what I have learned today.

[barakta]

What does that make me when I can see light flicker at 10,000Hz (nevermind 60!).

I don't think I'm especially 1337 at sports, in fact my vision is outright wonky AF and scares various optiquacken.

[Kim]

What does that make me when I can see light flicker at 10,000Hz (nevermind 60!).

I don't think I'm especially 1337 at sports, in fact my vision is outright wonky AF and scares various optiquacken.

I think it's your wonky vision that enables you to see the flicker so easily, as you get motion artefacts from your own head and eye movement that people with normal VOR don't.  If you fixate on a non-moving flickering light source, the fusion frequency will likely be comparable.  (Being good at sports would require a properly stabilised image rather than seeing a mess of stroboscopic artefacts.  To say nothing of a body that's conducive to chasing balls around or whatever.)

I reckon they're on to something with the trait being trainable.  I'm a lot more aware of flickering lighting since association with barakta gave me a reason to be looking out for it, even though it doesn't bother me.

Knocking things over may be a proprioception thing rather than visual, of course.  Though I note that as my eyes get older I find that subjectively my subjective definition of 'low light' is raising, and this applies to perception of motion as much as resolution.

[Cudzoziemiec]

This maybe explains why MrsT's dad, who lived with us, was always knocking things over, and why MrsT and I both knock plates against the edge of the kitchen units when putting them into the dishwasher.  Also, maybe, why I don't enjoy plunging down a hill on my bike as much as I used to.

Bah.

Knocking things over may be a proprioception thing rather than visual, of course. 

This, I was thinking, before I even read Kim's post.

[Cudzoziemiec]

Thing I learned yesterday is that nationally, 24% of the UK population consider themselves disabled in some way. But in parliament, out of 650 MPs, there are only 6 who are or consider themselves disabled.

[MattH]

Ah, that's because MPs aren't made up of workshy benefits scroungers living off state handouts.

Oh. Erm, as you were. 

[barakta]

Also the Access to Elected Office fund was cut at some point so anyone who needs support costs paid to campaign is shit out of luck.

A deafblind BSL signing friend of mine Ben Fletcher stood for the Greens a few years back, he had to crowdfund interpreter support so he could do doorstepping. The video in that link is worth a watch. Ben retained his deposit and beat UKIP, reduced Justine Greening's majority from 10,500 to 1,500.

If you're lucky enough to get INTO parliament like Marsha De Cordova, then you have no legal rights to adjustments because the Equality Act doesn't apply (MPs and parliament are exempt like the judiciary, fuckers). Marsha reports several access issues in parliament and in MPing. Often large print versions of briefings arrive after debates or later than the regular print, when it takes Marsha longer to read. IPSA retracted funding that had been agreed to fund extra human assistance for Marsha.

There's also been a refusal to consider jobsharing options for MPs where 2 people stood together as a jobshare and split the role 50:50 for people who don't have the energy for full-time (which to be fair for many MPs is a LOT of hours work if they aren't lazy). Many impairments reduce energy, and or the issue that things take longer cos of access failings.

So multiple barriers to getting access to politics, into politics, staying in politics and more.

Also, self-definition is tricky cos there are more than 6 disabled MPs, anyone with diabetes like Theresa May is legally disabled in some contexts. Several MPs have had cancer or have health conditions that would count as disabilities (several had to shield during Covid and struggled to get adjustments when others were able to return). People feel disability is a stigma so they won't recognise where they might be represented under the label.

[Cudzoziemiec]

I would guess that MPs with a particular condition are less likely to consider describe themselves as disabled than the average population with the same condition is. Also, probably a lot of that 24% nationally are old people who've gained disabilities through life; MPs are also older on the whole than the population, but can always resign.

[ElyDave]

I for one do not consider myself disabled, but do consider that I have a long term medical condition.

I've not had to insist on any reasonable accomodation of it, generally been able to have a sensible chat, but I do realise that is not the case fro all.

[Regulator]

About the New River in London.

"Neither new nor a river" apparently.

Yep.  There's a really good walk along the New River (28 miles) which I can recommend.

[Mr Larrington]

The New River used to go all the way to Clerkenwell: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_River_Head

Which in turn lent its name to a 1991 album by the very fab Bevis Frond.

[barakta]

I for one do not consider myself disabled, but do consider that I have a long term medical condition.

I've not had to insist on any reasonable accomodation of it, generally been able to have a sensible chat, but I do realise that is not the case fro all.

Not feeling the D word applies is perfectly valid. It's always useful to define your terms if you're collecting data.

If your needs are met. I'd argue under the social model that you are not dis-abled, you have an "impairment" (condition) but if you can use common sense at work and it's managed then you are not experiencing barriers etc.

I wish there was more support to nobble employers. A blind friend of mine this week is trying to get a job but being told by recruiter the job which requires occasional travel requires a driving licence. Friend has explained he can get Access to Work taxis or a funded driver but the recruiter still insists on the driving licence. Most people can only fight that constant level of fuckery for so long and most don't have the knowledge or support to litigate. Friend doesn't know WHO the employer is yet, cos it's just a recruiter at this point who won't identify the employer. Even if you did litigate effectively they could still retaliate by plausibly not giving you the job. Doomed if you fight doomed if you don't.

Government needs to improve access to housing, transport, health and social care and challenge employers around adjustments before they hector disabled people for not working.

[fd3]

I am some form of ND (which was probably misdiagnosed in the 80s) which I consider a disability but would not consider myself disabled.  I didn't use to think of my glasses corrected eyesight as either, but I am getting to the point where I don't have corrected vision with glasses and it's going to disabled me.
That said my friend is going blind so I feel weird putting myself in the same boat (I don't need my employer to make adjustments for me, just a little consideration for my foibles).
I suspect MPs would consider a disability a weakness to be shared with the opposition.

[Salvatore]

... that on the day I was born, an American fighter plane shot itself down. The test pilot fired a long burst from the guns of his supersonic aircraft, hit the afterburners then caught up with the cannon rounds which smashed his windscreen. The pilot survived.

more here

[mrcharly-YHT]

... that on the day I was born, an American fighter plane shot itself down. The test pilot fired a long burst from the guns of his supersonic aircraft, hit the afterburners then caught up with the cannon rounds which smashed his windscreen. The pilot survived.

more here

That sounded so unlikely, I had to check your link.

He dived after shooting. So, descended into the arc of the bullets.

[Kim]

Now I'm wondering how much reverse thrust those kind of guns generate.  Can you run out of airspeed before you run out of ammunition...?

[Diver300]

Now I'm wondering how much reverse thrust those kind of guns generate.  Can you run out of airspeed before you run out of ammunition...?

Hawker Hurricanes in WWII had a minimum airspeed for firing the cannons, to avoid stalling.

[TimC]

Now I'm wondering how much reverse thrust those kind of guns generate.  Can you run out of airspeed before you run out of ammunition...?

In a previous life, I was a fighter pilot under training. As such an animal, I flew the Hawker Hunter FGA9 in the final pre-operational-training course, at No2 Tactical Weapons Unit then based at RAF Lossiemouth. Normally on our training mssions we'd only get to fire one of the four mounted 30mm Aden cannons at once (they could be selected in pairs, and a jam round would be placed in one of the pair so that only one would fire). In this configuration, a short (half-sec) burst would fire 40-50 rounds (of the 120 available) and slow you down by 5-10kts from the nominal 420kts we normally flew ground attack profiles at.

The unit accrued live firing rounds over the year, and once a year would be set loose at the Garvie island (Cape Wrath) range to poop off the whole accrued arsenal. On one of these occasions, I was given an aeroplane with four full magazines of 30mm armour-piercing and tracer rounds, and invited to try at least one pass firing all four at once. The result was spectacular, at least at my end. The cockpit filled with smoke, I lost 60 knots, and I had absolutely no idea where the rounds went as I was a bit busy trying to rescue myself from the confusion. 5200 rounds-per-minute, firing at about 2600ft/sec muzzle velocity, makes for an interesting Newtonian reaction, and one which I'm in no hurry to ever repeat.

That muzzle velocity is about 1600kts, and it will fairly rapidly decrease as air resistance and gravity take effect. There are very few aircraft that can reach that speed, but it's entirely feasible that the decelerating rounds could meet the accelerating aircraft in a steep dive.

[Captain Nemo]

Now I'm wondering how much reverse thrust those kind of guns generate.  Can you run out of airspeed before you run out of ammunition...?

The "Brrrrt" of the 30mm GAU-8 cannon in the A10 is often cited as like hitting the brakes, but someone has put some numbers to it:

https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/46317/how-much-is-airspeed-reduced-on-an-a10-warthog-when-firing-its-cannon

The firing duration being so brief, the airspeed reduction is not as the legend suggests. Smoke is an issue...

I was involved in the design of the original mountings for the Goalkeeper CIWS (built around the GAU-8 cannon) installations on HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark and it always amazed me that you could fly and fire a GAU-8 (admittedly without all the CIWS gimbles and gubbins) from a platform as small as an A10. The 30mm Goalkeeper was eventually replaced by the slightly more agile 20mm Vulcan Phalanx. Never witnessed either in action but can safely say that it would not affect the ships' stability - rabbit hole to effect of firing full broadsides from ships of the line spotted...

[Cudzoziemiec]

... that on the day I was born, an American fighter plane shot itself down. The test pilot fired a long burst from the guns of his supersonic aircraft, hit the afterburners then caught up with the cannon rounds which smashed his windscreen. The pilot survived.

more here

I like how it's a long burst in the first paragraph, but by the fourth para it's become "a brief, four-second burst". Four seconds doesn't sound at all brief to me, not that I'd know.

[TimC]

Four seconds would imply a larger supply of ammunition than most aircraft could carry. It also implies that the gun used is more resistant to heat damage than most!

The A-10 is a much heavier aircraft than the Hunter - roughly twice the mass (11,000kg vs 23,000kg). Also the 20mm rounds of the Vulcan cannon are considerably lighter (about 100g) than the Aden's (270g). The muzzle velocity is greater (1000m/s vs 800 or so) and the rate of fire is slightly higher (6000rpm vs 5200 rpm), but these aren't enough of a factor to make the A-10's reaction to firing the gun anything like that of the Hunter!

[spesh]

Four seconds would imply a larger supply of ammunition than most aircraft could carry. It also implies that the gun used is more resistant to heat damage than most!

Allow me to flex the dark and much deprecated art (as far as YACF appears to be concerned) of looking stuff up...

The Wiki page for the F-11 Tiger and three of the four articles cited in relation to the self-pwnage incident say two bursts were fired:

The Tiger gained the dubious distinction of being the first jet aircraft to shoot itself down.^[8][9] On 21 September 1956, during a test-firing of its 20 mm (0.79 in) cannons, pilot Tom Attridge fired two bursts midway through a shallow dive. As the trajectory of the cannon rounds decayed, they ultimately crossed paths with the Tiger as it continued its descent, disabling the aircraft and forcing Attridge to crash-land the aircraft; he survived with a broken leg and multiple broken vertebrae.^[10][11]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_F-11_Tiger#Flight_testing

Citation [8] is the Popular Mechanics article linked upthread. Here are the key paragraphs from citations [9-11], in order:

On Sept. 21, 1956, young U.S. Navy test pilot Tom Attridge took off in an F11F Tiger (BuNo 138620) from Long Island, New York, for a weapons test over the Atlantic. He climbed to 20,000 feet, started a Mach 1 dive, and fired two bursts of rounds from his 20mm cannons until the ammunition was expended at 13,000 feet.

https://www.planeandpilotmag.com/news/pilot-talk/grumman-f11-tiger-shoot-itself-down/

On Sep 21, 1956 Grumman test pilot Tom Attridge shot himself down in a graphic demonstration of two objects occupying the wrong place at the same time—one being a Grumman F11F-1 Tiger [138260], the other a gaggle of its own bullets..

It happened on the second run of test-firing four 20mm cannon at Mach 1.0 speeds. At 20,000' Attridge entered a shallow dive of 20°, accelerating in afterburner, and at 13,000' pulled the trigger for a four-second burst, then another to empty the belts. During the firing run the F11F continued its descent, and upon arriving at 7,000', the armor-glass windshield was struck, but not penetrated, by an object..

http://www.aerofiles.com/tiger-tail.html

Flying over the designated gunnery range some 20 miles from shore, out over the Altantic Ocean, Attridge entered a shallow dive from an altitude of 20,000 feet, as he readied to test-fire the Tiger's cannons.  He fired a short four-second burst at 13,000 feet, expending about 70 rounds in total.  Advancing the engine to afterburners, he paused his fire, and entered into a steeper dive. and fired the cannons again at 7,000 feet to clear the gun belts.  Having just finished firing this second four-second burst, the plane rattled.  The Tiger had been struck, and Attridge's windshield buckled inward.

https://www.check-six.com/Crash_Sites/Tiger138260.htm

Per the Wiki page, the F-11 carried four Colt Mk 12 cannon, with an ammo supply of 125 rounds per gun. The Wiki page for the Mk 12 says its rate of fire was 1,000 rounds per minute. Let's do the maths...

1,000 rounds per minute / 60 seconds = 16.67 rounds per second.

125 rounds  / 16.67 rounds per second = 7.5 seconds available firing time

So the "four second burst" seems legit - though I think the third article I quoted has a small mistake in it WRT ammo expenditure from the first burst, because 70 rounds is what each gun would fire in 4 seconds.

[barakta]

I am some form of ND (which was probably misdiagnosed in the 80s) which I consider a disability but would not consider myself disabled. 

I don't think that's uncommon, but if you get lucky like it seems you have, you find your niche and with self-knowledge and strategies you don't need much support and get by (altho some people then burn out cos they thought they were OK but weren't).

Consideration for foibles is adjustment too, sometimes it can just be the workplace is already flexible and inclusive so you're adapting things yourself.

I didn't use to think of my glasses corrected eyesight as either, but I am getting to the point where I don't have corrected vision with glasses and it's going to disabled me.
That said my friend is going blind so I feel weird putting myself in the same boat (I don't need my employer to make adjustments for me, just a little consideration for my foibles).
I suspect MPs would consider a disability a weakness to be shared with the opposition.

I think it's OK to be frustrated and consider yourself dis-abled by non fully correctible vision, it doesn't detract from someone with more serious sight loss, they're different ends of the same spectrum and even mild visual issues can be surprisingly disabling and in some ways serious visual impairment forces the issue of things like screenreaders and braille which can be definite advantages that a milder visually bolloxed person wouldn't bother investing in cos not worth the effort.

[Sergeant Pluck]

That you can’t survive being electrocuted, but you will survive an electric shock.

[Jaded]

... that on the day I was born, an American fighter plane shot itself down. The test pilot fired a long burst from the guns of his supersonic aircraft, hit the afterburners then caught up with the cannon rounds which smashed his windscreen. The pilot survived.

more here

I like how it's a long burst in the first paragraph, but by the fourth para it's become "a brief, four-second burst". Four seconds doesn't sound at all brief to me, not that I'd know.

And, around the time this was posted, I was looking at a Tiger on the flight deck of the Intrepid Museum in NYC, learning that someone shot themselves down.

[CAMRAMan]

'Rozzers', the pejorative term for the police, is derived from a Romany word meaning 'pigs'.