Hacker News Reader

There's a website to find the antipode to whereever, thanks for making me curious enough. http://furthestcity.com/city.php?ID=NEW_YORK_NY_UNITED_STATE...

I like https://www.antipodesmap.com/ more

As a Norwegian expat living in Melbourne, a single flight to London with a short hop over to Norway would be a dream. The huge stop over in Singapore or wherever is the biggest mental and physical drain. Would absolutely prefer this.

A stopover isn't a big deal to me. A connection with a long wait, having to unpack, go through security, having the potential for delays is a problem.

Why do you need to unpack? I've never had to do this .... I've never been to se Asia though.

They may have been referring to the process of removing laptops, liquids, etc. from bags for security procedures in some countries.

I've changed flight in Singapore or Bangkok a few times after a really long flight.

Had there been no security check it had been nice to take a walk and look at the too expensive wine in the taxfree shops, but the extra inconvenience of queuing for 30 minutes and unsolicitedly getting fingers down the front of your pants is surprisingly irritating when all you really want to do is to take a nap.

In one or two cases I had the option to stay in the plane, while they were cleaning, which was not bad.

There is definitely demand for major business hub to major business hub routes, the first and business class sections at least will be full. I spent the last two years regularly making flights like this, any chance I'd get I'd take the longer nonstop route. Fwiw, it's what the Boeing 787 was created for - longest possible nonstop routes bypassing hubs.

> if your final destination from Sydney isn't London or New York then you need to make a connection anyway.

England is the 'motherland', so is still a popular destination for some and for Brits wanting to visit the colonies.

I think the New York route might be harder to fill but I suspect it has more to do with carving out a new market for Qantas, as there is a lot of competition flying to California.

"for Brits wanting to visit the colonies"

Do people actually talk this way? I live in England and I have never heard anyone refer to going to visit their family/friends/whatever in Australia as "visiting the colonies"

Sounds like a mild joke to me.

Its only a joke if you're on the 'white side'. Australia has local sovereignty, but not international sovereignty = thus, it is still a colony of the British empire:

http://www.indymedia.org.au/2010/11/12/australia-is-still-le...

You might like to consult a constitutional lawyer rather than indymedia. The Statue of Westminster and the Australia Acts conclusively separated Britain's sovereignty from Australia's.

This is one reason why section 44 has suddenly turned into such a landmine. After the Australia Acts, Britain is considered a foreign power.

Yeah, I am familiar with the Australian constitution (being a citizen). I don't get much further than Section 25 before the disgust sets in, and section 44 is a joke. (If you're a whitey - otherwise its just plain sad.)

Its Section 4 - giving only the Queen the right to select the Australian Governor General - that is the real issue, though.

And my local constitutional lawyer (a quite famous one, whom I know through a family connection), tells me "its a legal grey area with no finite position possible - sure, we have sovereignty on paper, but we are still governed by the Queen in practice..."

I'm an Australian citizen too.

The Constitution is interpreted under Constitutional law, as stated by the High Court. It can only be applied in the context of that legal meaning, which is not the same as a reading by an interested but untrained citizen.

> we are still governed by the Queen in practice...

I feel as though you may be misquoting your famous family connection.

In a constitutional crisis, do you sincerely think the High Court would say "oops, I guess we're the personal colony of a Queen who suddenly upended hundreds of years of Parliamentary Supremacy somehow"?

If you know a bookie who'll lay odds, I'll happily take this wager.

All I know is when the UK barks, we come running.

Do you wanna debate that we're in the Coalition, currently destroying the middle east, willingly, for example?

>we're the personal colony of a Queen who suddenly upended hundreds of years of Parliamentary

We're locally sovereign, but not internationally sovereign. Even our own courts have admitted this - but of course, its not for the Australian people to know this, or even have any power to do anything about it. After all, we're all just struggling to be able to afford cool shit.

> All I know is when the UK barks, we come running.

'K' and 'S' are about 50 years apart on my keyboard.

> We're locally sovereign, but not internationally sovereign.

The majority in Sue v Hill conclusively ruled that Britain is a foreign power. It has not been overturned and it never will. There is no Imperial Crown.

There are Crowns, which are legally distinct. The Prime Minister of the UK cannot advise the Crown in right of the Commonwealth of Australia; an Australian Prime Minister cannot advise the Crown in right of the United Kingdom; the Premier of New South Wales cannot advise the Crown in right of Victoria and so on.

Again: I will happily lay money on this question.

Have you read it?

http://www.cirnow.com.au/fileuploads/AustraliaConcealedColon...

Australian constitutional conspiracy theorists are my favourite kind of conspiracy theorists!

> The Statue of Westminster and the Australia Acts conclusively separated Britain's sovereignty from Australia's.

But the Queen is still the head of Australia, so how does that work?

She's the Queen of the UK and she's Queen of Australia. She's Queen of two countries (and more) at the same time but they're different countries.

The same as how Elon Musk is CEO of Tesla and SpaceX at the same time but they're different companies.

That is not a good analogy. There is an independent board of directors who can keep checks and balances over Musk to make sure he keeps the companies independent.

Is there an independent board who can keep a check on the queen?

Only in so far as the moment a monarch decides to exert any unwelcome authority will be the moment they get deposed. Our monarch performs a ceremonial role as figure-head only.

You might call the independent board "Parliament".

> Only in so far as the moment a monarch decides to exert any unwelcome authority will be the moment they get deposed.

How do you know they will get deposed, you are talking about hypothetical situations.

True fact: Australians can't have an honest conversation about this. The reason is the Secrecy Act.

(Corruption of government starts with its secrets, and Australia has .. many .. that would startle its citizens into rebellion, which is what the political system of Australia is truly designed to police, not serve..)

But you didn't ask about how we keep checks on anything, mate. You just asked how it was possible to be two queen of two independent countries.

I can't design analogies to answer questions that you haven't asked, mate, and you can't stretch an analogy from one question to answer any other.

> You just asked how it was possible to be two queen of two independent countries.

They are not independent when you look at from the queen's perspective, she still rules both of them. That is the point.

People definitely say this, but always tongue in cheek.

> I live in England

Then you should be used to British humor.. err humour ;) - and don't forget, don't mention the war![1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Germans

I believe they manage the fuel costs by flying slightly slower (20% maybe from memory?) than normal. I read about the plans a couple of years ago.

That still gets there quicker than with a stop.

I'd do it. I'm in Adelaide, and I don't like the stop overs to Europe.

I wouldn't think it would be 20% slower; that would be going from 850km/h down to 680km/h. The big problem isn't so much that it is much slower but in fact the slower speed meaning a higher angle of attack which leads to more drag. At altitude commercial jet liners fly at a set angle of attack to reduce drag, so maybe flying a few percent slower might lead to less fuel usage, but more than that and the increased drag eats away at the savings.

22 or 26 hours of flying doesn't really make a difference.

If someone reinvented supersonic flight, and gave it a 20.000 km range, then that would be absolutely fantastibulastic!

That would be about 3x the range of Concord, so I guess it will never happen. Boom claims to be working on a 40 seat plane with a long range, but I doubt there would be any economy in that.