4,631 karma · joined April 30, 2012
Is there evidence that PM ever called for a go around? I mean earlier, when it would have actually been possible, not 15 seconds before the end of the flight data recording.
From what I've heard, PM stated (repeatedly) that they were too high and/or too fast, and PF was not heard to respond.
Really it mostly depends on how heavily you use it, and maybe to a lesser extent charging habits (charging slowly, not charging to 100%, etc).
TFA describes a fuel leak resulting from a piece of the turbine disk passing through a fuel tank located within the wing:
"When the fragments of the IP turbine disk passed through the wing and belly of the A380, they caused considerable secondary damage along the way, not only to the №2 engine but also to the left wing fuel tank, which sprang a leak"
It also includes a photo of the inside of the damaged wing tank.
Was the requirement you describe added after this incident?
I opened up Activity Monitor and CPU use looked normal but it showed the GPU was pegged at 100% as long as that page was open.
Unlike sports gambling or casinos, the stock market actually does have some legitimate utility, as compared to being (at best) pure entertainment.
Articles like this one aren't exactly helping either.
Not only for foreign goods. If there's a tax on imported X, domestic X producers can now charge more because the foreign producers must raise their prices to pay for the tax.
Another way to look at it is that any tariff reduces foreign competition, with all the knock-on effects that implies.
Regarding "carry insurance": margins in the airline business are notoriously slim. They compete very heavily on cost, because the service they provide is a commodity (or close to it). Most airlines will probably not willingly add any extra costs that they don't have to, because that would put them at a disadvantage relative to their competitors.
For those passengers who are willing to pay extra to be reimbursed for delays or other inconveniences, there may be travel insurance that can provide that.
The founders seem to have imagined that Congress (as a whole) would have an adversarial relationship with the President. But they failed to foresee the levels of partisanship we have today which have resulted in ~half of Congress being very closely allied with the President.
When the US was less divided, things like ethics or morals or even just not openly breaking the law mattered a lot more. Now, people (at least, the people who vote the most) care more about "is my party in power", and either don't know about or disregard everything else. I include "don't know" because if all you listen to is Fox news and social networks feeding you ideas that you already agree with then you can easily be completely unaware of things like this.
Wait, what? Clean energy investments, from the Trump admin? Sounds like a protection racket.
Classic SV
I switched to all LED lighting many years ago. I've had a few that lasted less than a year, but by and large I'd say that nearly all the lights I've had have lasted at least on the order of years.
He loved it and many years later he still uses it, pretty much every day that it's not raining. He's well past the age where I would have thought he would still be interested. We've replaced the mat and all the springs to keep it going.
Point being, sometimes you just don't know what kids will like.
I don't really know how successful they are but since their inception 13 years ago I've probably listened to them more than all other stations combined. And I donate to them.
As for the replacement of radio and TV, I think that's one of the least impressive aspects. Broadcasting via the internet enables on-demand consumption. Which is nice, but hardly revolutionary compared to the ability to broadcast audio and video at all, which we had already been doing for many decades. There's also the fact that it's easier for individuals to publish/broadcast, which I suspect is more impactful.
However there is one major exception related to my opinion of the impact of the internet. The huge number of 'information sources' that exist today (previously these would have been called news sources) means that it's pretty trivial for every person to listen to only those sources that cater to their existing preferences. Which is exactly what nearly everyone does. IMO this has had a huge impact on driving political polarization, which is in turn having a very large negative impact on governance and society as a whole. At least in the US, people were far less politically divided when there were fewer sources of news, probably because there was less disagreement on basic facts.
For such people, lying comes as easy as breathing. No wonder they do it all the time.
It’s not uncommon to find these kinds of predictions from the twentieth century, which of course with hindsight can seem wildly optimistic.
But I think there are understandable reasons for that optimism.
Imagine you were born in the early twentieth century, say roughly 1910 +/- 10 years. If you had been born then, you would probably have lived through all of the following:
- The transition from horses to motor vehicles
- The invention of the airplane, from first flight to supersonic
- Not one but two world wars
- The splitting of the atom
- Human spaceflight, including traveling to the moon
If you’d been born slightly earlier, you could also add electrification to that list.
When I compare what I’ve seen in my life so far, I don’t think anything comes close (for better and worse) to even one of those things. So yeah, of course they were optimistic about technological progress—look at what they just lived through.
IMO people who are seeking approval tend to not go out of their way to be assholes quite so often ("pedo guy" incident, for example).
In any market where competition exists, companies compete against other companies for customers. Any company that doesn't (for whatever reason) maximize it's net income is likely to cease to exist at some point, or at the least is unlikely to grow. As a result, not being 'greedy' is usually not a viable strategy.
Describing simple self interest as 'greed' is inherently loaded and reductionist. Look at the natural world; pretty much all living organisms exhibit self-interested behaviors (at least at the group or species level, if not the individual level). Are all of those 'greedy' too? You could say yes and not be wrong, but in doing so you would dilute the meaning of the word 'greed'.