all 17 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 14 points 6 hours ago

Typical overengineering solution. All they need to do is fly 30m to the left

  • source
  • [–] 13 points 18 hours ago

    To be fair, if that thing ever got off the ground, it probably would be safe from enemy fire, as they'd be too busy laughing at it to actually shoot it.

  • source
  • [–] 99 points 1 day ago (1 child)

    This sadly reminds me of one of the days I "ruined my life". My base degree was aerospace engineering but my main focused more comp/sci towards the end. When the houthi/u.s engagement restarted a company here in the states took a contract to change a $1,000,000+ "smart" missiles to a "smart" firing system that launched ~$10,000 munitions. I quickly saw where this was going and how fast we were progressing and also saw a request for how it could be refitted for strike instead of defense. I left the next day. Didn't have a job lined up. Found something at nearly 1/3 the wage 2 months later. Still felt better about my decision having eaten near nothing and scrapping by.

    There is a difference between knowing which side is right or knowing murdering innocents is worse than meals.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 64 points 1 day ago (7 children)

    Considering the story around the image, this is actually amusing on multiple levels.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 1 day ago (6 children)

    I'm not familiar with it. Care to share?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 79 points 1 day ago (3 children)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias

    Basically the story goes that planes would fly to the battle field and come back with bullet holes. Experts started charting where the bullet holes (as you can see in the top image) and decided to reinforce the armor in those areas since they were “the most commonly struck by bullets”. Makes sense!!! Exceptttttt… those were the planes that survived, meaning that the bullet we see in the image do not explain why planes fall in battle. Places that have no bullet holes in the image are the areas that, when struck by a bullet, would cause the plane to fall. When they started reinforcing the areas that have no bullets in the image, “plane survival” increased significantly.

    I hope my explanation is understandable!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 20 hours ago (1 child)

    Slight correction: I don't believe anyone ever actually made the mistake during the war; i think survivorship statistics were in fact first analysed correctly, rather than incorrectly! But obviously it makes a good story the other way :P

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 21 points 1 day ago

    The issue is called "survivorship bias". The image you are looking at are from WW2 bomber planes that got damaged during missions but still made it home in one piece. The red dots are damage from enemy fire. The engineering task was to identify structural weak points and make the planes more resistant to enemy fire.

    However the data on plane damage is grossly incomplete, because only those planes that survived are included in the data set. Those planes that took critical damage exploded and are not available for examination.

    With that in mind, look at the diagram again. Those areas that do not have any reported damage are the actual structural weak points of the planes.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 15 points 23 hours ago

    I laughed way too hard at something this stupid.

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 21 hours ago

    BRILLIANT! They'll never touch us!

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 22 hours ago

    I really need to get my install of KSP working again

  • source
  • [–] 24 points 1 day ago
    [–] 6 points 1 day ago

    Oh-eo Tails spin!

  • source