Hacker News Reader

Comment by torginus | Hacker News Reader

Yet, that 80s CEO, practically a peasant by modern standards of pay, had the option to cross the Atlantic in a Mach 2 supersonic airliner. If that's not the most obvious demonstration of technological prowess, I don't know what is. In contrast, the F-35, believed to be the world's most advanced fighter jet today, has a top speed of Mach 1.6

Today's CEOs get a gold-plated sky bus.

View on HN

The Concorde was cramped. JFK to Heathrow took five hours (3 in the air, an hour in each airport) plus the time for first and last miles. JFK to Heathrow today is 7 to 8 hours with the same provisos.

If you're going to spend a quarter of the day travelling, why not spend a third of the day and do it more comfortably?

The F-35 isn't the fastest jet; fighter jets aren't business jets; apples are not rutabagas.

It's about pushing the envelope. If your technology is limited by certain physical constraints, then all of the things you make will end up being constrained by the same stuff.

After a short exploration you can reach the conclusion that nothing new is worth inventing any more.

Only by loosening those constraints can you make something that's meaningfully better.

The reason we don't have supersonic planes is that they're way too loud. The noise pollution isn't worth a couple rich people getting to their destination slightly faster.

Just look at GINI index: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SI.POV.GINI?locations=U... That's all you need to know

If travelling fast were an essential component of living a good life or having a good civilization, then that would say something.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com