Hacker News Reader

HNHacker News

Top New Best Ask Show Jobs

Comment by akerro | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

akerro·

I'm personally against it because I don't want anything to fall down into my garden or on my head in case of a failure.

View on HN

I'm pretty sure this is a literal "Not In My Back Yard" comment.

I'm okay with it. Yes it will be for the 1% for a long time, but so were trains and cars and airlines...

But how does this system scale? Thousands of these simultaneously in the air above cities? The noise must be quite something.

I think it's a novel helicopter replacement idea, but not really anything for mass transportation.

These would be extremely quiet while cruising but likely pretty loud on take off. The latter is moot since that's happening at an airport.

They're supposed to be able to land and take off buildings I thought?

Although autonomous doesn't solve the failure problem, it does (for the most) part solve the crazy/incompetent problem of the past, future visions of flying cars for everybody.

You realize someone can probably crash their car into your garden, right?

Can't you say the same about helicopters and airplanes?

Yup. But probability is close to Zero.

Do planes often fall on your head?

Nope. Given the number of planes in the world the probability of that happening is close to Zero. But a lot of birds has pooped on my head. The more KittyHwaks and other mass used flying cars in the air the more the probability of one falling on your head.

I don't think it would be acceptable for an aircraft like this to have a failure rate comparable to a birds poop rate.

> Do planes often fall on your head?

No, but once per week I see a broken car on a motorway on my commute.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com