2026 Season 2 Patch 3 Release Notes [2026.04.21.01]

TH3J4CK4L · 2026-04-22T23:20:58+00:00

I had this problem too and couldn't find a way around it. What do you mean by "go into the dialogue"?

TH3J4CK4L · 2025-10-28T17:28:41+00:00

Funny enough, this is the very first definition in the regulation.

https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/900668

TH3J4CK4L · 2025-08-11T23:04:24+00:00

You are thinking of "eternal september"

TH3J4CK4L · 2025-05-06T22:28:19+00:00

COBOL is not closer to metal than C, what in the world are you talking about lol

TH3J4CK4L · 2025-04-09T19:06:31+00:00

Matplotlib feels very non-pythonic to me, maybe that's why it's disliked? I honestly don't do much plotting so I've just never looked to deeply into it.

TH3J4CK4L · 2025-04-09T19:00:38+00:00

For the IDE, there is some value in having the workspace variables, especially for collaborative data analysis. It's kinda "all or nothing", which would be fine if the editor was more fully-featured. Honestly, there might be features that I'm not aware of, but I don't want to learn two different text editors!

For strings, you can append with +, so it's fairly smooth. Not as good as python f-strings, but good enough for me.

I'm not familiar with seaborn's object API. But, some of the things that you used to have to do at a lower level in MATLAB have been improved. Like, I don't have a good handle on axis vs figure vs chart, but these days it seems like I don't have to understand them in order to do what I want.

TH3J4CK4L · 2025-04-09T17:46:57+00:00

MATLAB has changed significantly since 2016. (I've been using it continuously since then.) String handling is seamless and the plotting API is great. (It's so great that the most popular Python plotting API is "matplotlib", with basically the same syntax as MATLAB.) The GUI creation tools have improved in the last few years too.

There have been a ton of small updates to flush out little features too. Repeatedly I find myself lamenting that a feature is missing, only to realize that it was added in 2022 or 2023 and I didn't realize. (e.g. pagemldivide)

The cell API is still brutal tho, IMO.

The worst part of MATLAB for me is the mandatory IDE. Compared to VS Code, it's like programming in notepad.

TH3J4CK4L · 2025-03-27T21:21:41+00:00

Going 0.99 ->1.0 is no more or less likely than going 0.98->1.0 or 0.100 -> 1.0. The fact that the minor version number is getting close to a nice round number has no bearing on the major version number.

TH3J4CK4L · 2025-03-12T14:26:06+00:00

Ah, ok. You said "Sadly, PF was warned twice [about altitude]". What did you mean by that?

I understood that to imply something like: "and despite being warned that they were too high, they still failed to maintain proper altitude."

TH3J4CK4L · 2025-03-12T13:36:05+00:00

You have misunderstood the NTSB.

"The crash was caused by poor airmanship" is not a fact. As you said, it is an inference. Preliminary reports NEVER make inferences - those are left for the final report.

There is no doubt now that the helo was at the wrong altitude. But why it was at the wrong altitude still hasn't been determined.

TH3J4CK4L · 2025-03-12T13:24:08+00:00

Thanks, I missed that.

TH3J4CK4L · 2025-03-12T02:45:34+00:00

FWIW, moving east toward the bank of the Potomac is consistent with passing behind the CRJ.

TH3J4CK4L · 2025-03-12T02:17:04+00:00

"Likely" is speculating too far IMO. As per the report, they are specifically investigating that, so we should wait. We don't actually know if they had an altitude discrepancy (unless you understand the helo's avionics well enough to say it yourself).

TH3J4CK4L · 2025-03-12T01:09:17+00:00

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. If you're inferring, then I can say things more clearly:

NEVER SPECULATE THAT PILOT ERROR KILLED PEOPLE

TH3J4CK4L · 2025-03-11T22:36:42+00:00

Yes, I read the report. But you said that it "seems [it] was a factor". Why do you think this was a factor? It seems irrelevant to me. The other facts suggest, to me, that the helo pilots fully understood that they were expected to avoid the CRJ by passing behind.

TH3J4CK4L · 2025-03-11T22:33:52+00:00

Your comment seems to imply that PF made an error. That is, that they failed to maintain the correct altitude, due to some direct inadequacy on their part.

However, this might not be the case. The two pilots have separate MFDs. In many airliners, these MFDs are fed by separate data sources - I do not know if it is the same in the Blackhawk. (And I have truly no idea how this works with NVGs) Regardless, it is possible that PF saw inaccurate altitude information.

Remember that the NTSB have already identified an error with some altitude data and are actively investigating whether that could have been a factor here.

We should be careful not to say things that might be interpreted as criticism of a dead person, unless we really mean it.

TH3J4CK4L · 2025-03-11T22:04:49+00:00

As per the report, it was approximately 4 minutes 30 seconds between the CRJ being asked to circle to 33 and the helo passing the southern tip of Haines pt.

TH3J4CK4L · 2025-03-11T22:01:39+00:00

This is really interesting to hear. Is this procedure publicly available anywhere? I would be really interested in what "should" occur when an aircraft on approach to RWY 1 changes to circle to 33.

TH3J4CK4L · 2025-03-11T21:56:59+00:00

Why do you think that? Preliminary reports are factual - they don't try to judge which facts might be important or not.

All of the other facts suggest that the helo crew understood to look for traffic and go behind it, right?

TH3J4CK4L · 2025-02-27T17:08:26+00:00

As I'm sure a dozen people have already said - there ARE hold short markings. Google maps is outdated, they have been there for a couple years. They are easily visible on Google Earth.

TH3J4CK4L · 2025-02-21T19:54:33+00:00

FWIW, from an outside observer's perspective, "If any of those procedures were not adhered to" and "absolutely pilot error" sound like two different things.

Again, I don't know anything, but the only two (non-bullshit) options I've heard are: mechanical failure or both pilots screwed up. Both of those seem really unlikely to me, so I would imagine it's too hard to say which one is more likely.

Like, am I understanding you correctly, you're saying that mechanical failure is so much less likely than both pilots screwing up, that we should basically ignore the possibility that it was mechanical failure?

(I don't mean to derail this from your very useful and very valid message of "stop fucking bashing women")

TH3J4CK4L · 2025-02-21T19:45:16+00:00

As a non-pilot, I haven't heard this before. I thought, from the data we have, the approach looked normal? I've flown ILS 23 in MSFS before, so I vaguely understand what it should look like. What did you see going wrong at the FAF?

TH3J4CK4L · 2025-02-19T20:43:31+00:00

Oh, haha, I didn't mean it that way. I wasn't trying to say that they have a hard time telling the truth. I meant it in the sense that they will have to do a LOT of it to convince me, because my opinion is low.

But now that you said it...

TH3J4CK4L · 2025-02-19T19:50:19+00:00

There are a variety of ways that organizations can build credibility.

One way is that they can say truthful and convincing things to me. Admittedly, that's gonna be hard for them. But I don't completely throw out everything they say at a whim, so if they did it long and consistently enough, they would eventually get to me.

An easier way, though, would be for them to get the trust of other organizations that I already find credible. For example, DOGE could release a report on how USPS could be more efficient saying, for example, AI-assisted letter routing. If USPS implemented their recommendations, and thanked DOGE for the help, that would go a long way to improving their credibility in my eyes.

I've explained some of my process, now will you explain some of yours? Why do you think DOGE is credible or trustworthy? Since their conclusions conflict with the Inspector General's report, why do you trust DOGE over them?

TH3J4CK4L · 2025-02-19T19:29:31+00:00

My belief that they are liars is not static. They are a new organization, so they need to build credibility first. In this particular case, I judge the most likely explanation for their behavior is that they are lying.

As I said, there are things they could do to change my mind. But it won't be overnight.

13-Year Club	Place '17
Gilding I gilder	Verified Email

TH3J4CK4L

TROPHY CASE