• floquant@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    17 hours ago

    Does the definition of VTOL not include the ability to transition to forward thrust? Looks cool but I’d just call it a multicopter

      • PumaStoleMyBluff@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        13 hours ago

        The implied part of VTOL is that it’s only vertical for takeoff and landing, and otherwise primarily a horizontally propelled craft.

      • floquant@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        16 hours ago

        Yes I do know that, but I am not aware of any aircraft that is “a VTOL” but only does vertical take off and landing

        • winkerjadams@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          14 hours ago

          If it only did up and down then it wouldn’t be very practical or useful in most applications. There must be some sort of propulsion

          • floquant@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            10 hours ago

            Tilting like helicopters and multicopters, you don’t need a dedicated directional thrust, just vectoring

        • ironhydroxide@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          16 hours ago

          It does have some surfaces that look like they could produce lift.

          Traveling fast enough it could probably lose thrust and “land” horizontally… Until the legs grab and it tumbles.

      • chasingtheflow@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 day ago

        Apparently I touched a nerve with some. But I was just using the built in browser for voyager on iOS. But I also have nextdns and Mullvad in-use which normally provides fairly good coverage for me but evidently not on this site.

        • atropa@piefed.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          Mullvad  is switcht off,  blorp is the app i use ,link is opend in vanadium browser on grapheneOS

    • M137@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      2 days ago

      It never stops being so fucking weird that people choose to not use ad-blockers, and then complain about ads. Do you also not wear seat belts and then complain about neck pain after fender benders, or eat raw meat and then complain about getting sick? It’s just as dumb.

      • porcoesphino@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        2 days ago

        It’s weird to me that people complain about how long it takes to get to work, why don’t they just aggressively speed to get there earlier?

        Sites need money to run and many rely on ads. Blocking them is an asshole move (that I admittedly do) but so is dumping them all over a page. It would be nice to have some sort of pay for what you use alternative but until then, bitching isn’t half as weird and obnoxious as whatever you’re doing in this comment

        • pishadoot@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 hours ago

          Until ads are responsible and don’t carry risks of injecting malware and trackers, I will block them without prejudice.

          Even back in the day they would try to hijack your browser, redirect you to some random page, destroy ability of your back button to take you out, and throw up a ton of popups.

          I don’t think blocking them is an asshole move until ads are served responsibly, without threatening my security or privacy. When, and if, that day ever arrives I will stop blocking them because I understand that most sites subsist solely off ad revenue, at least in this current Internet model we live with.

          • porcoesphino@mander.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 hours ago

            Just a reminder that this thread, and my comments, are in the context of someone saying the OP had linked a particularly bad website for ads, and this person being attacked

            If your position is what you’ve actually written here then I don’t think there is a real disagreement but I am surprised by the effort. There’s only a disagreement if you think it’s reasonable to call out someone for making a comment about the ads on a website being excessive and telling that person they don’t get that privilege because they don’t use the internet your way. Everything that follows is just a retaliatory mirror on the issues with “your way” (yeah it’s another poster not you)

        • artyom@piefed.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          Blocking them is an asshole move

          An asshole move is designing a site that bogs down your computer so that they can try and sell you garbage while simultaneously collecting and feeding data about the sites you visit to a corporate surveillance network in order to more effectively sell you more garbage.

          • porcoesphino@mander.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 day ago

            An asshole move is consuming other people’s work without giving them something in return and then bitching at anyone that accurately points out you’re a leech

            But yes, the current ads based system is mighty broken. I did touch on that, so did the comment before me, and I’m surprised an expansion felt needed

    • neidu3@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      I certainly hope so. But I doubt it.

      It doesn’t take many flight hours to realize how many backups and contingencies there are in a normal SEP aircraft in case something fails.

      And the common denominator for all these techbroesque personal air transport vehicles is the obvious lack of any of those.