Hacker News Reader

Comment by indoordin0saur | Hacker News Reader

Was it meant to be "up to 10 days" rather than 10 days? If the drones are no longer flying over the airport it makes sense they'd open it back up.

View on HN

The closure was for 10 days full stop. I can't think of a reason to do that in response to an active threat.

This is OpSec 101. Making the public closure too "tight" around the operational timeline could (negligently) leak operational details. You can always cancel a closure later.

Is saying "indefinitely" or "until further notice" any worse than "10 days?" The specificity of the timeline was what caught my eye.

Indefinitely infers permanence. You’ll scare everyone off with that language.

Is Opsec 101 to increase the estimate by two orders of magnitude? "We think this operation will take about 10 weeks, so we're estimating 10 years."

The answer is "long enough to avoid giving away operational details," not some robotically applied constant multiplier like 10x.

We also don't know whether they expected this to take 1 day or more. Just because it worked out quickly doesn't mean that's the "worst case" operational timeline.

Isn’t that how estimating timelines should work?

I think the point was to get headlines and attention, as someone else said it sounds like the FAA is frustrated that the DoD isn't cooperating, and this seems like a possible attempt to make this frustration public to pressure DoD into playing more nicely.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com