The disk and sudo mentioned are good enough clues, then you have the about.

He's getting his compassionate nodding and emotional support in the comments over there.

I agree that him being non-technical shouldn't be discussion-ending in this case, but it is a valid observation, wether necessary or not.

"Non-technical" isn't an insult.

What you call "well actually"ing is well within limits on a technical forum.

Ok, sure!

As for the rest, "excuse me if I'm wrong" is a very common and valid phrase, though a bit ruined by sarcastic misuse

I attempted to show with it that I don't assume anything or default to hostility, though on a different occasion you'd yourself probably argue that others feelings are not my responsibility.

I'm not sorry for asking the question, unless t0mas88 got offended by it.

If it's absolute, then why add that? Mine "to me" gave me a different impression, but it being a "to me", I questioned, not accused.

You perhaps recognize t0mas88 after all these years on HN. I don't. I'm relatively a new and infrequent user.

So I hope that I would be criticised just as passionately if that'd be a random user whose comments indeed turned out to be AI. Because no matter what is the fact, the question is rude, nay, very offensive.

Using AI isn't a tabu. It is fully debatable wether generating, reviewing and pasting helpful information on an informal forum is wrong, I just implied my own frustration with what I often experience.

Of course I could've phrased it much better, and I suspect you guys wouldn't bat an eye.

> Have you never seen people on HN write detailed, articulate answers?

> It's frustrating and discourages genuine contributors.

These are good points.

The commenter himself didn't seem hurt by it.

I'd recommend raising your outrage threshold. I clearly am keeping this light hearted, while you go into fight mode because you saw the word "offence". Loosen up a bit :)

But regarding flight ability, wouldn't that be V2? I thought there exist conditions where V1 is well below rotation speed.

Anyways,

> to make sure you can stop before the end of the runway

answers my main question, and makes sense from a procedural standpoint.

But still, hard to believe that there is no room for in-situ evaluation if runway overrun is worse than likely crash. Of course then again, those have to be split second decisions.

And knowledgeable and helpful responses can be AI, so there might be a fallacy somewhere in your offence-taking. Are you offended when people do that in general, or only when they are wrong?

I do appreciate the effort put into writing a good comment.

That's what I'm getting at. I want to abort unsafely. Imagine 400 meters of grass field after the end of the runway, and a water body. I'm asking wether such factors are accounted for, or if plane on ground beyond runway does-not-compute.

Surely uncertainty about the situation contributes to defaulting to committing, but what if it's a passenger plane and at V1 pilots know they've lost power? Wouldn't veering into highway at 30 mph be weighted against certain, big loss of life?

Edit: I now see that this has been partially answered by uncle comment

If there is a wild part at all then it isn't that 'they' are saying it, but what we came to view as conservative.

In a couple of years you might find yourself in that whining bucket.

His statement was about a certain, obviously real tendency in general, existence of which is reasonable to assume there is enough research about.

He objected not to the unlikelihood of an accidental manipulation, but to the potential flaw in your comparison (which was at best a valid opinion).