|
Isn't Uber losing a ton of money though? Last I checked it was one of these companies that were held aloft by speculators who figure that once it has finished driving every regular taxicab out of business and gotten a situation of monopoly, then they'll be able to hike the prices back up and recoup on their investment. Amazon is kind like that, too, though they are making money by renting their data centers (AWS). Dunno if it's enough to offset the money they lose on their core activity as online retailers.
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 14:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 21:21 |
|
|
Yes, Uber loses billions. 2015 - lost 2.2 billion dollars. 2016 - $2.8 billion before interest, tax, depreciation, and employee stock options.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 15:05
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:Isn't Uber losing a ton of money though? Last I checked it was one of these companies that were held aloft by speculators who figure that once it has finished driving every regular taxicab out of business and gotten a situation of monopoly, then they'll be able to hike the prices back up and recoup on their investment.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 15:08
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:Uber is literally using VC money to shuffle people around, in an industry with fuckall barrier to entry, while still paying their drivers peanuts. When the money runs out what happens? The actual driving isn't the only thing drivers do, and they'll never, ever get lvl4 autopilots online before they hemorrhage their last VC dollar. 10s of thousands of drivers with leased vehicles but no client base will suddenly be out of a job.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 15:30
|
|
|
Uber's business model is literally bleed cash to establish a dominant position in ride sharing until L4 is here and it looks like that's going to be tough in the long run.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 15:35
|
|
|
I'm kind of doubtful about that. Their basic business model is sound. Even if uber goes under someone will fill that space. Probably they can just raise prices and still capture a huge portion of the market, thanks to the convenience of the phone app and the fact that they're not cartelized and can evade regulated pricing. Maybe the investors are dumb for pouring money in, or it could be that they're right and in the long term uber will be wildly profitable. edit: then again they have $3bn from the saudis or something which is never a good sign 
Mortabis fucked around with this message at 15:46 on Apr 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 15:35
|
|
|
Uber drivers are terrorists.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 16:06
|
|
|
Uglier in person
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 17:39
|
|
|
I hope you get surprise tackled by a bunch of security guards for that... Like talking poo poo about the president or something. Live post that!
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 18:05
|
|
|
cowboy elvis posted:Uglier in person Ladies and gentlemen: The wrongest person on the internet.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 18:20
|
|
|
connies are not pretty airplanes
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 18:21
|
|
|
All airplanes are beautiful.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 18:39
|
|
|
Murgos posted:how small could they make their reusable booster with a 2 to 4 man crew compartment and give it an effective range of say 2500 miles? You know who else travels 2500 miles in a sub-orbital trajectory? That's right!
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 18:48
|
|
|
Connies would be pretty if they changed that front gear. ..and that nose... ....and the rest of the airplane...
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 18:48
|
|
|
cowboy elvis posted:Uglier in person What a mean thing to say about Global Flyer.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 18:51
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:The future is suborbital rocket shuttles. I see you're a 50s sci-fi writet.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 18:58
|
|
|
I'm always curious about airplanes in museums. Like, just how ready to go would they be if someone said "gently caress it, let's make it fly again" Are these all basically real planes converted to static displays that will never fly again unless you basically build it from scratch over again, or is it "change the fluids, charge the batteries, gas it up and let's go" It's probably somewhere in between.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 20:01
|
|
|
beep-beep car is go posted:I'm always curious about airplanes in museums. Like, just how ready to go would they be if someone said "gently caress it, let's make it fly again" Are these all basically real planes converted to static displays that will never fly again unless you basically build it from scratch over again, or is it "change the fluids, charge the batteries, gas it up and let's go" It varies wildly. Generally the newer something is the less likely it is to ever fly again.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 20:03
|
|
|
There was an air museum out in Virginia that kept all of it's displays in flight worthy condition. All of the displays had drip pans under the engines and hydraulic areas and a docent told me all they needed was fuel. It's an incredible hidden gem near Virgina Beach Military Aviation Museum 1341 Princess Anne Rd, Virginia Beach, VA 23457 (757) 721-7767 https://goo.gl/maps/iSptdciibJ72
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 20:06
|
|
|
Isn't most of Paul Allen's collection flyable? Of course that's more like Jay Leno's garage with public admission...
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 20:10
|
|
|
Captain Postal posted:If the microburst is so bad that the airframe can't survive it, then what does it matter who is flying? If the airframe can do it, and the pilot can do it, then eventually a computer will be able to do it. If you're a pilot, you'd best make your peace with the fact that your career path is limited. How many people in the last 60 years have said "my job could never be automated", and how many of them were right? Or people could just use mass transit instead of rely on a private business for all transportation needs.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 20:16
|
|
|
e: quote/edit
Psion fucked around with this message at 21:38 on Apr 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 20:19
|
|
|
Eej posted:Or people could just use mass transit instead of rely on a private business for all transportation needs. this is really the answer. there's no solution which is going to be more effective hobbesmaster posted:Isn't most of Paul Allen's collection flyable? Almost everything is flyable and flies, yeah. I think the major exception is the Fw 190 D-13, which is the only long-nose Dora left in the world, so they restored it but don't fly it. Also things they have on loan from somewhere else probably don't fly like their owned collection. MrYenko posted:Ladies and gentlemen: The wrongest person on the internet. nah, second-wrongest. there was that post about the A380 vs the 747, remember? Psion fucked around with this message at 20:27 on Apr 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 20:22
|
|
|
Is it weird if I've wondered what would happen if EBB met some mentally and physically gorgeous person and they instantly clicked and then their name turned out to be Connie? I guess it is weird.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 20:25
|
|
|
Comrade Gorbash posted:We don't even need to make mock ups, though. Just a rumor of a black jet over the desert can spawn a hundred Popular Mechanics features. I mean, how many pages did they get out of the Aurora? And when that died down, just slide right into the Black Manta. I always wondered how much of the speculation over the F-19 was deliberate misinformation to maintain cover for the F-117?
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 20:42
|
|
|
I don't know about it being deliberate, but certainly the powers-that-be are happy to let the conspiracy theorists continue believing something completely wrong. They came fairly close with Aurora, correctly associating the codename for the B-2 project with the black triangular aircraft in the deep desert.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 20:50
|
|
|
Psion posted:nah, second-wrongest. there was that post about the A380 vs the 747, remember? Please trigger-warning that poo poo in the future.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 21:04
|
|
|
Psion posted:Almost everything is flyable and flies, yeah. This sentence and the fact that he owns an ME163 got me really excited for a moment... Psion posted:nah, second-wrongest. there was that post about the A380 vs the 747, remember? I chose to block that one from my memory.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 21:05
|
|
|
beep-beep car is go posted:I'm always curious about airplanes in museums. Like, just how ready to go would they be if someone said "gently caress it, let's make it fly again" Are these all basically real planes converted to static displays that will never fly again unless you basically build it from scratch over again, or is it "change the fluids, charge the batteries, gas it up and let's go" As far as I know a lot of more modern aircraft that end up in museums are near enough fatigue life expired and/or have anything useful stripped out. Also wouldn't surprise me if it was cheaper to build a new, flyable Mustang than restore a Phantom to be no more than able to taxi.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 21:16
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:This sentence and the fact that he owns an ME163 got me really excited for a moment... Yeah, well, a pre-req for them flying things is a reasonable chance they can land it to fly again
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 21:40
|
|
|
If you want to see some juicy jugs on the internet Netflix has made a documentry called "Five Came Back", about hollywood directors in World War 2. As part of this, they've posted the films the directors made during the war. Relevent to this thread is "Memphis Belle" the original 1943 documentry, and "Thunderbolt", about P-47 fighter-bomber ops in Italy. Watching fully loaded P-47s take off is great, as is "things to strafe in Italy when you've dropped your bombs." If you don't have netflix, I'm almost positive these films are on archive.org
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 22:10
|
|
|
beep-beep car is go posted:I'm always curious about airplanes in museums. Like, just how ready to go would they be if someone said "gently caress it, let's make it fly again" Are these all basically real planes converted to static displays that will never fly again unless you basically build it from scratch over again, or is it "change the fluids, charge the batteries, gas it up and let's go" IIRC, some/most military aircraft that go into a civilian museum have holes drilled into key structural elements and parts taken out to make sure that they can't be returned to airworthiness. citation: i worked at a museum and the loving holes drilled into the stubby wings and swashplate of our AH-1 made certain aspects of restoring it to what it looked like when it served insanely difficult
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 22:13
|
|
|
Spaced God posted:Connies would be pretty if they changed that front gear. Oh god. That front gear. I've never noticed that before. Oh god.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 23:08
|
|
|
The Connie would be a lot prettier if they shortened the nose and fuselage in front of the wing by at least a third, fixed the landing gear, and replaced the tailplane with something that doesn't look like it's from a failed pre-WWI experiment.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 23:21
|
|
|
Spaced God posted:IIRC, some/most military aircraft that go into a civilian museum have holes drilled into key structural elements and parts taken out to make sure that they can't be returned to airworthiness. That's sad. We should be moth balling these things so that people two hundred years from now can take them out and play. Then again by that time the world will either have ended or you'll be able to 3D print a plane.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 23:22
|
|
|
um excuse me posted:There was an air museum out in Virginia that kept all of it's displays in flight worthy condition. All of the displays had drip pans under the engines and hydraulic areas and a docent told me all they needed was fuel. It's an incredible hidden gem near Virgina Beach In 2011 or so, the EC-121 (which was, ironically, a Navy aircraft) on static display outside the AWACS wing headquarters building got some much-needed TLC. Cleaned off a ton of bird poo poo, fresh coat of paint, drain the oil, fuel, and other fluids...wait, what? Yeah. Apparently nobody bothered to do that after it flew in from the boneyard in 1985, or since.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 23:23
|
|
|
The reason the Connie has that freakshow nose gear is the diameter of the propellers
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 23:33
|
|
|
The Connie’s swagger stick just makes it better.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 00:16
|
|
|
Best propliner still IL-18. It's just a gorgeous, pollution-spewing beast.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 00:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 21:21 |
|
|
PT6A posted:Best propliner still IL-18. It's just a gorgeous, pollution-spewing beast. That might be true if the Il-18 was the best propliner made by the Soviets. The thing is, it isn't: 
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 01:03
|
|
