kds3

> This will never happen. Anyone can start a ride-sharing service with a tiny investment. There's no way bankrupting current companies will give Uber an unassailable market.

Also "markets" doesn't necessary mean ride-sharing markets, they can also destroy public transport and other new ways of transportation that doesn't fit well to Uber model.

Yes, otherwise why should citizens pay more for local services? Or should we just remove all local taxes instead to make companies even?

Currently local businesses pay for the "right to the free French market", but remote businesses don't.

> With two sensors, you can detect failure. It’s very unlikely that both would fail simultaneously. If they did, it’s very unlikely that both would provide the same erroneous readings.

> First: I said it’s very unlikely, not impossible.

> You’re just badly arguing details while ignoring the actual point here.

My point here was that with two AoA sensors you can't reliably detect failure. They can both fail simultaneously and provide the same erroneous readings. And because it's not that unlikely we have to be sure that pilots can handle MCAS problems when two AoA sensors fail.

> Second: the failure of AF447’s pitot tubes was detected immediately

Because A330 have three pitot tubes, right? Not two out of two sensors?

I'm not arguing about AF447 case, I gave it as an example that two sensors _can_ have same erroneous readings. Airbus engineers were not sure that can happen in real life, so stall warning issue was a real surprise for them.

I've confused AF447's Pitot tubes with AoA sensors. But I think point is still valid: two sensors _can_ simultaneously have same erroneous readings and we have to be sure pilots can handle such situations.

> If they’re damaged on the ground, surely it’ll be noticed that the sensors are claiming an extreme AoA while just sitting there, and they’ll be fixed.

AoA sensors by design don't work reliable in low speed and they don't work at all on the ground.

> AF447 is an example of a fly by wire system that has to keep working no matter what happens, thus a bunch of redundant systems and a series of alternate modes the system can fall back on to operate in a degraded state.

AF447 is a good example that two AoA sensors can simultaneously have same erroneous readings. It's not that unlikely.

> It’s very unlikely that both would fail simultaneously. If they did, it’s very unlikely that both would provide the same erroneous readings.

They don't have to fail simultaneously in a flight. And they don't have to fail by internal sensor problems. There are many cases in which they can simultaneously fail and give same readings, article even mentioned such types of events:

>> That probability may have underestimated the risk of so-called external events that have damaged sensors in the past, such as collisions with birds, bumps from ramp stairs or mechanics’ stepping on them.

And AF447 gives an example when such erroneous readings combined with pilot errors may lead to.

> more housing = more people

It's not always right. If we build more housing in Siberia we won't have more people there. A lot of people just hate LA or NY or SF with some reason.