Great Quotes δ' : Being laconic is being philosophical

"Let me implore you to seek the spiritual guidance of the ministers of religion; and let your repentance be as humble and thorough as your crime was great. Do not attempt to hide its enormity from yourself; think of the cruelty and wickedness of seizing nearly a thousand fellow beings, who never did you harm, and thrusting them beneath the decks of a small ship, beneath a burning tropical sun, to die in of disease or suffocation, or be transported to distant lands, and be consigned, they and their posterity, to a fate far more cruel than death."

"Think of the sufferings of the unhappy beings whom you crowded on the Erie; of their helpless agony and terror as you took them from their native land; and especially of their miseries on the place of your capture to Monrovia! Remember that you showed mercy to none, carrying off as you did not only those of your own sex, but women and helpless children."

"Do not flatter yourself that because they belonged to a different race from yourself, your guilt is therefore lessened – rather fear that it is increased. In the just and generous heart, the humble and the weak inspire compassion, and call for pity and forbearance. As you are soon to pass into the presence of that God of the black man as well as the white man, who is no respecter of persons, do not indulge for a moment the thought that he hears with indifference the cry of the humblest of his children. Do not imagine that because others shared in the guilt of this enterprise, yours, is thereby diminished; but remember the awful admonition of your Bible, 'Though hand joined in hand, the wicked shall not go unpunished.'"

--Judge William D. Shipman, sentencing Nathaniel Gordon to death for slave trading, November 9, 1861

"I believe I am kindly enough in nature, and can be moved to pity and to pardon the perpetrator of almost the worst crime that the mind of man can conceive or the arm of man can execute; but any man, who, for paltry gain and stimulated only by avarice, can rob Africa of her children to sell into interminable bondage, I never will pardon."

--President Abraham Lincoln, rejecting pleas for a pardon
 
"Airplanes are becoming far too complex to fly. Pilots are no longer needed, but rather computer scientists from MIT. I see it all the time in many products. Always seeking to go one unnecessary step further, when often old and simpler is far better. Split second decisions are needed, and the complexity creates danger. All of this for great cost yet very little gain. I don’t know about you, but I don’t want Albert Einstein to be my pilot. I want great flying professionals that are allowed to easily and quickly take control of a plane!"

- the smartest thing Donald Trump has ever said. I know it's not a high bar, but he is absolutely correct and insightful here.
 
Least of all that he references Albert Einstein when alluding to computer scientists from MIT.
 
"Airplanes are becoming far too complex to fly. Pilots are no longer needed, but rather computer scientists from MIT. I see it all the time in many products. Always seeking to go one unnecessary step further, when often old and simpler is far better. Split second decisions are needed, and the complexity creates danger. All of this for great cost yet very little gain. I don’t know about you, but I don’t want Albert Einstein to be my pilot. I want great flying professionals that are allowed to easily and quickly take control of a plane!"

- the smartest thing Donald Trump has ever said. I know it's not a high bar, but he is absolutely correct and insightful here.

No, he really isn't. He has no idea what he's talking about.

The 737 max has a larger and more fuel efficient engine than it's predecessor. In order to accommodate this, the weight distribution of the plane was changed such that during take off the nose of the plane may shift upward. This can cause the plane to stall. To fix this, Boeing developed a system called MCAS. It's pretty simple, if the pitch gets too high, it pushes the nose down to restore it to safe levels.

Since this ideally wouldn't happen much, and if it does shouldn't even be noticed by the pilot, Boeing said the pilots did not need to be retrained for this aircraft. Furthermore, they continue to call planes 737, even though they have almost no resemblance to the original 737, simply so pilots don't have to be retrained in a new aircraft type. This is so Boeing can sell more airplanes, it's harder to pitch the idea that airlines need to retrain and re-certify their pilots for a new plane.

For the plane crash in October, the pilot didn't know about this new system. It triggered due to a faulty sensor reading, and continued to try to push the nose of the plane down. The pilot didn't know what was happening and couldn't override the system by simply pulling on the yoke. The pilot must trim the aircraft manually to override the system, but it will reactive again in 5 seconds. There is a separate switch to deactivate it entirely.

The idea that you need to be a computer scientist (from MIT?) to understand this new system is silly, it's pretty simple. The idea that the changes they made to increase fuel efficiency were unnecessary is also kind of silly. The problem is simply that the pilots were not educated about this feature because Bowing wanted to make more money. Secondly the design is questionable since a single sensor failure can break the system. That is pretty much all there is to this.
 
Least of all that he references Albert Einstein when alluding to computer scientists from MIT.

There really is no metaphor that you guys won't take literally when Trump says it. :rolleyes:

The 737 max has a larger and more fuel efficient engine than it's predecessor. In order to accommodate this, the weight distribution of the plane was changed such that during take off the nose of the plane may shift upward. This can cause the plane to stall. To fix this, Boeing developed a system called MCAS. It's pretty simple, if the pitch gets too high, it pushes the nose down to restore it to safe levels.

Since this ideally wouldn't happen much, and if it does shouldn't even be noticed by the pilot, Boeing said the pilots did not need to be retrained for this aircraft. Furthermore, they continue to call planes 737, even though they have almost no resemblance to the original 737, simply so pilots don't have to be retrained in a new aircraft type. This is so Boeing can sell more airplanes, it's harder to pitch the idea that airlines need to retrain and re-certify their pilots for a new plane.

For the plane crash in October, the pilot didn't know about this new system. It triggered due to a faulty sensor reading, and continued to try to push the nose of the plane down. The pilot didn't know what was happening and couldn't override the system by simply pulling on the yoke. The pilot must trim the aircraft manually to override the system, but it will reactive again in 5 seconds. There is a separate switch to deactivate it entirely.

The idea that you need to be a computer scientist (from MIT?) to understand this new system is silly, it's pretty simple. The idea that the changes they made to increase fuel efficiency were unnecessary is also kind of silly. The problem is simply that the pilots were not educated about this feature because Bowing wanted to make more money. Secondly the design is questionable since a single sensor failure can break the system. That is pretty much all there is to this.

The point was that these automated systems are causing pilots to rely on them and weakening their ability to respond to danger, which is also the conclusion of the FAA. I don't know if that was the cause of this specific crash, but Trump was entirely correct to highlight the problem (and to point out that it exists in other industries as well).

So it's a story about why capitalism is bad, repacked as a story about why modernity is bad?

Not modernity (although that is pretty bad) but modernism.
 
Last edited:
You are missing the point that these automated systems are causing pilots to rely on them and weakening their ability to respond to danger, which is also the conclusion of the FAA. I don't know if that was the cause of this specific crash, but Trump was entirely correct to highlight the problem (and to point out that this exists in other industries as well).

Becoming overreliant on automated systems is certainly an issue but it doesn't seem particularly related to Trump's tweet. Additionally my understanding is that commercial flying is getting safer over time in spite of this problem so you can draw your own conclusions from that fact...
 
Becoming overreliant on automated systems is certainly an issue but it doesn't seem particularly related to Trump's tweet. Additionally my understanding is that commercial flying is getting safer over time in spite of this problem so you can draw your own conclusions from that fact...

He seems to be condemning overoptimization, which is the root of the problem.

As for the increasing safety of airplanes, I believe it's that the extreme danger of flight provides strong skin in the game (as failure is always disastrous or potentially so, and there is little way to disguise it). Few other industries would be regulated intelligently enough for this sort of creeping dependence on automation to be pointed out.
 
Last edited:
Well, he comes right and says the airplanes are "too complex to fly" and the reference to MIT computer scientists would suggest that what he's decrying is the extensive use of electronic systems in controlling the aircraft, not "overoptimization".
 
Well, he comes right and says the airplanes are "too complex to fly"

He's pointing to a trend. Again, no limit to how literally each and every word of his is taken.

(I assume he knows that planes are still literally flying. :rolleyes:)

and the reference to MIT computer scientists would suggest that what he's decrying is the extensive use of electronic systems in controlling the aircraft, not "overoptimization".

Hard to get more explicit than: "I see it all the time in many products. Always seeking to go one unnecessary step further, when often old and simpler is far better."
 
Last edited:
Again, there seems to be no limit to how literally each and every word of his is taken.

From my point of view, there seems to be no limit to the lengths people who like him will go to twist the plain meaning of his words. But whatevs.
 
There really is no metaphor that you guys won't take literally when Trump says it.

A bad metaphor is a bad metaphor, no matter who says it.
 
From my point of view, there seems to be no limit to the lengths people who like him will go to twist the plain meaning of his words.

The projection is strong in this one.

A bad metaphor is a bad metaphor, no matter who says it.

It's crude, sure, but he's using Einstein as a shorthand for 'theoretical scientist' as opposed to 'practiced specialist'.
 
People are more accepting of accidents caused by people than computers. I'm not sure if that is a bug or a feature. There might be some deep wisdom in that, but automated systems seem to consistently result in greater safety and reliability than the alternative.

And yeah last I checked they don't know the cause of the second crash, but the circumstances were similar to the first one. If it is the same cause, it's a cause of an automated system in place to equalize the effects of an optimization. Optimization and electronic control systems go hand in hand.
 
Hard to get more explicit than: "I see it all the time in many products. Always seeking to go one unnecessary step further, when often old and simpler is far better."
Explicit? He mentions no products, none of those ‘steps’, does not describe what ‘old and simpler’ is, and doesn't describe how or why it is ‘far better’.

He's just repeating his electoral pitch of ‘old and simple’ over and over, the rest is stuff he can pretend he never said whenever he's called out on it, and will shamelessly cop to not kaving a clue about it and will at the same time defer to and disparage generic unnamed ‘experts’.
 
Last edited:
Explicit? He mentions no products, none of those ‘steps’, does describe what ‘old and simpler’ is, and doesn't describe how or why it is ‘far better’.

He's just repeating his electoral pitch of ‘old and simple’ over and over

I give up. There's no reaching you people.
 
I remember that a couple months ago you just started posting political stuff, made up my answer in advance, and then dismissed that answer as ‘anti-Semitism!!’ before the mods clamped down on the discussion… so maybe you could just learn to stay within the bounds of reality and argue in good faith.
 
"Airplanes are becoming far too complex to fly. Pilots are no longer needed, but rather computer scientists from MIT. I see it all the time in many products. Always seeking to go one unnecessary step further, when often old and simpler is far better. Split second decisions are needed, and the complexity creates danger. All of this for great cost yet very little gain. I don’t know about you, but I don’t want Albert Einstein to be my pilot. I want great flying professionals that are allowed to easily and quickly take control of a plane!"

- the smartest thing Donald Trump has ever said. I know it's not a high bar, but he is absolutely correct and insightful here.

Nah
 
Top Bottom