• @will_a113@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    1062 months ago

    Every time I read a story about some billionaire getting angry about their private jets being tracked I recall a part of the Kim Stanley Robinson novel Ministry for the Future, a (very) near-future tale about how a few global climate catastrophes wreak such havoc that regular people start taking extreme measures – for example randomly shooting down passenger aircraft for months, causing the collapse of the air travel industry. I have to imagine that the 1%ers are thinking about that too now.

    • Snot Flickerman
      link
      fedilink
      English
      422 months ago

      I have to imagine that the 1%ers are thinking about that too now.

      “If those kids could read, they’d be very upset.”

    • @keefshape@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      37
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      That book is a not-so-covert manifesto, I swear.

      In the book, I noticed upon re-reading – it was always the biggest polluters (usually, the richest of the rich) that had unfortunate drone-strikes while flying.

      Not the electric planes. No commuter planes. Straight up 1%-er targets.

      B admits to it later on in the book, when they hint B might be Mother.

      • @will_a113@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        132 months ago

        It was kind of a difficult read for me - things just hit a little too close to home for me, and the resolution was too perfect. I’d still recommend it though - at the end of the day it’s still Kim Stanley Robinson, and he is an absolute master of hard social-scifi.

      • roguetrick
        link
        fedilink
        122 months ago

        Kim Stanley Robinson is likely one of the best sci fi authors alive. You generally can’t go wrong with his stuff.

      • SeaJ
        link
        fedilink
        English
        92 months ago

        I would say it is an okay book. It’s a little too optimistic on the human side which his books all tend to be. It’s worth a read though of only to give some idea of possibilities.

        • @aidan@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          42 months ago

          “optimistic” just above was talking about how terrorists were shooting planes out of the sky killing people

          • SeaJ
            link
            fedilink
            English
            42 months ago

            Everyone has a different definition of optimism. 🙂

            More I meant the final outcome. I don’t think the eco terrorism would be as effective or as coordinated. ELF certainly did not end up changing much in a positive way.

  • @_number8_@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    962 months ago

    private planes, yachts, private chefs, etc seem like such an obscene amount of luxury it shouldn’t be allowed somehow. public services would be better if the wealthy were forced to use them, then they might actually care about the constant shittifying of everything

    • @rottingleaf@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      272 months ago

      “Private planes” may refer to a Piper Cub. It’s expensive, but in some areas may make sense, and fits under a hobby. Some people dream of piloting.

      “Yachts” may refer to a motorboat. Or a yacht as in “motorboat with one sail”. It’s expensive, but very often honestly worked for. Some people dream of yachting.

      I’m just informing you of cases you clearly didn’t think about.

      • @SendMePhotos@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        242 months ago

        Apparently more people here agree than disagree.

        I think owning a small plane is fine. I’m not officially against owning a larger plane… Idk…

        Aviation makes up about 2% of global CO2 emissions which is a lot but also not a lot. It’s not the smaller planes, it’s all of the passenger and cargo jets (mostly).

        • purplexed
          link
          fedilink
          English
          22 months ago

          Thank you! While reducing CO2 is important, harping on private planes isn’t going to make a change.

          • @jabathekek@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            62 months ago

            That’s like saying one person taking their bike to work instead of their car won’t do anything, as if their car doesn’t burn gas, as if they don’t give money to oil companies for that gas.

            The same idea with private jets. No matter how small a positive change might be in the grand scope of things, it’s still a worthwhile change. That’s really the one thing that has to happen so we all don’t die; everyone making pro-environmental life choices that will eventually carry over into industry when that collective pressure accumulates, forcing companies that rely on income from those people to change their practice and policy.

            • @Smokeydope@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              1
              edit-2
              2 months ago

              We as in you and me? Try our best to reduce waste, things that contribute to carbon emission, and plant some crops that put nutrients back in the soil. Donate some money to charities and institutions that further environments science research.

              We as a country and international effort? Long term policy changes like carbon taxes. The 1%s and politically well connected finally being personally inconvinenced by climate change. About when the sea water rises to destroy their private villas and beach getaways is when some real progress will start to get made. 3rd world countries will hopefully transition from burning fossil fuel to cleaner energy

      • @_number8_@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        52 months ago

        it’s kind of a stretch, yeah, but it just feels so gross, in that same way a yacht or plane does, seeing tiktok vids of someone laboriously crafting this gorgeous, perfect meal for one (1) fucking middle-CEO-partner-twat and his family. if you make enough to afford something like that, get fucked, you definitely don’t work hard enough to deserve it.

        it’s probably a way easier shift for the chef than a restaurant dinner rush, which is great, but it’s just…such an obscenity to think some have access to this sort of luxury because they shook the right hands at the business office / were born into generational wealth.

  • @nihilvain@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    402 months ago

    they exploited a vulnerability in the airport’s Customer Relationship Management (CRM) system

    CRM, No surprise 🫠

    • @ButtDrugs@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      19
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      It’s mostly landing/takeoff records. Big airports have takeoff and landing fees and would keep records such as this for accounting and legal reasons. Being a major airport like LAX means it’s probably mostly private/commercial jets, but also plenty of small time hobbyist aviators are probably wrapped up in this, and would be the only victim here ( general aviation pilots tend to use smaller, local airports but still on occasion hit the big ones).

    • @chiliedogg@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      52 months ago

      No. 2.5 million people have used them. And not all private planes are fancy luxury sky-yachts.

      For instance, a small prop-job used for flight training.

    • Sabata11792
      link
      fedilink
      112 months ago

      Some boring articles occasionally hits the front page when the thumbnail gets swapped for porn. Funny every time.

  • @potatopotato@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    72 months ago

    This is already publicly available data. You can get the address of every private pilot and the tail number of every plane from the FAAs database right now. Additionally you can see where every flying aircraft is in the world right now. Kind of a nothingburger :/