> more than 1 plane every minute

Software routinely solves database coordination problems with millions of users per second.

I'm pretty sure the amount of data isn't the problem here. Maybe it's the number of corner cases? You would still want some human-in-the loop with quality UI for ATC.

There are plenty of stories of ATC helping to guide pilots back to the ground after an engine failure or after a student pilot had their instructor pass out on them or something like that.

Even if most of the work is routine, you definitely still want a human in the loop.

It's worth pointing out that plenty of pilots take off and land safely at uncontrolled airports. ATC is a throughput optimization; the finite amount of airspace can have more aircraft movements if the movements are centrally coordinated. It feels like we are nearing the breaking point of this optimization, however, and it's probably worth looking for something better (or saying no to scheduling more flights).

The FAA already does issue temporary ground stops for IFR flights when ATC capacity is saturated. This acts as a limit on airlines scheduling more flights, although the feedback loops are long and not always effective. The FAA NextGen system should improve this somewhat.

https://www.faa.gov/nextgen

True. But to avoid 1 minute unavailability per year requires 99.9999 % availability

Like any scale system, degrade the experience. Use radio if the more advanced systems are unavailable?

In a digitized environment. We cannot yet simulate the real world.

with extremely controlled conditions. There is no fog in database, nor fallible humans involved, What an ignorant response

Yup, by having backup runways.

A third runway for Heathrow was formally proposed in 2007 and is projected for completion in 2040. This is an airport so overburdened people are buying and trading slots.

This isn't a Kubernetes cluster where you can add VMs in 30 seconds.

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

And no fire trucks crossing the runways.

....they need to get to fucking fire

....if they go around kilometer of the runway the fire will turn into bigger fire

Two trucks

Did it? They didn’t get there so did we get bigger fire at their target?

I imagine the training will consist of something like changing the comms protocol to say “runway lights are on, control. Truck 1 confirming cross runway 4D?” prior to crossing. Double check so to speak.

>> Software routinely solves database coordination problems with millions of users per second.

A naive view that confuses the map with the territory.

While in a database state you write a row and reality updates atomically....for aircraft they exist in a physical world where your model lives with lag, noise, and lossy sensors, and that world keeps moving whether your software is watching or not. Failed database transactions roll back, a landing clearance issued against stale state does not. The hard problem in ATC is not coordination logic but physical objects with momentum, human agency, and failure modes that do not respect your consistency model.

The writer is retired and probably in his 70s now, so keep that in mind

I assume you're referring to the HN user zabzonk, rather than the article author Donna Vatnick.

The HN user zabzonk's profile description says "Ex C++ programmer and project manager".

It'd be interesting to understand more about their crossover from microbiology into C++ (or vice-versa).

Well, as you ask, I got fed up with dealing with human excrement, urine, blood, pus from wounds etc. I was developing an interest in computing using things like the TRS80, and so decided to switch over. The two (microbiology and microcomputers) had nothing in common. I quickly started using & programming things like DEC VAX & DecSystem10, IBM VM/CMS, Unix in various forms and so on. Now (at 72 years old) I'm retired, but do like to keep my hand in a little.

My observation about female technicians was in no way meant to be derogatory - I had several female managers who I liked very much, and I've always admired female tech's aseptic technique, and other techniques compared with mine.

I think it's more that it's implicitly derogatory to other men. People get annoyed when you speak for them, sort of deal.

I'm a male, I don't write notes on my clothing, and I found the whole comment hilarious

It's possible some folks have thin skin.

I think it makes sense, notebooks are hard to sterilize.

The commenter acknowledges this: "I was always impressed that the laundry managed to get them pristine white again."

I think it's pretty clear they were taking ephemeral notes, not using them for long-term archiving.

The labcoat is a kind of L1 data cache.

Did you write on them because a notebook could cross contaminate while the coats are sterilized safely? Did you wash the markers?

I wonder how people handle this now? With IP68 tablets, you can probably just dunk the whole thing in alcohol.

(Also thanks for sharing such an interesting anecdote)

No, after a couple of days (or even halfway through a day) our lab coats were about as contaminated as could be!

I agree with you about the use of tablets in hospitals though. I don't think I ever saw one being sterilised las time I was in hospital for a bit.

Percents of percents always felt kludgey.

Log probabilities (like decibans) unify this to say there is a -0.86 dB risk reduction for everybody.

https://rationalnumbers.james-kay.com/?p=306

It makes the math of combining risks easier and works the same even if we're operating near 99.999% or 0.0001%

Yes, the 12 billion dollar company must be doing something that no one needs.

Have you heard of the Big 4 consultancies?

If you look at places in the world where there are no dentists... their teeth are excellent.

Anecdotally, our three boys all were told they MUST have braces (each for different reasons). We did this for exactly none of them. And their teeth came out perfect by adulthood.

My childhood teeth were perfect until I became a young adult and my wisdom teeth came in. My Ortho assured me that I had space and I didn't need them removed. I never had my wisdom teeth taken out, but they did shift all my naturally straight teeth and some became crooked. I'm looking into Invisalign to correct this because it does cause self confidence issues and I want to have my toothy smile back.

I suggest asking your (ortho)dentist if you'll need braces anyway to correct your bite.

I think your definition of excellent and perfect teeth is in reality just "perfectly adequate" for their job of eating. If you don't care about the optics of your smile then sure, your body is going to find a way to place your teeth and jaw so you can still eat...

Well there wouldn’t be much demand for dentists in places people have perfect teeth would there

Depends on diet.

If you keep them on soft food young, the jaw muscles don't get stimulated enough to grow so that the teeth that are coming out sit properly. Misalignment and opportunity for decay ensues.

If you give them decently hard food early on in life you solve most problems.

After that it can still happen but there's less chance.

Also, breastfeeding and not weaning them off on to "baby foods" too soon is better in the same ways you describe.

How early on in life?

When they grow molars to chew with. Give them whole carrots to snack on.

To expand and agree: turnips, beets, hard whole grains, if their baby teeth aren't visibly worn by the time they fall out, it wasn't hard enough.

Jaw and face bone grows by stimulation. It's not just a dental thing - it's sleep apnea, sinus infections, facial structure, voice timbre, and attractiveness.

If it's enough, they won't even need their wisdom teeth pulled - having your wisdom teeth pulled is substantially a standard american diet issue, not a human genetic issue.

Thanks, and 100% agree. We have never had to pull a wisdom tooth either and carrots were always the go-to roadtrip snack growing up.

It's funny because I mildly disagree with your core premise (orthodontics are unnecessary), they should just be necessary as a disability accommodation, essentially. If we had 10-30% of the population in wheelchairs because we didn't let kids walk I would find the wheelchair industry odious as well.

Right, most of the orthodontics websites say 70% of people need them. I understand wanting to justify a total market size but if people actually believe that, it's getting out of hand.

I've had carrots (and fruit and hard snscks) since I don't remember when.

My teeth have been crooked since forever. So?

"almost never" for 8 billion people is "hundreds of millions of people need this".

E.g. I do

There are folks working on solutions for when teeth do not align themselves.

Until wisdom teeth come in later on and cause crowding or visual issues

Ok, sure, it's usually cosmetic. So what?

Maybe open show some fraction of your data on your website with a nationwide map or something, so such prospective customers can see exactly what you can provide. Then charge for the full dataset

By the no-free-lunch theorem, and the fact this 30k random branch pattern is so atypical in the real world, it would imply the loser here (Intel) is more likely to be the best branch predictor in actual benchmarks.

At least that's my prediction.

The atypical benchmark here is a manufactured worst case scenario for the purpose of quantifying the hardware capabilities. A deeper predictor means accommodating more complex program branching patterns. Obviously you'd expect to see diminishing returns versus silicone area at some point but I see no reason to assume that AMD would have made a poor allocation decision here.

The first "paper" I looked at was utter nonsense... https://github.com/P2P-OpenClaw/papers/blob/main/2026-03-19_...

Their proposed topological_toric_code() function is entirely trivial. It initializes qubits as an array of zeros. It then runs a loop applying expm(-1j * np.pi * 0). Mathematically, the exponential of zero is simply 1. It contains absolutely none of the actual mechanics required for a toric code. There is no lattice definition, no Pauli X and Z stabilizer operators, no syndrome measurement, no decoding algorithm.

It is just a trivial statement of 1 = exp(0). And then it adds a bunch of nonsense about it being a novel toric code.

EDIT: looked at a few more. They're so bad it's hard to even believe AI wrote them. Must be a pretty crappy model.

So they need a mechanism to decide what results are interesting. Maybe don't let anyone proof anything. Let the bot that sent a paper that got accepted to send two or three statements that they like to see proven. And at some point only allow proofs of things that have been requested in that way.

There could also be a preference for short proofs.

I agree the LEO internet economics are brutal. China is forced to compete because Golden Dome would lock them out of launches in the future.