The FCC and the FAA are two federal agencies that really don't want to mess with, so I hope for their sake they didn't actually spoof it. (.... I wish there were an FBB as well)
Seems like it wasn't actually spoofed radio signals, but spoofed data collection uploaded to adsbexchange. Still seems unlikely to make the FAA happy, but not as bad. I assume air traffic controllers aren't relying on adsbexchange?
There are non-radar towers that don't have scopes. They may have a traffic display, or maybe not. They might choose to use a public ADS-B aggregator site because it gives them situational awareness, but they don't use it to provide radar services to aircraft. That's my understanding from listening to a lot podcast episodes with air traffic controllers, anyway. I think it's an unofficial, non-FAA approved kind of thing that can make their jobs easier.
> They might choose to use a public ADS-B aggregator site because it gives them situational awareness
I do not understand what the upside is, aside from saving a tiny amount of effort and cost -- they could get the same data with more reliability by just running their own ADS-B receiver, without having a dependency on a third-party.
> they could get the same data with more reliability by just running their own ADS-B receiver, without having a dependency on a third-party.
Setting up an ADS-B receiver is indeed very cheap. Less than 100$. That's what many people, both aviation enthusiasts and ham radio operators, do for fun.
The problem is, do that on an airport? You'll now need permits to install the antenna (needs to be covered in the lightning protection system and even if it's just a passive receiver probably someone needs to sign off on an antenna being added). Fire code means you'll need approval and specialized people to run the cable (you need to drill holes in fire walls). Maybe there's some law or regulation requiring approval or causing a paper trail (e.g. in Germany, all electrical appliances have to be isolation-tested and visually inspected every two years by an electrician). Doing that the proper way is an awful lot of work. And by that point, someone will notice "hey, a Raspberry Pi? An RTL-SDR stick from eBay? No way that is certified to be used in a safety critical environment", killing off the project or requiring a certified device costing orders of magnitude more money.
In contrast, a privately owned laptop, tablet or phone with the Flightaware app? No one will give a shit about it unless someone relies on FA too much, causes an incident and that is found out.
The original point was that you become reliant on a public service, probably run by volunteers, for something halfway critical to your operation. Doing it yourself is easy and then you control the reliability, not someone else.
> I'd set it up very near the airport but not on it
The problem is, you need to have a good height for the antenna - "height is might" in radio, particularly above VHF bands. I actually can see this with my own ADS-B receiver - I'm in a valley and precisely can see that effect when plotting received packets.
I get good distance from my ground level antenna, but while I'm in a valley, it's very wide and long. My assumption is that most airports are going to be in fairly flat areas.
Upside may be just that the equivalent first-party system doesn't exist or performs worse? ATC tower isn't a SCIF, they probably get their real-time news from Twitter like everyone else, too.
Imagine your boss doesn’t like you looking at ADS-B sites because it’s not data from an FAA approved system but as long as you’re discreet and not actually breaking a reg they don’t yell at you. Then they come in and see that you installed an antenna, RTL-SDR, and raspberry pi in the tower.
Wow, someone in the github comments[1] noticed that one of the bug numbers assigned internally for the issue matches to the day the number of days the driver would stay up.
Imo programming is fairly different between vibes based not looking at it at all and using AI to complete tasks. I still feel engaged when I'm more actively "working with" the AI as opposed to a more hands off "do X for me".
I don't know that the same makes as much sense to evaluate in an essay context, because it's not really the same. I guess the equivalent would be having an existing essay (maybe written by yourself, maybe not) and using AI to make small edits to it like "instead of arguing X, argue Y then X" or something.
Interestingly I find myself doing a mix of both "vibing" and more careful work, like the other day I used it to update some code that I cared about and wanted to understand better that I was more engaged in, but also simultaneously to make a dashboard that I used to look at the output from the code that I didn't care about at all so long as it worked.
I suspect that the vibe coding would be more like drafting an essay from the mental engagement POV.
I find it very useful for code comprehension. For writing code it still struggles (at least codex) and sometimes I feel I could have written the code myself faster rather than correct it every time it does something wrong.
Jeremy Howard argues that we should use LLMs to help us learn, once you let it reason for you then things go bad and you start getting cognitive debt. I agree with this.
AI is not a great partner to code with. For me I just use it to do some boilerplates and fill in the tedious gaps. Even for translations its bad if you know both languages. The biggest issues is that AI constantly tries to steer you wrong, its very subtle in programming that you only realize it a week later when you get stuck in a vibe coding quagmire.
shrug YMMV. I was definitely a bit of of a luddite for a while, and I still definitely don't consider myself an "AI person", but I've found them useful. I can have them do legitimately useful things, with varying degrees of supervision.
I wouldn't ask Cursor to go off and write software from scratch that I need to take ownership of, but I'm reasonably comfortable at this point having it make small changes under direction and with guidance.
The project I mentioned above was adding otel tracing to something, and it wrote a tracae viewing UI that has all the features I need and works well, without me having to spend hours getting it up set up.
For the 80s it was intense yes. Watching it now that same tension feels milder but I guess that's because every single TV show now has to have constant explosions, car crashes etc in it.
There is actually gunfire in it and a teenager dies in the beginning but it still feels less intense due to the 80s pace IMO.
I've always liked the idea of intelligence in the autonomous ships of the Revelation Space universe. Little agents reporting to progressively more intelligent and higher level ones.
Hm... I don't know that I buy your argument, since just as you point out, traditional jets are already very optimized. One would assume there's less slack to pick up.
Fuel is a huge component of the cost of operating an airline, sometimes the largest component. LNG is a much cheaper fuel, so I can see it being adopted for mainstream aviation eventually. Existing jets could technically be converted, though the conservative nature of aviation would demand many years of testing before use on commercial flights.
It's also a pathway to incremental decarbonizing of aviation. LNG releases less CO2 per unit energy than oil, and methane can be produced biologically or synthetically which offers a path to total (net) decarbonization.
> Even if fossil LNG is used, it releases less CO2 per unit energy.
However released methane has a significantly worse greenhouse effect than CO2 (80x over 20 years, 28 over 100, 8 over 500 — this decreases because methane has an atmospheric lifetime of 12 years and decays to CO2). So leakage in the LNG chain is a massive problem.
Right, but are leakage rates high enough to make this a concern? Every methane molecule leaked is a methane molecule not burnt, so there's already a strong profit maximisation incentive to leak as little as possible (even before considering loftier goals like workplace safety or externally imposed regulation).
A major difference is: there is an economic incentive to not leak methane since a leak is wasted fuel, while the economic incentive for CO2 is to make more of it.
> A major difference is: there is an economic incentive to not leak methane since a leak is wasted fuel
That economic incentive only goes so far given the entire point of the discussion: LNG is cheap. Per the IEA's recent "Assessing Emissions from LNG Supply and Abatement Options":
> Our analysis estimates total GHG emissions from the LNG supply chain are around 350 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (Mt CO2-eq) (this excludes emissions from combustion of the natural gas at the point of use). Around 70% of this is in the form of CO2 emissions which are either combusted or vented, and the remaining 30% is methane that escapes, unburnt, into the atmosphere.
> ...
> Globally, the average GHG emissions intensity of delivered LNG is just under 20 g CO2-eq/MJ, compared with an average of 12 g CO2/MJ for natural gas supply overall.
Which still puts it behind the 787 let alone the generation that comes next.. But you aren't going to succeed at making any new inventory without every possible efficiency improvement to drive sales and retirement of older inventory.
reply