They never found the plane. Most likely the lead pilot crashed it intentionally, but we don't really know. The person writing this blog post is more certain about that than the Malaysian authorities, but bloggers are allowed to speculate more than government commissions.

There's some neat math people used to try and find the plane that gets alluded to, but not explained in depth, and the post is a reasonable summary, but didn't really change my mind much and my previous awareness was based on overhearing cable news, so it's not really anything new.

It's written well enough to be entertaining, but isn't really enlightening.

And hey if we can’t trust random people on the internet, who can we trust? :)

The smoking gun IMO is that deleted simulated flight path. If that is legit, then I think it's case closed.

There are several smoking guns. The disabled transponder right at ATC handoff. The high-skill turn. The special flight path that skirts several jurisdictions, then blends with other traffic. The final turn off that path to somewhere far away. Lack of fuel being what ended the flight. The home simulator with the same flight path, i.e. one of these pilots has a history of flying this path.

Not something a passenger can do. Not something that can be explained as the first & last presentation of an unknown technical flaw.

There seems to be a knee jerk reaction to react negatively to anyone who doesn't read the article or doesn't read it in depth.

i don't think the comment about TL;DR OR asking chatgpt is completely out of line. I could see businesses being built on top of chatgpt to create summaries of articles on the internet. This is a pretty big use case.

Sometimes, people want a more efficient way to read articles, rather than actually reading them. If a service could be created that summarizes the main point of an article, I think there's value (and a potential business) in it. You might even be able to ask chatgpt or a service on top ofit, "has this article any new conclusions about the state of Mh370?" without actually reading the article.

>Sometimes, people want a more efficient way to read articles, rather than actually reading them.

Is it too much to assume that readers have had at least high school education and know about lead sentences and summary paragraphs?

If AI can create the perfect executive summary, then why not?

A good executive summary is better than just lead sentences.

I agree with you considering parent comment has currently been downvoted. This was one of the most fascinating articles I've read but it was so long I still didn't finish reading the entire thing

Particularly when over half the article is Atlantic-style lengthy exposition about the history which a lot of us already know, and I don't really care if the author is that good of a writer or not.

> You might even be able to ask chatgpt or a service on top ofit, "has this article any new conclusions about the state of Mh370?" without actually reading the article.

The problem is, if ChatGPT doesn't have the data, it likes to create completely fictional narratives.