Trouble is one can't fully escape us-east-1. Many services are centralized there like: S3, Organizations, Route53, Cloudfront, etc. It is THE main region, hence suffering the most outages, and more importantly, the most troubling outages.
The hypothetical plane can only carry a dozen people at a time and burns a lot more fuel per mile than a comparable subsonic aircraft, so the tickets will be very expensive. Most people will not be able to justify the cost, even most business travelers.
Unless the cost of oil goes down dramatically, the only way for hypersonic flight to become affordable for the masses is for new technology to achieve drastic fuel savings. If that happens, there would be no reason to oppose it any more than one might oppose "regular" air travel today.
Commercial airlines have an extremely strong incentive to reduce carbon emissions, more so than virtually any other industry. I wouldn't worry too much about aviation tech moving in the less efficient direction.
Except they didn't even correct correctly. GP said "We need to find ways for people to burn less carbon," which is totally correct. "Carbon" is being used as a mass noun.
I don't know if you are referring about my comment "fewer hydrocarbons", but it was a direct reference to the post I was referring to, "cool way to burn hydrocarbons". I wasn't trying to be pedantic or correcting anybody. Maybe I should have said less, but... I just didn't. The point is simply that higher efficiency doesn't directly equate to more usage; though it can in some cases.
Okay, but 9 Mach is a lot. And flying higher also burns more fuel to reach that altitude. Not sure which of the effects dominate though.
All in all, I'd be extremely surprised if this technology reduces fuel consumption.
The only mention in the text about fuel usage is that they need to use a special engine with lower fuel consumption to even be able to put people and equipment on the plane. Why don't regular jets have that problem? Because they don't consume that much fuel.
Of course it will be a circle jerk about how C is generally better because it is more simple. Then a bunch of people mentioning we should abandon C++ in favor of rust.
C is generally better because it doesn't treat you with kid gloves, if you don't know what you are doing you will get fucked in the ass. That said, any competent engineer would know what tool to use to solve a given problem. You don't use a sledge hammer to fix a watch.
C did it already in 1979, yet people keep ignoring it.
> Although the first edition of K&R described most of the rules that brought C's type structure to its present form, many programs written in the older, more relaxed style persisted, and so did compilers that tolerated it. To encourage people to pay more attention to the official language rules, to detect legal but suspicious constructions, and to help find interface mismatches undetectable with simple mechanisms for separate compilation, Steve Johnson adapted his pcc compiler to produce lint [Johnson 79b], which scanned a set of files and remarked on dubious constructions.
We've been here before with other aspects of human behaviour.
If you really don't want people to do it, make it impossible and then they can't. You can't write an integer overflow in WUFFS because that doesn't compile. You can't use your Google.com WebAuthn credentials to sign into fakegoogle.example, even if you really, really want to, even if you're 100% sure this is a good idea, it can't be done. Any time you stop short of this, you mustn't really want people to stop doing it and so they won't.
The next strongest defence, still not used often enough, is to make it very annoying to do things that are a bad idea. Default deny for example, the compiler obliges you to go in and explicitly allow the obviously bad thing you've done each and every single time you do it. A DLR train can be driven in fully manual mode instead of being automated, but it goes annoyingly slowly if you do that.
Linting is far below the visibility of even compiler warnings, most of your target audience will never see the message. It's not even "Do not look into laser with remaining eye" but more like a "Caution: Eye hazard" warning written inside the never-opened instruction manual.
Agreed, the only way to enforce something is to make part of the type system, and that is how we land on C folks complaining about straightjacket programming languages.
