An Air France flight from Paris to Algiers returned to Paris shortly after takeoff because a passenger realized their phone had fallen into a gap between the seats, potentially near flight control mechanisms. Unable to retrieve the phone, the crew, prioritizing safety, decided to turn back as a precaution. The plane landed safely, the phone was retrieved, and passengers eventually continued their journey to Algiers on a later flight. The incident highlights the potential risks posed by small items getting lodged in sensitive aircraft areas.
Inko is a programming language designed for building reliable and efficient concurrent software. It features a static type system with algebraic data types and pattern matching, aiding in catching errors at compile time. Inko's concurrency model leverages actors and message passing to avoid shared memory and the associated complexities of mutexes and locks. This actor-based approach, coupled with automatic memory management via garbage collection, aims to simplify the development of concurrent programs and reduce the risk of data races and other concurrency bugs. Furthermore, Inko prioritizes performance and offers efficient compilation to native code. The language seeks to provide a practical and robust solution for modern concurrent programming challenges.
Hacker News users discussed Inko's features, drawing comparisons to Rust and Pony. Several commenters expressed interest in the actor model and ownership/borrowing system for concurrency. Some questioned Inko's practicality and adoption potential given the existing competition, while others were curious about its performance characteristics and real-world applications. The garbage collection aspect was a point of contention, with some viewing it as a drawback for performance-critical applications. A few users also mentioned their previous experiences with the language, highlighting both positive and negative aspects. There was general curiosity about the language's maturity and the size of its community.
The blog post "Backyard Cyanide" details the surprising discovery of cyanide in the author's plum pits after her dog cracked and ate some. Alarmed, she researched and found that many common fruit seeds and pits, including apples, peaches, and cherries, contain amygdalin, which the body converts to cyanide. While a few pits might not be harmful, larger quantities can be toxic to both humans and animals. The author emphasizes the importance of awareness, particularly for pet owners, urging caution and suggesting discarding pits to prevent accidental ingestion. She highlights that cooking doesn't eliminate the risk and recommends contacting a veterinarian or poison control if ingestion occurs.
Hacker News users discuss the practicality and safety concerns of extracting cyanide from apple seeds. Several commenters point out the extremely low yield and the dangers of working with even small amounts of cyanide, emphasizing that the process is not worth the risk. Some highlight the inefficiency and difficulty of separating amygdalin, the cyanide-containing compound, effectively. Others discuss the history of cyanide and its uses, as well as the different forms it can take. A few users question the author's methodology and the accuracy of some claims in the original blog post. The overall consensus is that while theoretically possible, extracting cyanide from apple seeds is impractical, inefficient, and dangerous for the average person.
Tesla is recalling nearly 380,000 vehicles in the US due to a power steering assist fault. The recall affects Model S and X vehicles from 2017-2023, specifically those equipped with full self-driving (FSD) Beta software or pending installation. The issue can cause the power steering to intermittently fail, especially at low speeds or after hitting a bump, requiring increased steering effort and potentially increasing the risk of a crash. An over-the-air software update will address the problem.
HN commenters discuss the vagueness of the recall notice, questioning whether it's a software or hardware issue, and how a software update could resolve a "loss of power steering assist." Some express skepticism about Tesla's reliance on over-the-air updates for safety-critical systems, noting the potential for unforeseen software bugs. Others point out the increasing frequency of Tesla recalls and question the robustness of their initial quality control. A few commenters share personal anecdotes of similar issues with their Teslas, highlighting concerns about safety and the inconvenience of these recurring problems. Some also mention the potential impact on Tesla's reputation and the broader implications for the autonomous driving industry.
Lox is a Rust library designed for astrodynamics calculations, prioritizing safety and ergonomics. It leverages Rust's type system and ownership model to prevent common errors like unit mismatches and invalid orbital parameters. Lox offers a high-level, intuitive API for complex operations like orbit propagation, maneuver planning, and coordinate transformations, while also providing lower-level access for greater flexibility. Its focus on correctness and ease of use makes Lox suitable for both rapid prototyping and mission-critical applications.
Hacker News commenters generally expressed interest in Lox, praising its focus on safety and ergonomics within the complex domain of astrodynamics. Several appreciated the use of Rust and its potential for preventing common errors. Some questioned the performance implications of using Rust for such computationally intensive tasks, while others pointed out that Rust's speed and memory safety could be beneficial in the long run. A few commenters with experience in astrodynamics offered specific suggestions for improvement and additional features, like incorporating SPICE kernels or supporting different coordinate systems. There was also discussion around the trade-offs between using a high-level language like Rust versus more traditional options like Fortran or C++. Finally, the choice of the name "Lox" garnered some lighthearted remarks.
This paper introduces Crusade, a formally verified translation from a subset of C to safe Rust. Crusade targets a memory-safe dialect of C, excluding features like arbitrary pointer arithmetic and casts. It leverages the Coq proof assistant to formally verify the translation's correctness, ensuring that the generated Rust code behaves identically to the original C, modulo non-determinism inherent in C. This rigorous approach aims to facilitate safe integration of legacy C code into Rust projects without sacrificing confidence in memory safety, a critical aspect of modern systems programming. The translation handles a substantial subset of C, including structs, unions, and functions, and demonstrates its practical applicability by successfully converting real-world C libraries.
HN commenters discuss the challenges and nuances of formally verifying the C to Rust transpiler, Cracked. Some express skepticism about the practicality of fully verifying such a complex tool, citing the potential for errors in the formal proofs themselves and the inherent difficulty of capturing all undefined C behavior. Others question the performance impact of the generated Rust code. However, many commend the project's ambition and see it as a significant step towards safer systems programming. The discussion also touches upon the trade-offs between a fully verified transpiler and a more pragmatic approach focusing on common C patterns, with some suggesting that prioritizing practical safety improvements could be more beneficial in the short term. There's also interest in the project's handling of concurrency and the potential for integrating Cracked with existing Rust tooling.
Summary of Comments ( 92 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43523765
The Hacker News comments discuss the cost-benefit analysis of turning a plane around for a lost phone, with many questioning the rationale. Some speculate about security concerns, suggesting the phone might have been intentionally planted or could be used for tracking, while others dismiss this as paranoia. A few commenters propose alternative solutions like searching upon landing or using tracking software. Several highlight the lack of information in the article, such as the phone's location in the plane (e.g., between seats, potentially causing a fire hazard) and whether it was confirmed to belong to the passenger in question. The overall sentiment is that turning the plane around seems like an overreaction unless there was a credible security threat, with the inconvenience to other passengers outweighing the benefit of retrieving the phone. Some users also point out the potential environmental impact of such a decision.
The Hacker News comments section for the Washington Post article "Why a plane turned around when a passenger lost a phone midflight" contains a robust discussion analyzing the incident and its implications.
Several commenters question the veracity of the passenger's claim that his phone slipped between the seats, speculating that it might have fallen into a more critical area of the plane, prompting the return. They point out the unlikelihood of a phone causing mechanical issues just by falling between seats and suggest the possibility of the phone entering a more sensitive area, perhaps near flight control cables or other vital components. This concern drives much of the discussion, with users exploring the potential risks of such a scenario. Some speculate the phone might have been a modified device or carried a concern beyond a simple loss.
The discussion also delves into the airline's procedures and the pilot's decision-making process. Commenters discuss the difficulty of assessing such situations mid-flight, particularly with the limited information available to the pilot. Some suggest the pilot erred on the side of caution, prioritizing passenger safety, while others criticize the decision as an overreaction. The potential cost of turning the plane around, both financially and in terms of passenger inconvenience, is also a significant point of discussion.
Another thread of conversation focuses on the passenger's responsibility and whether they should bear some of the costs associated with the return flight. Some argue that if the passenger's negligence caused the incident, they should be held accountable, while others defend the passenger, pointing out the difficulty of preventing such accidents.
Several commenters share anecdotes of similar experiences, either involving lost items or other unexpected events that caused flight disruptions. These personal accounts add a layer of realism to the discussion, highlighting the unpredictable nature of air travel.
Finally, the conversation touches on the broader implications of this incident for airline security and procedures. Some users suggest improvements to aircraft design to prevent similar incidents, while others call for clearer guidelines for handling lost items during flight. There's a noticeable lack of consensus on the best course of action, reflecting the complexity of balancing safety, efficiency, and passenger experience.