May I remember that most HN jumped to defend Boeing and the FAA, without a shred of evidence?
I welcome our Chinese overlords.
Competition is good.
Here's the reality, the consequences, both financial and otherwise, for being wrong in China are a good deal more deleterious. (Ever lose that kind of a job for incompetence in China? You won't be getting another one.) So, not surprisingly, Chinese airlines, experts and regulators will more readily err on the side of caution. Simple as that. It's just basic human psychology.
By comparison, there are no consequences at all if you or I are incorrect in some assertion we make on Hacker News. Certainly no lasting repercussions of any great concern.
So making that comparison as you did is a bit non-sensical. Of course experts do things differently than some randoms on HN.
You are right on the clarity department.
Your comment would read better absent both comments.
The notion of China being able to respond independently, with agency, is valid.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comac_C919
which is another boring narrowbody which is not technically ambitious at all and could only compete with the long-in-the-tooth 737 and the slightly newer A320.
I'd like to see somebody shake up the market with a plane that is small on the outside and big on the inside like
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer_E-Jet_family
but you won't see it used heavily in the U.S. because of pilot union scope rules.
Without a truly independent power standing strong, we would still be flying the Max.
Maybe you would be able to make a better point if you dropped the jingoism and histrionics. It can also be helpful to not lump the tens of thousands of people here into one bin of “HN did x” when trying to make that point.
> It took China for once having an independent policy instead of "impartial" agencies pushing their agenda onto a defenseless world.
And I stand by my comment about HN: I clearly remember the bias on the discussion. The top comments are top comments once the story settles. And the replies to those comments show a different picture.
> Maybe you would be able to make a better point if you dropped the jingoism and histrionics.
There is something worse than being slightly offensive: being biased and pushing damaging narratives onto the rest of us.
Let's notice that the truth has come out because a Max crash would also affect americans. Whenever interests are not so nicely alligned, we in the rest of the world end up paying the price.
I’m thinking that a mirror might help you with your bias concerns.
Stories evolve. Top voted comments change. The replies to those are also part of the discussion, and some are highly voted too.
My top comment in this discussion has started being downvoted. This might change, but it will still be the case that a big part of the HN audience disagrees with me.
Here’s an alternative theory... I didn’t take it personally because I didn’t take the stance you’re criticizing. Now you’re left in the untenable position of assuming I was offended on the behalf of some strangers, or what bothers me is unrelated to “hurtfulness” and has to do with something else.
My top comment in this discussion has started being downvoted. This might change, but it will still be the case that a big part of the HN audience disagrees with me.
Again, perspective is your friend. Maybe people disagree with you, maybe they disagree with how you’re saying what you’re saying, or maybe they agree with parts, but not the whole. This is yet another illustration of the perils in treating s diverse community as a monolith. For example my problem with your original comment was the signal:noise ratio, best illustrated by the complete innacuracy of how you characterized the reaction of so many people. Your latter day hand-waving about “it changed over time” is more of the same.