I'm sure that's how they think about it yes. However lying to the customer about the existence of a feature isn't really a good long-term strategy to maintain customer relations. I'm in engineering so I don't care, but the customer is not going to trust them if they keep doing that. In the long run it costs them sales.

Especially considering that a lot of the time they'll tell the customer a feature exists, and then engineering just doesn't have the capacity to develop it. So the customer actually finds out they were lying. Not good.

That's your problem though. Nobody can tell what point you were trying to make because it was so incoherent, hence my original comment

Cruise ships are based on practical technology though. If the only use for cruise ships was leisure then it wouldn't be economic to develop them. Airship technology never really got anywhere and it's certainly never became commercially used, so putting in the money to develop it for recreation just doesn't make sense.

They would still have to contain hydrogen though. Making them rigid doesn't decrease fire risk.

They have bad PR for a reason. It's not prejudice it's practicality.

You don't use up the hydrogen in operation, so you don't need to create it on the vehicle. Attempting to do so would just add weight and probably wouldn't work anyway as I suspect the amount of energy you would require to convert water into hydrogen is a lot more than a few solar panels could ever provide.

The issue is hydrogen is just inherently dangerous. Compounded by the fact that no one really cares anyway because airships don't have a purpose to exist in the modern world outside of a very few niche scenarios.

You don't have a point you just engaging and "I'm 14 and this is deep" level commentary.

All situations are nuanced you can't just sign on with blanket philosophies, it doesn't work

I prefer to be outraged about things that have actually happened, rather than perceived injustices by randoms who have an a potentially unwarranted agenda.

Seems unnecessarily dangerous to run in fog. I know a geologist that works for a mining company in parts of the world like this and they say that anything other than pristine weather basically grounds a helicopter flight. It probably isn't a risk most of the time but why risk it?

Why would the home office are really getting on with it aren't they. Soon they'll be able to identify and deport people in less than a decade.

We're also so incredibly far off from AGI that it's just roleplay to pretend like it's relevant.

Oh you knew that for certain do you. Well that's reassuring, please share your evidence.

Are we sure AI isn't already as intelligent as some humans, because the bar isn't really very high is it?

It happens if you get hit in the head. The skull isn't actually all that good at protecting the brain after all.

The problem is weight. The heavier the load the bigger the gas bag needs to be to carry that load. The whole thing very quickly gets out of proportion and considering they were using hydrogen the heavier the load the riskier it was.

Modern airships are helium-based, but helium is way too expensive to ever be commercially viable on a large scale.