anyone who believes flying cars are even remotely possible has obviously spent zero time at all looking into basically anything, from the technology to the FAA regulations that make it illegal (love seeing these techbro morons think they can skirt around regulations only to immediately be hit with an illegal charter fine and shut down). Without fail, their triumphant “certification” is a restricted/experimental airworthiness certificate that you can’t see for an aircraft that nobody has seen either. What this means is they can’t do anything for hire and can’t have more than six passengers among a host of other shit. They also cannot operate internationally. Anyone and their mother can get an experimental airworthiness certificate.
Have they considered that you still need to be licensed to fly, how expensive and difficult that is? Seriously, “airmen practical tests” (as they call them) are fucking hard! It’s not like a drivers license where they hand them out like candy, you have to actually work for it. The standards document is over 100 pages and you need to ace every single task. A single mistake is an automatic failure and the test costs 800 bucks a pop! And did I mention that examiners are few and far between and you’ll likely be waiting two months between scheduling and taking the test?
And you can’t just get in a plane and fly like you get in a car and drive. There is so much paperwork and logging shit and fixing and checking that needs to be done, and if you want to leave the US you better have five hours to spare pouring over the exact obscure documents you need to fill out and spend hours on hold to speak to a customs agent.
So much convenience!
And let’s call this what it is, a blatant attempt to circumvent aviation safety regulations with their smarmy lawyering bullshit. I’ve known a few FAA inspectors in my life and they don’t fuck around. There’s been a thousand techbros before them that have tried going “well ackshually” only to be told to shut the fuck up and to take their VC money from whence they came.
Anyone who believes flying cars are even remotely possible has obviously spent zero time at all looking into basically anything
Then you have the ultra galaxy brained techbros that buy into Uber hype and believe flying driverless cars are right around the corner. 
flying driverless cars are right around the corner.
14 CFR Part 119.23, Part 121, Part 135 and FAA AC 91-37B, AC 120-12A, and FlyteNow Inc v. FAA would like to have a word
Carrying paying passengers from point to point without an air carrier certificate is called ✨Illegal Air Charter✨
Operating an aircraft (the operator need not pilot the aircraft) carrying passengers who cover or split, any costs, or provide any form of compensation (which includes pilot experience in and of itself or even having dinner paid for), without traveling for a common purpose, without an air carrier certificate is called ✨Illegal Air Charter✨
Obtaining a certificate entails dropping six figures minimum, years of red tape, establishing rigorous inspection, maintenance, and training programs and, get this, having a pilot. In practice this amounts to dropping seven to eight figures on a yearly basis. What this also means is that your shitty startup is now just as expensive as, but more inconvenient and less safe than just chartering an airplane.
Do these people know how many rules a commercial operator needs to follow? It’s an incredibly complex process that I highly doubt any Silicon Valley dipshit could wrap their smoothbrains around.
Do these people know how many rules a commercial operator needs to follow?
Techbros tend to just ignore rules or actively lobby to destroy those rules whenever they can. I'm glad air laws and regulations are strong as you say.
Yeah, they basically own the Bay Area municipal governments, but trying to fuck the FAA over is just not something you do. They hold all the cards and pissing them off will end your aviation hopes and dreams instantly.
Techbros have also been having trouble finding people willing to work for them after the last startup got fined into bankruptcy and their pilots got their licenses revoked and careers ended. Some of those revocations were eventually reversed but they’ll still be answering “yes” to “has your certificate ever been revoked or suspended for any reason?” I don’t think I need to explain why this gets any job application you ever send in the future auto-rejected. You are gambling with your livelihood by working with these companies. Almost everyone has done the math in their heads and it’s not worth it.
I’ve known some of the guys who work at the regional office overseeing the Bay Area. They have the same opinion on Silicon Valley techbros as your average Hexbear tankie. It’s like whack-a-mole with all the fly by night aviation startups here. Going after these startup dipshits is a favorite pastime for inspectors. What confuses me is what these techbro assholes think they can achieve by deliberately provoking those who have the unassailable authority to shut them down at any time, entirely at their discretion. All these startups are basically in a constant state of spitting in inspectors’ faces.
I do have to emphasize the “unassailable authority” part. Even if these techbro clowns tried applying for an air carrier certificate, they probably wouldn’t get one just because of the enmity that exists between them and the inspectors. They don’t need a reason to deny your application.
They like to brag about being “certified by the FAA”. The office does issue airworthiness certificates, but only a restricted version that basically limits you to circling over the Nevada dessert for 30 minutes at a time. These are issued not as an affirmation of the safety of the aircraft, but as a license for you to kill yourself, and only yourself in your death-contraption. The FAA doesn’t care if you jeopardize only your own safety. The issue is that these startups aren’t eccentric hobbyists, they’re targeting the general public. And doing so immediately puts you under the microscope. A certification isn’t an endorsement, and in this case, the FAA can’t stop you from getting yourself killed, so they basically have to issue the certificate. I wouldn’t really consider being allowed to annoy insects in the dessert with aircraft noise a stunning victory.
And wrt the lobbying, they’re delusional if they think they can out-lobby the airlines, which have an interest in them continuing to get shut down.
The process usually goes something like this:
-Startup tries skirting the rules
-Gets shut down by the FAA
-Startup tries to challenge it in court
-Loses, and faces additional ego-based punishment for pissing the judge off with their tired old bullshit
-Investors flee and move onto the next illegal startup
-FAA adds startup to their enforcement division trophy collection
Rinse and repeat.
Yours is the most 
post I've seen in a while. I truly feel happier having read it. Thank you.
rule: Never get in a helicopter
Perhaps the generator could be on the ground?
lmao. this must be a bit
This was basically the hovercars in a driving game, Quarantine. It was super dystopian, would not recommend.
No, hear me out. If there were personal dirigible the world would be a better place.
The laws which make this the case are equivalent to those which made people walk in front of early cars waving flags.
A good idea?
Dudes rock.
Are they related to that rock-brained goofball who decided to make his own one-man rocket that was nowt but a Wile. E. Coyote-style firework-with-a-chair?
this post was submitted on 08 Oct 2023
97 points (100.0% liked)
the_dunk_tank
15893 readers
568 users here now
It's the dunk tank.
This is where you come to post big-brained hot takes by chuds, libs, or even fellow leftists, and tear them to itty-bitty pieces with precision dunkstrikes.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No ableism of any kind (that includes stuff like libt*rd)
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.
Rule 8: The subject of a post cannot be low hanging fruit, that is comments/posts made by a private person that have low amount of upvotes/likes/views. Comments/Posts made on other instances that are accessible from hexbear are an exception to this. Posts that do not meet this requirement can be posted to !shitreactionariessay@lemmygrad.ml
Rule 9: if you post ironic rage bait im going to make a personal visit to your house to make sure you never make this mistake again
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS