Reading comprehension has always been a struggle for you, I take it. It does not matter how it compares to an airplane, because it is not an airplane. It’s not a boat either, you imbecile, do we need to dissect that one as well?

deleted by creator

One of my accounts just doesn’t get notifications or DMs for no apparent reason.

and bar are the trips that need fixing (…) and the fact that we encourage and sometimes even force designs where you NEED cars to make those trips is madness.

It’s utterly baffling to me that bar culture is so alive in America where we have to drive everywhere. It seems like a fucking obvious problem that everyone just ignores. Under what circumstances is a person driving themselves to a bar, parking there for a while, then leaving unimpaired? People should be protesting this in the streets; why does no one seem to care?

You should do some more research, because it’s nowhere close to being that simple.

Don’t perpetuate the fear-mongering bullshit. Educate yourself. There is no reason to fear nuclear power. The entire world should be running on nuclear power right now.

Okay, then I’m going to criticize you as an airplane. You’re a fucking piece of shit airplane, dude. You don’t even have wings, what the fuck are you doing? You can’t produce thrust, you can’t generate lift, what good are you as an airplane? Get outta here, stop wasting everyone’s time.

See how fuckin’ stupid that was?

Yes, there is an inherent risk associated with aircraft that cannot glide. What’s your point? Cars can’t have wings, it simply isn’t viable, so what do you propose? You want them to design a car-shaped object that can magically glide without wings? Think about it for more than a second and you’ll see the issue there. What you’re suggesting cannot exist within the currently-understood laws of physics. In order for flying cars to become reality, there is a certain level of risk that must be accepted.

Saying “its a VTOL, so it doesn’t matter” puts you on the same safety standards as that submarine guy.

You don’t know a fucking thing about me, so how about we steer clear of character assumptions? Maybe show me the courtesy of just arguing facts on this one?

That guy knowingly and intentionally broke all of the rules. That’s not what I’m talking about. I’m not suggesting any rules be broken or any safety standards be forsaken, I’m simply pointing out that you cannot judge this concept based on a fundamentally different type of aircraft.

It’s a vehicle that flys.

Ever seen a fuckin’ helicopter? Hot air balloon? Blimp? Turns out there’s more than one way to get and remain airborne. Think…

This is a ridiculous comment. Are you intentionally missing the point? Why are you applying airplane design principles to a car? It’s not a plane…it’s a car.

Glide coefficient? In what scenario do you imagine this car gliding? Do you see wings? They didn’t “make it VTOL” because they couldn’t design a functional airplane, they designed it as a VTOL from day one because a flying car that isn’t VTOL capable wouldn’t be viable. The very concept of a flying car is based on VTOL. It can only work as a car if it’s VTOL. A fixed-wing flying car would be asinine, where the hell do you expect people to take off?

Look I am not a supporter of this thing. It has too many glaring issues, like the fact that it doesn’t currently exist. You cannot, however, criticize this vehicle based on its merits as an airplane, because it’s not an airplane.

K well there are a few key differences between cars and airplanes… If planes could drive around on the road, nobody would buy a car. That’s kinda the whole goddamn point, that’s why people want a car that can fly.

I take issue with a “flying car” that’s not a fucking car. What the hell is the point? If you’re spending $300k, why wouldn’t you actually become a pilot instead of buying some half-baked car that isn’t actually usable as a car?

What the hell is the point of a car that can’t do more than 25 mph? This thing can fucking fly, but it’s as capable as a golf cart on the ground?

I’ll believe this when it actually exists (the thing they’re promising, not a skeletal prototype), and I’ll believe that the FAA is cool with flying cars when I see them on my commute. None of this currently passes the bullshit check.

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

Ah, following the script to a T! Keep going, do some more!

No disagreement here, I have a lot of gripes with the state of UX design. I don’t understand why the majority of my 1440p screen is empty space when browsing the web, to give an easy example. One of my displays is vertical, which seems incredibly useful until you try to use it and realize nothing scales in any usable manner on a portrait display. I digress…

deleted by creator

Removed by mod

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

'Preciate it homie. Who knew calling out misinformation would be such a hot fucking take, eh?

I don’t think we should go around saying things that are patently untrue and presenting them as news. I guess that makes me a fuckin’ piece of shit.

No, it is not close. The meaning is not similar. Either a site charges you money for access or it doesn’t. Twitter doesn’t. So don’t fucking say that it does, eh? What’s so difficult about that? What reason is there to say something is paywalled if it isn’t paywalled, except to stir the pot?

As I said originally, when legitimate media outlets publish misleading, sensational, or otherwise bullshit headlines, people are pissed. Why then is it suddenly a non-issue now? Why is it acceptable to mislead people if you’re just another kbin user when it’s such a mortal fucking sin otherwise? Saying that Twitter is paywalled is not ambiguity, it is misinformation. That’s because Twitter isn’t paywalled.