Frenchfryenjoyer (she/her)

Perfectly normal English person (yes, we call thin cut chips “fries”)

punk girl 🤘

she/her

  • 22 Posts
  • 245 Comments
Joined 2 months ago
cake
Cake day: May 25th, 2025

help-circle




  • I feel like if every billionaire in the world donated even 1% of their wealth, the world would be a much better place

    update: my bored insomniac arse decided to do a little maths

    assuming the bare minimum that each billionate has £1,000,000,000 each, 1% of 1 billion is 10 million. there’s 3,028 billionares worldwide so if each of them donated 1% (10,000,000 x 3,028) that’d be a WHOPPING £30,280,000,000 and that’s a very conservative estimate




  • by guards I meant the guard brackets which help prevent accidental movement (source) but I agree I just can’t see this being done accidentally. the look and feel of the switches are just so different it’d be almost like mistaking a red light for a green one with normal colour vision or something. it’s still early days so i’m sure more will come out about the history of the pilots with time. if this does turn out to be intentional it’s pretty scary because it’s something that’s unrecoverable at that phase of flight if it happens and that needs to not happen again




  • If I remember correctly, those switches need to be physically lifted up and rotated for the engines to switch from RUN to CUTOFF. there’s also physical guards there to prevent pilots from knocking them. here’s a diagram of the layout (source).

    I’ve read theories that the pilot who manipulated the fuel switches could’ve mistook them for the stabiliser cutout switch but the switches are very different. the timing is also sus because it would’ve been at just the right time for things to have not been recoverable. 10 seconds earlier and the takeoff could’ve been aborted, 10 seconds later and the plane could’ve had enough altitude and speed to land in a safer area. also the way the pilot reacted to the other pilot suggests he saw the other pilot shut off the fuel to both engines one after the other and was in a state of shock










  • That, too. For people who don’t know what that is (source)

    The motte-and-bailey fallacy (named after the motte-and-bailey castle) is a form of argument and an informal fallacy where an arguer conflates two positions that share similarities: one modest and easy to defend (the “motte”) and one much more controversial and harder to defend (the “bailey”).[1] The arguer advances the controversial position, but when challenged, insists that only the more modest position is being advanced.[2][3] Upon retreating to the motte, the arguer may claim that the bailey has not been refuted (because the critic refused to attack the motte)[1] or that the critic is unreasonable (by equating an attack on the bailey with an attack on the motte).[4]