momavujisic

Am I the only one who thought this was an online tool to check if a product was Prime-eligable on Amazon?

Yet Ackman argues that index funds are destroying his and hedge fund's abilities to better govern a company. I guess the fraud was the fault of those darn index funds!

This requires that you install their Jetpack plugin if you have a self-hosted website and then connect it with your Wordpress.com account.

I haven't managed to get it work while my Wordpress blog has been running through Cloudflare.

There's a great 25 minute tour of the ISS by Sunita Williams on NASA's YouTube channel along with commentary on how life works up there. https://youtu.be/doN4t5NKW-k

Are people still spouting "dotcom crash v2.0" nonsense?

I agree that valuations are abnormally high (although not higher than those during the dotcom bubble) and that a correction is due soon however, this time really is different in the sense that the damage will be largely contained to those with enough money to throw down on startups (VC/PE funds, institutional investors). For better or worse, tech startups are staying private longer, holding private IPOs and generally staying away from the scrutiny of the public market while at the same time insulating the general public from a crash.

What will largely suck will be the uptick in unemployment not just from failed and failing startups having to lay off employees cause of lack of funding, but the associated kill-off of the entire services-for-startups industry. Did I mention the lack of funding? That'll also suck for newcomers who came at the wrong time.

The appeal to UBI for me has always, apart from being a good way to stop welfare traps and increase income equality now, is that it marks the beginning of the new phase in our economic system: one from a cash-work model to a material-existence model. I do subscribe to the total job automation theory being every so increasingly talked about, and what these proposals tell me is that government and to a larger extent society is beginning to see that we can indeed provide for everyone using our productivity gains. The cash part of the deal I think is just a carry-on from our ageing economic system that will be replaced by some other form of value transfer mechanism which honestly, I can't imagine what would look like.

I'm not going to question you, because the plane did indeed have enough energy to the "flip". I'm just going to suggest things about the speed. The approach speed a 777 at 250km/h, is correct, that's 134 kts which is maybe a tad bit slower then what it should be. However, the NTSB confirmed today that the aircraft was significantly slower than that – which why the plane ended up coming up short and stalling. Furthermore there is at least a couple seconds of the plane skidding on the ground which would have slowed it yet even more before it did the "flip".

I was very skeptical of comments that the plane 'cartwheeled' and 'flipped'. I just didn't believe there was not only not enough energy, but there would be a lot more fatalities and the airframe would be even more wrecked.

However, this video was quite the shocker. Not only does the aircraft do a near 360 degree spin, but you could see the bottom of the aircraft as it spins with the tail up and nose down with the right wing up in the air. Amazing only 2 fatalities so far and the aircraft was intact as it was.

Idle speculation and having a bit of fun trying to play air crash investigator, is exactly what this article is. I hope that I was able to convey that this is about "what I think" happened and not "what happened".

About the speed, you're correct – 130 kts for a 777 is not fast, I was mistaken. In fact the NTSB just said the target approach given by the pilots was to be 137 kts. I should have chose one of the higher airspeeds given but I did not want to give a high estimate. I am not familiar with 777 speeds and should of done some more research in that regard. I did however, write that I found the sub-100 speeds to be extremely slow, even suggesting that it's most likely below stall speed – which seems to be correct as the NTSB says the stick shaker went off some 4 seconds before impact.

Just a note about approaches and landings – most, if not all airline ops usually say that you should be ~50ft when passing above the threshold.

CNN just released video footage they have of the actual crash.

The plane (from what I see) after crashing does a near 360-degree turn with the right wing high up – in fact you can see that the plane is almost nose down-tail up which almost makes it look like it was cartwheeling.

Very surprising revelation, I really did not expect an airframe to remain as intact as it did after going through that.

In a landing flare, you want to raise your negative V/S to near zero. A positive vertical speed means you're no longer descending, but ascending. Having a positive vertical speed during the landing flair is something you don't want to have as you're basically floating (and possibly climbing) above the runway and bleeding your airspeed which, in a couple seconds will most likely end in a hard landing as you've stalled while floating over the runway.

The positive rate of climb to me, indicates that they attempted to climb (go-around) but their low airspeed resulted in a stall.

It's important to remember that this data was pulled off Flightware which is basically aggregated data. and not from an accurate source such as the FDR. So my guess could be totally wrong.

I'm actually working right now to try to put some kind of overlay over the images for credit situations. My blog is still a WIP. Sorry!