Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | sidewndr46's commentslogin

I do not know how F-18 controls work but from what I understand lots of jet controls include the equivalent of a "safety" that can be used to prevent the weapon from being launched. Maybe the pilot thought he had it engaged?

The secondary thing here I've realized is that the missiles in question must not have been using active homing. If they were then the pilots of the US aircraft would have taken evasive action as soon as their radar warning receiver lit up.


That could explain one accidental shootdown. It cannot conceivably explain three.

How easy is it in an F-15E to modify a friend to a foe in the targeting systems?

The IFF system will trigger warning symbology on various cockpit displays but it won't prevent the pilot from employing weapons. At this point we don't know for certain whether IFF was enabled and working correctly on any of the aircraft involved.

> I've realized is that the missiles in question must not have been using active homing.

This is covered in the article so it's weird to present it as an original thought.


> I've realized is that the missiles in question must not have been using active homing

Sorry, but it's totally funny that your nick is literally "Sidewinder".


I never have thought about it but I guess if the gag order applies to everyone in the case it's kind of convenient.

I'm not really pro-UK or pro-anything in Europe, but most of Europe was built out before modern sewage treatment. Or for that matter the germ theory of disease. It's more than easy to understand why rivers have untreated sewage is dumped into rivers. At the time of construction, it was state of the art.

The US in unusual in that most of it's population boom happened after modern sanitation. Yet we still have areas that discharge sewage into rivers on and ongoing basis.


I'd actually argue that's exactly the kid who the government is there to tell them what they shouldn't be watching. The government is never really there to restrict the incompetent, they are pretty good at doing that themselves.

it's the kid they are up against to, but not the kid who "needs" it

Well wow I wasn't expecting to see yet another story from Patrick Wyatt here in the comments! Much appreciated, I've enjoyed reading everything you've written over the years.

But they didn't actually build WoW classic. They just built another version of the game. Gameplay wise it is drastically different.

Economics & business wise it is very simple while it is popular: monetization.


>But they didn't actually build WoW classic. They just built another version of the game. Gameplay wise it is drastically different.

what?

i played vanilla in 2004, and i played classic when it released. your description is extremely inaccurate.


Explain. Classic is nigh identical to the old version in all the ways that matter, primarily gameplay, with fairly minor improvements.

Drastically? What are you talking about?


You can start here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKF9OcncX54

According to Blizzard, they don't even have access to the original source code. Instead starting from some version they happened to be able to recover.

When you say "nigh identical to the old version in all the ways that matter", what you are saying is that the game is identical in the ways that matter to you. Some of us actually value the original 1.0 experience. Just for example, the original WoW never had server transfers or "layers" in the game.


Don't forget the lifetime support subscription you bought for "ls" 2 years ago. It turns out the lifetime is for the lifetime of the software, not your lifetime.

Second plot twist: cpfohl actually works at Microsoft on Copilot

how is that any different than a lawsuit. You can file whatever you want, it doesn't mean the judge is going to hear the case

It's different because there's no lawsuit if the judge doesn't allow it to go forward, so the defendant never gets served, they don't have to hire a lawyer, and don't have to deal with the stress.

She might lose a lawsuit in summary dismissal, but the defendant is going to be out thousands of dollars by the time that happens. Anyway, the goal was never to go to court in any of her filings. What she wanted was to bully people into paying a settlement, since that meant she didn't have to pay any court fees.


What does a coal miner's story have to do with this narrative?

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: