Backyard approaching lighting at Adelaide Airport(wongm.com)
wongm.com
Backyard approaching lighting at Adelaide Airport
https://wongm.com/2022/04/backyard-approaching-lighting-adelaide-airport/
137 comments
I didn't think I would see anything about this anywhere let alone HN. I remember riding through the district and noticing the ridiculous poles in someone's backyard. Then another, and another... then I understood what was going on. It's certainly bizarre! You think to yourself, it must br annoying to have part of your yard taken up by these ugly poles. Then a plane comes in for landing and you realise the poles are a relatively small compromise compared to the noise.
I always enjoyed driving down Tapleys Hill Road at night under the very short street lights at the south western corner of the airport.
The lighting affect always reminded me of car racing games.
The lighting affect always reminded me of car racing games.
Yeah it’s PS1 Gran Turismo feels for sure.
As a related Adelaide fact - the center of town is ringed by a "moat" of parklands, each ostensibly the width of a cannonball and designed as a defensive structure (an invading force would need to run through a cannon's worth of artillary). On a map the green square is extremely distinctive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adelaide_Park_Lands#/media/Fil...
Not the width of cannonball, but perhaps made wide enough such that you could not fire a cannonball from a cannon at the city without having to move across open land.
I'm not sure if that's an urban legend though. I can't find any references to that line of reasoning in historic recounts of Colonel Light's initial plans for Adelaide.
I'm not sure if that's an urban legend though. I can't find any references to that line of reasoning in historic recounts of Colonel Light's initial plans for Adelaide.
It's just not true. A myth that doesn't make any sense if you consider it. If you think artillery/cannon's couldn't shoot a mile, I'll sell you the Torrens Footbridge.
https://www.adelaide-parklands.asn.au/fiction-facts
https://www.adelaide-parklands.asn.au/fiction-facts
That website made me feel sad; seems they’re embattled, and really have a fight on their hands to stop the parkland turning into suburban parking and retail
The Adelaide parklands association is one bunch of NIMBYs who you don't want to tangle with.
Every single maintenance shed is the collapse of the parklands. It's not worth the fight.
Every single maintenance shed is the collapse of the parklands. It's not worth the fight.
They have got something worth protecting though. It’s A really liveable city and the parks are a part of that. Adelaide city centre is plenty big enough for retail, business and entertainment already and it’s still a walkable size rather than too sprawling. The parkland nearby the city centre gives a really nice vibe to the city and it suits it. As you’re flying into Adelaide in there’s a strong sense of flying into somewhere rural - it’s more than the article’s point about the lights scattered through residential areas. The geography is quite flat, the buildings very low but mostly it’s the vast openness beyond Adelaide.
Seeing as the businesses in the south end have practically died over the last few years - they can redevelop there rather than the park lands. ;)
The park lands and the botanical gardens are an absolute treasure that should be preserved. Dont turn the place into another Melbourne or Sydney.
The park lands and the botanical gardens are an absolute treasure that should be preserved. Dont turn the place into another Melbourne or Sydney.
The southern and western parts of the CBD are really under-developed. Single storey buildings are the norm.
If it's anything like the London greenbelt then it's counterproductive. It just pushes the urban sprawl to the far side, and meanwhile housing gets ever more expensive while a bunch of prime land is tied up in barely-used golf courses and parks.
I've moved to Tokyo which takes the opposite approach - indefinite sprawl, barely regulated at first - and the result is actually a city that's much more pleasant and walkable. Small parks mixed among the housing, where they can actually be used, are much better than a big ring of parkland that only the rich can even take the time to visit.
I've moved to Tokyo which takes the opposite approach - indefinite sprawl, barely regulated at first - and the result is actually a city that's much more pleasant and walkable. Small parks mixed among the housing, where they can actually be used, are much better than a big ring of parkland that only the rich can even take the time to visit.
London still has large amounts of "brownfield" low-value industrial land as well as low-quality, low-density suburban housing that is often close to existing, under-used infrastructure. We are much better off making better use of that existing land to build walkable/cycle-able neighbourhoods that are well served by public transport.
Expanding into the greenbelt is just lazy development that would increase London's existing problems (car traffic, air quality, sprawl).
... and there are plenty of small neighbourhood parks in London! I can't imagine that you're ever more than 5-10 minutes walk from one.
Expanding into the greenbelt is just lazy development that would increase London's existing problems (car traffic, air quality, sprawl).
... and there are plenty of small neighbourhood parks in London! I can't imagine that you're ever more than 5-10 minutes walk from one.
> London still has large amounts of "brownfield" low-value industrial land as well as low-quality, low-density suburban housing that is often close to existing, under-used infrastructure. We are much better off making better use of that existing land to build walkable/cycle-able neighbourhoods that are well served by public transport.
It's not either/or. At the level of housing demand that London has, we need to build everywhere.
> Expanding into the greenbelt is just lazy development that would increase London's existing problems (car traffic, air quality, sprawl).
There's no reason building in the greenbelt would be worse for car traffic or air quality - indeed there are quite a few places where there's already a railway or underground station, but no houses get built because it's greenbelt.
> ... and there are plenty of small neighbourhood parks in London! I can't imagine that you're ever more than 5-10 minutes walk from one.
Clearly you've never been to Tottenham. (There was a "green" on paper, but it's just a square of grass next to a main road. The marshes are lovely if you can get out to them, but they weren't somewhere you could stop off on the way home from work).
It's not either/or. At the level of housing demand that London has, we need to build everywhere.
> Expanding into the greenbelt is just lazy development that would increase London's existing problems (car traffic, air quality, sprawl).
There's no reason building in the greenbelt would be worse for car traffic or air quality - indeed there are quite a few places where there's already a railway or underground station, but no houses get built because it's greenbelt.
> ... and there are plenty of small neighbourhood parks in London! I can't imagine that you're ever more than 5-10 minutes walk from one.
Clearly you've never been to Tottenham. (There was a "green" on paper, but it's just a square of grass next to a main road. The marshes are lovely if you can get out to them, but they weren't somewhere you could stop off on the way home from work).
Housing is more expensive because more people want to live there then the supply provides for.
There's a simple solution. It's not sprawling suburbia, it's to build London at an appropriate density for a global city.
Westminster (with plenty of green space including Hyde and Regents Parks) has a population of 123 per hectare.
If London matched that throughout its area there would be room to double London's population with another 10 million people. If Inner London alone was increased to Manhattan density, that alone would house 5 million more people.
But then things like this happen
https://www.onlondon.co.uk/will-grant-shapps-get-away-with-b...
There's a simple solution. It's not sprawling suburbia, it's to build London at an appropriate density for a global city.
Westminster (with plenty of green space including Hyde and Regents Parks) has a population of 123 per hectare.
If London matched that throughout its area there would be room to double London's population with another 10 million people. If Inner London alone was increased to Manhattan density, that alone would house 5 million more people.
But then things like this happen
https://www.onlondon.co.uk/will-grant-shapps-get-away-with-b...
It’s a radically different scenario. Imagine a square that had one corner in St Pauls and the diagonally opposite corner in Blackfriars in London. Now imagine that surrounded with a parkland belt about the width of the thames at Blackfriars.
It’s not a perfect square belt, in the north it’s quite a bit thicker but there’s the Zoo and University campus etc.
It’s really pleasant and the most expensive real estate lies outside the borders of the parklands.
It’s not a perfect square belt, in the north it’s quite a bit thicker but there’s the Zoo and University campus etc.
It’s really pleasant and the most expensive real estate lies outside the borders of the parklands.
I spent a lot of time having lunch by the banks of the Torrens, and rowing 4s and 8s on the river. Would be sad to see the banks overrun by buildings (ala hawaii beaches), public access or not.
I almost bought a house at the end of AGC. We ran the numbers and watched a bunch of planes land. It seemed cool, until we visited at night. There are lights that flash directly on a house until well after 11pm. It lit up the entire neighborhood. Nope. We looked at typical arrivals and departures…5am till 2am. Unless you love pulsating lights and flight noises, the cost to own near an airport end isn’t worth it.
[deleted]
This gives brand new meaning to NIMBY. I simply can’t imagine I get regularly irritated at a lamppost that I can see from my back patio that is about .5km away.
The photo from the plane perspective[0] looks surreal… almost like someone superimposed the approach lights onto the residential block. Very impressive, in its way!
[0] https://wongm.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Adelaide-Approa...
[0] https://wongm.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Adelaide-Approa...
London City Airport is also in a fairly built-up area, so I wondered how the approach lights work there. Seems they run through an industrial estate:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/vTAcMJnk567MLjZ79
(and on the other side of the bridge for a little way)
https://maps.app.goo.gl/vTAcMJnk567MLjZ79
(and on the other side of the bridge for a little way)
Dubrovnik has them bridged over a road at the end of the runway, which felt a bit funny driving past: https://goo.gl/maps/5cFKkiGeHaAHYgfN6
São Paulo Congonhas airport uses a mix of the techniques used in LCY and DBV. Light towers in people's yards (https://goo.gl/maps/ANcFr2kfUJB9H6FS8) and bridges over roads (https://goo.gl/maps/EZadYfA43qyMQWtN9).
And Congonhas has both, approach lights over a fairly busy road, and in a very built-up area: https://goo.gl/maps/ugtU4TgKRdP9G9eu9
Arriving at that airport on a plane (looking through the side windows) is always a sight, it feels as if you're going to land on top of the buildings, and at the last second the airport appears below the plane. The other end of the popular "ponte aérea" (short hop flights between Santos Dumont airport at Rio de Janeiro and Congonhas airport at São Paulo) feels similar, only that there it's water instead of buildings.
Arriving at that airport on a plane (looking through the side windows) is always a sight, it feels as if you're going to land on top of the buildings, and at the last second the airport appears below the plane. The other end of the popular "ponte aérea" (short hop flights between Santos Dumont airport at Rio de Janeiro and Congonhas airport at São Paulo) feels similar, only that there it's water instead of buildings.
I used to drive this route regularly a decade ago - as a closeted av-dork, I always loved it. This streetview angle just gave me one of those memory-powered dopamine dumps. Thanks :)
SEATAC's approach is right over a minor highway, and they've built a very cool gantry to put the lights on: https://maps.app.goo.gl/ZrmkT74Rg32DmZ9j7
In Australia, airports are federal land. Controlled substances are under state jurisdiction.
So this raises a fecetious question - if you smoked a joint under the lights would you be immune to state prosecution?
So this raises a fecetious question - if you smoked a joint under the lights would you be immune to state prosecution?
Not facetious.
Allow me to introduce the Commonwealth Places (Application of Laws) Act 1970 to you. [https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2016C00956]
Section 4 has the effect that (leaving aside taxation laws), "[t]he provisions of the laws of a State as in force at a time (whether before or after the commencement of this Act) apply, or shall be deemed to have applied, in accordance with their tenor, at that time in and in relation to each place in that State that is or was a Commonwealth place at that time" (s 4(1)) - unless the State law already had that application, in which case the State law applied untouched (s 4(3)).
There is also express provision in s 5 concerning the operation of some Commonwealth crimes provisions.
But as a general matter, if smoking is illegal just outside the Commonwealth place, it will be illegal inside it.
eta: oops, I left this open for a while before posting, and just saw others have answered.
Allow me to introduce the Commonwealth Places (Application of Laws) Act 1970 to you. [https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2016C00956]
Section 4 has the effect that (leaving aside taxation laws), "[t]he provisions of the laws of a State as in force at a time (whether before or after the commencement of this Act) apply, or shall be deemed to have applied, in accordance with their tenor, at that time in and in relation to each place in that State that is or was a Commonwealth place at that time" (s 4(1)) - unless the State law already had that application, in which case the State law applied untouched (s 4(3)).
There is also express provision in s 5 concerning the operation of some Commonwealth crimes provisions.
But as a general matter, if smoking is illegal just outside the Commonwealth place, it will be illegal inside it.
eta: oops, I left this open for a while before posting, and just saw others have answered.
I had friends who smoked a joint outside Kiribilli House when they were young and stupid. AFP came out, looked at them, shook their heads and walked off
Yes, because south Australia doesn't criminalise small quantities of marijuana, and most drugs.
If the police were feeling that way inclined you'd get a fine and (compulsory?) drug diversion counselling, but probably not for one joint.
Last time I checked anyways, I haven't lived there since I was charged with two counts of trafficking a controlled drug about 10 years ago.
If the police were feeling that way inclined you'd get a fine and (compulsory?) drug diversion counselling, but probably not for one joint.
Last time I checked anyways, I haven't lived there since I was charged with two counts of trafficking a controlled drug about 10 years ago.
> I haven't lived there since I was charged with two counts of trafficking a controlled drug about 10 years ago
Odd detail to include in random convo to a crowd of strangers
Odd detail to include in random convo to a crowd of strangers
It's in my comment history here already, and is public information.
It's a mildly interesting story too, because it proves, at least back then, that South Australian police can't always run roughshod over your rights to privacy.
They had to drop the charges due to acting illegally, and I got all my cash back. Ha!
It's a mildly interesting story too, because it proves, at least back then, that South Australian police can't always run roughshod over your rights to privacy.
They had to drop the charges due to acting illegally, and I got all my cash back. Ha!
It’s not entirely odd. It might count towards expertise/credibility?
[deleted]
The Australian Government also has controlled substances laws, you’d just be prosecuted under those if it was federal land.
They would not prosecute you for that. It's a waste of money. They would move you along with a warning and they'd probably take your stuff.
Nope, it says the extra bits of land are normal freehold not special airport land.
Australia has federal legislation that applies state law to federal land, in general (the Commonwealth Places (Application of Laws) Act 1970).
(Also, it's only major airports - state capital city airports, plus a handful of regional airports that were formerly owned by the Federal Airports Corporation - that are federal land. Most airports in Australia are small regional airports that are and were always owned by local government and not subject to the special federal land ownership and leasing regime of the major airports.)
(Also, it's only major airports - state capital city airports, plus a handful of regional airports that were formerly owned by the Federal Airports Corporation - that are federal land. Most airports in Australia are small regional airports that are and were always owned by local government and not subject to the special federal land ownership and leasing regime of the major airports.)
Funny thought. But I imagine they'd find some way to make a charge stick.
The joint didn't magically teleport into the square of federal property, so possession before you stepped onto the federal land seems like a fairly easy argument. But I suspect the cops have a lot better things to do.
Unless you grow it right on the square :-) And use the approach lights to boost the plants. Talk about efficiency!
Naw you wouldn't be immune, in fact they would send you to Indonesia to be executed.
Reminds me of Taipei Songshan airport's approach lighting which is just as exposed
https://www.flickr.com/photos/kentaroiemoto/4348434393/in/ph...
https://www.flickr.com/photos/kentaroiemoto/4348434393/in/ph...
The good news is that Adelaide airport has a fairly restrictive curfew. These poor homeowners don’t have to put up with air traffic 24/7
Having lived directly under that flight path, there are exceptions to the curfew, especially for international flights. Even then, the first flight comes in daily at around 6am (or did when I lived there) and worked as a fairly effective alarm for me.
I used to live in Thebarton under the flight path, too far from the airport to bother anyone too much really.
Now I'm in Launceston a bit further from the airport, the 2am Toll Freight flight is definitely something I notice.
Now I'm in Launceston a bit further from the airport, the 2am Toll Freight flight is definitely something I notice.
I'm under a flight path in Brisbane, yeah those freight flights are surprisingly loud compared to the general traffic. For a lot of the dedicated domestic freight flights where I am (I assume it's similar in Tassie), they tend to use old 737-300s and -400s which sound about as loud to me as a much larger 777-300ER flying over, and louder than modern wide-bodies like the 787-9 and A350. Crazy how far engine technology has come!
Also, at that time, it's super quite except for those freighters.
Quality of life here as a home owner is exception, but don't tell anyone ahhhh ;)
Oh, those 2am freighter flights! I'm in a super quiet area of Trevallyn, which makes those couple of flights quite loud. Also, Launceston has a similar set of runway lights, that you drive under, and look very close to a house.
The 2am flight reminds me in Riverside that it's time to head to bed!
Oh hey! I figured I'd bump in to a local eventually :)
There are tens of us!
I would not have picked there of all places but the quiet nights there would make for a good background of silence to emphasise the flights.
Have you considered Davenport? :D No flights but endless shipping going on.
Have you considered Davenport? :D No flights but endless shipping going on.
I like visiting Devonport, would be orright if ya could get a good job there.
Serious question: Does the community gave to secure items to prevent them from falling? Have you ever had shattered windows?
Less serious questions: Is it a 140dB alarm? Do you recognize models by sound? I assume the A320 is medium-size, do they have bigger airplanes?
Less serious questions: Is it a 140dB alarm? Do you recognize models by sound? I assume the A320 is medium-size, do they have bigger airplanes?
Planes coming in above us were at about 1000ft, and there was definitely vibration, but not enough to damage windows. We did have some badly secured pictures fall off the walls, and items on shelves had a tendency to vibrate their way off the edges.
Not 140dB, but to give you an idea of how loud it was, we had to pause the TV or conversation when planes were coming over because we couldn't hear it.
We could absolutely recognize models by sound.
Very rarely did we have anything larger than an A320, Adelaide is not a big airport, but we did have some big military aircraft come through.
Not 140dB, but to give you an idea of how loud it was, we had to pause the TV or conversation when planes were coming over because we couldn't hear it.
We could absolutely recognize models by sound.
Very rarely did we have anything larger than an A320, Adelaide is not a big airport, but we did have some big military aircraft come through.
It's an international airport. Pre-Covid A380s and 747s were common. Now we don't see many A380s anymore.
Yeah… I can’t imagine living 100–200m from the runway and right under the approach path… it must be a special kind of hell.
I suppose you might get used to it if it was fairly regular every day? I used to live right across from a hospital trauma center helicopter pad. That was annoying because most of the time it was no issue, but every once in a while at like 2am, all heck broke loose with "Thump, thump, thump" in the air and bright lights pouring through my windows. But then, I couldn't get too annoyed, as the fellow in the helicopter undoubtedly had it much worse than I had.
Looked like it's been hugged to death (HTTP 525)
See https://web.archive.org/web/20220405002759/https://wongm.com...
Doesn't appear to have all the images unfortunately.
See https://web.archive.org/web/20220405002759/https://wongm.com...
Doesn't appear to have all the images unfortunately.
Seems to be available here:
https://archive.ph/BKXDW
https://archive.ph/BKXDW
>Secure Connection Failed
>An error occurred during a connection to archive.ph. Cannot communicate securely with peer: no common encryption algorithm(s).
>Error code: SSL_ERROR_NO_CYPHER_OVERLAP
> The page you are trying to view cannot be shown because the authenticity of the received data could not be verified. > Please contact the website owners to inform them of this problem.
>An error occurred during a connection to archive.ph. Cannot communicate securely with peer: no common encryption algorithm(s).
>Error code: SSL_ERROR_NO_CYPHER_OVERLAP
> The page you are trying to view cannot be shown because the authenticity of the received data could not be verified. > Please contact the website owners to inform them of this problem.
> CYPHER
*twitch*
Turns out that's not misspelled. Well. It is and it isn't. The misspelling is codified in the spec.
https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/file/tip/security/nss...:
*twitch*
Turns out that's not misspelled. Well. It is and it isn't. The misspelling is codified in the spec.
https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/file/tip/security/nss...:
ER3(SSL_ERROR_NO_CYPHER_OVERLAP, SSL_ERROR_BASE + 2,
"Cannot communicate securely with peer: no common encryption algorithm(s).")That's not a misspelling (though it is a less-common variant).
https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/147965/cipher-vs...
https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/147965/cipher-vs...
Ciphers in Cyber are Cyphers.
You're on Cloudflare DNS? archive.xx sites never work via 1.1.1.1; switch to another DNS
Who was to blame again? I think I remember a cloudflare rep comment that they had tried to get this resolved with the site owner.
It's explained here:
https://community.cloudflare.com/t/archive-is-not-accessible...
and here:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19828317
Who is to "blame" is up to you, but the archive.is operator is (was?) specifically not responding to CloudFlare DNS requests. It is intentionally "broken" on the archive.is side.
https://community.cloudflare.com/t/archive-is-not-accessible...
and here:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19828317
Who is to "blame" is up to you, but the archive.is operator is (was?) specifically not responding to CloudFlare DNS requests. It is intentionally "broken" on the archive.is side.
Interesting. Safari on iOS and Firefox on Linux don’t complain for me.
You can see the lights on Google Maps street view, for example: https://www.google.com/maps/@-34.9359362,138.550496,3a,75y,3...
It’s actually quite common for approach lights to be located off airport property. That’s a bit of an extreme case with peoples homes and backyards. Usually this would be across roads or commercial properties.
Around Bromma City Airport in Stockholm, Sweden there are approach lighting on the rooftops on adjacent houses, between roads etc. Also the road lights for the road passing just next to the airfield fence are lower where the airstrip is.
See: https://www.google.com/maps/@59.3486514,17.9570959,3a,75y,12...
See: https://www.google.com/maps/@59.3486514,17.9570959,3a,75y,12...
Approach to RAF Northolt in London has lighting in a business centre car park.
https://goo.gl/maps/2Qqss7iwQ4m7PQGA8
https://goo.gl/maps/2Qqss7iwQ4m7PQGA8
Reminds me of approach lighting at Reykjavik airport in Iceland. Although not quite as dramatic as Adelaide since it's not in a residential area, it goes right through a very busy road intersection:
https://www.google.com/maps/@64.1388,-21.9398871,3a,75y,144....
https://www.google.com/maps/@64.1388,-21.9398871,3a,75y,144....
Fascinating. I'm curious whether these are always lit at night, or only automatically turn on for each landing? (Being ignorant about how approach lights work in general).
Some are lit all night. Some are turned off at night. Planes landing after hours can sometimes use a radio frequency to turn on lights remotely for a time to land. Not sure if all work the same, but it is possible.
Edit: It is called Pilot Controlled Lighting. Some cool Youtube videos show it in action.
Edit: It is called Pilot Controlled Lighting. Some cool Youtube videos show it in action.
It's not quite as odd as the neighborhood overlay shown here, but the third runway at Seatac Airport was built on the edge of a ravine, and the approach lights are therefore strung along a truss, which crosses over a nearby highway - you drive underneath the lighting structure when approaching to the airport from the north.
https://i.redd.it/uxbw610dgpx01.jpg
https://i.redd.it/uxbw610dgpx01.jpg
This is similar to the Canarsie Approach to JFK airport in New York.
Here's a brief article on the topic https://wingmag.com/en/the-canarsie-approach.
Here's a brief article on the topic https://wingmag.com/en/the-canarsie-approach.
I’ve nothing relevant to say about this other than I am happy to see one of Marcus’ posts on HN! He has some great content centred around public transport in and around Melbourne, Australia.
My brother blogged extensively about Melbourne trams for years, and such was his passion on the topic he went back to Uni and now works as a town planner for the Melbourne City Council on light rail infrastructure.
I thought this was about the landing lights of approaching flights, illuminating the backyards.
Poor server…
I have ‘fond’ memories of being RIM’d to 3mbit then congested to < 50kbps during peak periods at gepps x exchange, in Adelaide.
If anyone would like to watch a comedy film about a similar topic, 1997's "The Castle" [0] is a beloved* and oft-quoted classic in Australia, that follows a family fighting the compulsory acquisition of their home for an airport expansion.
It is _very_ dense with its cultural references, so many jokes might slip by unnoticed if you aren't from Australia, but I would still recommend it for its good-natured charm.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Castle_(1997_Australian_fi...
* especially by legal professionals
It is _very_ dense with its cultural references, so many jokes might slip by unnoticed if you aren't from Australia, but I would still recommend it for its good-natured charm.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Castle_(1997_Australian_fi...
* especially by legal professionals
The cultural references were double indirection re-referenced in Thor Ragnarock, with Taika Waititi managing to pay significant homage to things that only make sense to Australians and New Zealanders. Not sure how he got away with that, but I salute his endeavour and success.
The Castle is honestly required viewing if you're Australian. Amazing movie
I'm hesitant to declare anything "the best", but The Castle is certainly guaranteed a spot in the top 10 Aussie films ever made. Unfortunately I live overseas these days and can't find it to stream anywhere. Might have to get someone to send me a DVD with some Tim Tams.
You can put that movie straight in the pool room.
Also worth watching if you're married to one, as I used to be! One of my ex's favorites and therefore the source of many quips I would otherwise have failed to understand.
To me it's a pretty good example example of the flaws of private property. A single person can block infrastructure which would have benefited millions for generations.
Yes it's an example of progress vs tradition and your point is one side of that balance. The whole movie is a very clear allegory to Aboriginal land rights. "It's Mabo" to quote the main protagonist defending his families right to their home full of tradition.
You perceive a person being able to fight back through the courts to prevent their home and neighbourhood from being forcibly bought and demolished a bad thing?
Yes. I think that its most of the reason why major cities just can't build proper infrastructure. Because it's virtually impossible to get the space for it. Yes moving house is a major annoyance and the government should compensate you for that (some % over market rate). But the annoyance the entire state suffers for decades if the infrastructure isn't built is many orders of magnitude greater.
A single person shouldn't be able to block an airport that will serve millions. I get HN is very supportive of private property above all else, but not everyone thinks the individual comes before the millions of others involved.
A single person shouldn't be able to block an airport that will serve millions. I get HN is very supportive of private property above all else, but not everyone thinks the individual comes before the millions of others involved.
Interesting perspective.
By this logic it seems, there should be no individual rights whatsoever. Whatever is deemed by the State good for the many is therefore what shall happen. Am I reading this correctly?
US city planning history is replete with entire living neighborhoods getting bulldozed for highways and shopping malls, and the cities never recover their vibrancy.
If property rights were viewed as immutable as geography, cities would just have to make do. Either buy the owners out at the price they are willing to sell, or find other solutions. The idea of a private owner "blocking" something would never arise.
By this logic it seems, there should be no individual rights whatsoever. Whatever is deemed by the State good for the many is therefore what shall happen. Am I reading this correctly?
US city planning history is replete with entire living neighborhoods getting bulldozed for highways and shopping malls, and the cities never recover their vibrancy.
If property rights were viewed as immutable as geography, cities would just have to make do. Either buy the owners out at the price they are willing to sell, or find other solutions. The idea of a private owner "blocking" something would never arise.
If property rights were viewed as immutable it would be aboriginal land.
Fair point.
> "A single person shouldn't be able to block an airport that will serve millions."
So how many people should be able to block an airport extension? a hundred people, ten thousand people?
What you're arguing is the classic of the trolley dilemma [1], the individual vs the many. Should you harm 1 person to save 1 million. The difference here is that you're not killing the individual, you're demolishing their home, and you're not saving 1 million people, you're making travel a little more convenient.
[1] https://theconversation.com/the-trolley-dilemma-would-you-ki...
So how many people should be able to block an airport extension? a hundred people, ten thousand people?
What you're arguing is the classic of the trolley dilemma [1], the individual vs the many. Should you harm 1 person to save 1 million. The difference here is that you're not killing the individual, you're demolishing their home, and you're not saving 1 million people, you're making travel a little more convenient.
[1] https://theconversation.com/the-trolley-dilemma-would-you-ki...
How can the person you're replying to answer the question about how many people should be able to block it? If we look at the consequences (as I am inclined to do), then it's going to depend on the specifics. If the airport is not going to bring a tangible benefit, then it doesn't matter if it's one person or ten thousand blocking it. On the other hand (putting it very roughly), if it brings great benefit, then we can estimate those benefits and mitigate the harms to those forced to sell by compensating them well for it. If the compensation to those displaced outweighs the benefit, then there's your number regarding how many should be able to block it.
As for the trolley dilemma, it's a great thought experiment precisely because people's answers and their reasons for their answers differ. I'm not sure therefore of its relevance here. Presumably the person you're responding to can just be consistent in their response to both the question about airports and the trolley dilemma.
As for the trolley dilemma, it's a great thought experiment precisely because people's answers and their reasons for their answers differ. I'm not sure therefore of its relevance here. Presumably the person you're responding to can just be consistent in their response to both the question about airports and the trolley dilemma.
> "What you're arguing is the classic of the trolley dilemma [1], the individual vs the many. Should you harm 1 person to save 1 million."
Of course if that's genuinely the situation, it's hard to argue that the needs of the many shouldn't be paramount. But in the case of airport expansion, it's rarely that simple!
A bigger airport isn't necessarily a public good. If it's close to urban areas it's often a net detriment to the public good, inflicting more noise and pollution on millions of people. The drive to expand really comes from the airport operator's desire to increase flight numbers and profits.
Of course if that's genuinely the situation, it's hard to argue that the needs of the many shouldn't be paramount. But in the case of airport expansion, it's rarely that simple!
A bigger airport isn't necessarily a public good. If it's close to urban areas it's often a net detriment to the public good, inflicting more noise and pollution on millions of people. The drive to expand really comes from the airport operator's desire to increase flight numbers and profits.
Well, we have information on what it looks like when governments seize someone’s land and destroy their house and their life and sometimes their livelihood in the name of Progress (and/or lining the pockets of someone involved with the project). Turns out it’s not actually a pretty picture, even in nations like the US which elevate property rights (see eg Kelo vs New London).
“Society” can be quite cruel and inhumane to individuals, who need strong rights to protect themselves — including property rights.
“Society” can be quite cruel and inhumane to individuals, who need strong rights to protect themselves — including property rights.
Most people would agree with you. That's why pretty much every government has the ability to engage in eminent domain or compulsory purchase to take private property for the "greater good."
So, whatever is responsible for the lack of proper infrastructure, your explanation isn't correct.
So, whatever is responsible for the lack of proper infrastructure, your explanation isn't correct.
That is fine until it is your house in question
Pay me 3x the market price of the house, and I'm going to consider it!
Tell him he's dreamin'
The airports are private owned so your argument goes either way with the CEO/investors deciding to demolish whole suburbs and plonk an airport with all its detrimental effects on human health in the middle of a city. Crazy how a single/few individuals can do that.
I'm Australian and I would never recommend it. It's average, like most fiction that comes from Australia.
Tell 'im 'e's dreamin'
I don’t think The Castle is based on it but the Narita Airport runway is literally built around a house
Yeah, this is a pretty crazy example! It's not just a house but an actual working farm:
https://www.unilad.co.uk/life/tokyo-narita-airport-has-a-far...
https://www.unilad.co.uk/life/tokyo-narita-airport-has-a-far...
Dude really thought he could host his website on Australian internet?
To be fair, our 1000/400 connection is only marginally worse than an EC2 which benched in at 800/800.
What killed the server probably wasn't bandwidth, but load (database error). Which means that a small EC2 wouldn't have coped, either.
What killed the server probably wasn't bandwidth, but load (database error). Which means that a small EC2 wouldn't have coped, either.
Just stick it behind a cloudflare and give up on decentralised internet, network neutrality and all that jazz
I'm still so sad about our new "gigabit" NBN stuff...
1000Mbps downlink.
50Mbps uplink.
Just horrible. For $130 AUD a month, no less. Sigh.
1000Mbps downlink.
50Mbps uplink.
Just horrible. For $130 AUD a month, no less. Sigh.
I'm still salty, to put it very mildly, at the Coalition for nixing the FTTP plan. My parents got FTTP, which they barely use at a trickle. I'm still on my wireless internet plan because it's no worse than whatever excuse for an upgrade is available at my place thanks to downgraded NBN plan of the copper and coal party.
Well if people would stop voting for the Rupert Murdoch private interest party things in Australia might improve. Seriously it's amazing the amount of damage that person has done to politics and the social fabric.
Malcolm Turnbull advertised that FTTN could handle speeds up to 100Mb down. I thought that sounded alright -- cheaper, faster rollout, and same speeds as FTTP anyway (with faster FTTP speeds than 100Mb allegedly being absurdly expensive anyway).
Of course, that requires keeping distances from nodes to a minimum, and in the end that wasn't done. I can't get higher than about 50Mb down due to distances from the exchange. I recall them saying that their 50Mb plan is most popular -- but I'm only on it because my connection is unstable at faster speeds. So yeah, it sucks.
Of course, that requires keeping distances from nodes to a minimum, and in the end that wasn't done. I can't get higher than about 50Mb down due to distances from the exchange. I recall them saying that their 50Mb plan is most popular -- but I'm only on it because my connection is unstable at faster speeds. So yeah, it sucks.
And now, only a few years on, the FTTN is already slowly getting replaced at great expense making the FTTN a colossal waste of money. Turnbull knew better as other places on earth already tried FTTN and removed it. The cost of putting power to all the nodes was excessive and ongoing power bills eventually expensive too. FTTP was passive at the nodes. The only argument was that it was planned to be a quicker rollout which didn’t eventuate either. Total shit show.
How many kilometres of replacement copper did they buy? Fucks sake. Unfortunately perfectly demonstrative of both Australian politics and the Australian public.
cough climate policy cough
cough climate policy cough
Salty is such an understatement for how I feel.
I used to have access to a separate fibre network (not NBN, was FTTB with VDSL through the building) because I lived in Fortitude Valley in Brisbane -- not only was it cheaper, it was properly fast and had near symmetrical upload, not quite, but not 5% of the download.
Now I'm stuck on NBN HFC. I get random 15 second dropouts, constant packet loss (but only incoming, not outgoing) when playing online shooters, its just crap all around. And the support for it hasn't helped. Sigh our internet is a mess. And its entirely down to the LNP as to why.
I used to have access to a separate fibre network (not NBN, was FTTB with VDSL through the building) because I lived in Fortitude Valley in Brisbane -- not only was it cheaper, it was properly fast and had near symmetrical upload, not quite, but not 5% of the download.
Now I'm stuck on NBN HFC. I get random 15 second dropouts, constant packet loss (but only incoming, not outgoing) when playing online shooters, its just crap all around. And the support for it hasn't helped. Sigh our internet is a mess. And its entirely down to the LNP as to why.
I find it difficult to feel bad for you.
$69 AUD for 50 down, 10 up, and thats the BEST that i can get.
$69 AUD for 50 down, 10 up, and thats the BEST that i can get.
Oh I don’t even get access to it lol. I’m just saying that’s the absolute “best” our NBN offers, and it’s shit
Depends where you are. The Adelaide CBD has widely rolled out 10Gbit. I'm in Adelaide and have 1Gbit at home. You just have to check before you move somewhere.
[deleted]
crazy!
One day it was my job to switch out burned out light bulbs from the approach light installations. It was before anyone was risk averse so I only had a ladder to climb up, keep as still as possible while wrangling the cases open, getting the old bulb out and installing the new one.
The most terrifying thing was bursts of wind when the whole construction, me included started to wobble.
I had quite a bit of an adrenaline rush this day.
Good times, but now I feel a bit old.
Edit: German local online newspaper article containing a photo of the approach lighting [0].
IATA designation: HOQ
[0]: https://www.frankenpost.de/inhalt.hof-stadtrat-beraet-ueber-...
Reading about it I learned that it is nowadays also used as a test area for BMW's autonomous driving. And nearly not used for regular flight activities.