By having native English language proficiency and an IQ above 100.
This isn't even particularly good slop. If you can't identify this, we're entering a not so good space.
Anyhow, I'd recommend you roll away from this hill because it's really not worth dying on. Common sense and peer reviewed slop detection aren't working for you. I provided my opinion and backed it with evidence. That's why I posted what I did.
The uproar over AI data center resource use has been rather bizarre to see and feels vaguely luddite. As this article points out, frivolous things like golf courses are far worse users of fresh water (and land) than any amount of AI. And on the electricity side, forcing the US to actually build more power generating capacity and infrastructure is a good thing in my book. Once the AI hype dies down we can use that for BEVs and other useful things.
> And on the electricity side, forcing the US to actually build more power generating capacity and infrastructure is a good thing in my book.
Electricity use is fungible. Every extra TW-hr of marginal demand is one coal plant that is delayed an extra year from being mothballed, spewing one extra quantum of CO2 into the atmosphere, adding one increment to the greenhouse effect.
It’s because a bunch of the tech elite backed Trump, therefore anything tech related must now be evil according to people left of center.
If they’d all opposed Trump you’d see MAGA people making up any reason for anything tech to be evil and calling for AI to be outlawed, and lefty puff pieces about how wonderful and liberating AI is.
Reality is now subordinate to political hyper partisanship. If Trump says the sky is blue, the left thinks it must be green. If Trump says it’s green, MAGA people will swear they see green and seeing blue would become “woke.”
Are you sure it was actually a 40mph zone in that section? Austin has plenty of school and construction zones with lower speed limits that most drivers completely ignore.
737 MAX. That whole saga was because of Boeing trying really hard to not certify a new airframe so that they could quickly push out a competitor to A320 Neo. The result was hundreds of deaths.
Yes. The problem wasn’t the airframe, nor even frankly the engines, it was the combination plus the decision to fix an aerodynamic instability with an undocumented software patch.
That last part is key: the MCAS system was designed to fake handling like the older planes but they skimped on safety to save the cost of a second sensor and didn’t train pilots on it or have an override mechanism. If the whole thing had been aboveboard they’d have saved so many lives…
There was an override system, MCAS drove the stabiliser trim motors and so flipping the stabiliser trim motor cutout switches would disable MCAS. This relied on the pilots diagnosing an MCAS runaway as a stabiliser trim runaway and enacting the same checklist.
However, to add insult to injury, the MAX also had another change. In the 737 NG, there were two switches, one would disable automated movement of stabiliser trim, the other would cutout the electric trim motors entirely. This allowed the pilots to disable automation without losing the ability to trim the aircraft using the switches on the yoke.
The MAX changed this arrangement, now either switch would cut power to electric trim. Tragically the pilots of Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 recognised the runaway, enacted the correct checklist, but the aircraft was now so far out of trim that aerodynamic loads made correcting the situation using the hand trim crank impossible. In desperation the pilots restored electrical power to the trim motors, MCAS re-engaged and drove the aircraft into the ground.
For example a modern EICAS system is required today, and all modern passenger aircraft have one. Except the 737 Max.
The 737 Max 7 and 10 had to get a waiver due to not being certified in time by the hard requirement to have one when updating old types. Let alone certifying new types.
Considering the low ground clearance is one of the major issues of the 737 today (which lead to the whole MAX disaster), you'd have to replace the landing gear, and with that you'd also need to make changes to the airframe itself.
> Considering the low ground clearance is one of the major issues of the 737 today (which lead to the whole MAX disaster)
You’re describing an introduced aerodynamic instability. Not an airframe issue. (Misconfiguring the airframe with non-airframe modifications doesn’t count as an airframe failure.)
Analogy: most Linux kernels are not real time. If I run a non-RT Linux in a real-time use case, that doesn’t make the kernel crap. (You probably used it because it’s popular!) It does mean you used it wrong.
737 Max was fundamentally fucked. But it was fucked because it tried to retain a great and proven airframe with incompatible components. The problem isn’t Boeing producing bad airframes. (787 is also a great airframe.) It’s Boeing integrating terribly.
Missing this distinction misses a critical point about the 737 Max’s failure. (It’s also not necessary to understand it the way an aerospace engineer and pilot might. But then don’t misuse, and then double down on misusing, technical terminology.)
You're just clinging to definition while missing the actual issue.
For the 737 to compete with the A320neo, it required much larger engines.
For those engines to fit, they'd either have to raise the landing gear and redesign the airframe to accommodate the changes (which would be a very different airframe), or they'd have to offset the engines (which massively increases the stall risk and lead to the MAX disaster).
This is not an integration issue. There is no possible way for the 737 to fulfill the needs of the 21st century without becoming an entirely different plane.
The 737’s airframe’s excellence is the reason Boeing was loath to let it go. It’s a really good airframe, and a market fit to boot for the transition from hub and spoke. A clean-sheet design for the 737 would look a lot like the 737. That is what makes the shortcuts tempting.
Engines, avionics and control software are distinct components and not part of the airframe. (Debatable only on engine cowlings and mounts. Neither of which were relevant to the 737 Max’s faults.)
Southwest's 737 MAX contract had a penalty clause of $1 million per aircraft that would trigger if Boeing's delivery contract for the 737 MAX failed to meet certain standards, particularly Southwest's insistence that no flight simulator training be required for the MAX
Meaning, the roots of the “no new type rating” requirement come from Southwest, not Boeing.
This is an interesting detail I had not heard. Can you link to a backstory on this? Why would such a contract ever be signed (especially for a technological product)?
Basically they were looking for an edge against Airbus and a really big one was being able to promise that pilots wouldn’t need a separate certification from the existing 737, which is where that MCAS software came in trying to make the new hardware behave like the existing planes. The allegations about Southwest in particular got the most attention in this lawsuit:
EB-5 is intended to create businesses and jobs in the US as part of the process. This is just straight-up "give us money and we'll give you residency".
On the other hand, it's not out of line with programs in other countries (ex. NZ's golden visa program)
Most of those "investments" for EB-5 visas are really just shares in "businesses" that hold piles of money for the "investors." The payment straight to the treasury is both more honest and more revenue for the government.
Jobs are created by economic demand, which rich people generate a lot of. So we get this either way.
NZ’s Active Investor Plus program is more like EB-5 than this. AIP requires that migrants invest their funds, not donate them.
The Growth category requires fewer residency days and a NZ$5m (~US$3m) investment in “growth” companies or funds, including VC funds and companies that VC funds invest with.
The Balanced category requires double the investment and has a wider range of asset classes, but also a longer duration and higher number of days of residency required.
Chat? No. But the strength of Teams is that it lets you do everything else you want in an integrated communications app - voice, video calls, calendars, viewing (and editing) documents, etc. At a reasonable price that Microsoft isn't going to crank to the moon.
It's literally burning surface carbon that's part of the regular surface land, sea, air, carbon flow that's existed for all of human history (and human existence).
It's not adding to that cycle by reaching down into the depths of the earths crust to bring up carbon captured and sealed away for longer than human existence .. you know, that additional carbon that is referred to when increased carbon footprints are seriously talked about.
This distinction only makes sense if those threes were going to be burned anyways. A can of diesel in a good generator and letting the trees decompose or be used for lumber should be far better in terms of emissions than burning the required amount of wood.
Particle emissions isn't what I responded to .. in terms of carbon and greenhouse gases what matters more is trees not being replaced.
In the course of, say, plantation growing timber for lumber generates sufficient burnable wood for landowners and a wider community - the final lumber trees are the ones that weren't weeded out earlier (and burnt) and have been routinely lopped of branches (more burnable wood) to minimize knots, etc.
Forrest management is a thing, timber for lumber, coppicing for regrowth, et al has been going on for several thousand years and has been part of traditional surface carbon cycle.
As has large scale grassland (and forest undercover) burning off for fire management.
Wood that decomposes is wood that is turned into CO2 anyways. If you are selectively harvesting, and preferring dead or dieing trees, the only "downside" is that the forest itself doesn't occasionally catch on fire.
The firewood can be harvested as part of a coppice rotation too, e.g a woodland broken up into 8 coupes with one harvested selectively each year, then starting again at the beginning after regrowth is sufficient. Friends of mine do this and it works well. They replant as necessary as they go.
The "train operators" cited were averaging around $80k for a 40 hour week. That comes to an hourly pay of around $38, when not working overtime. I don't see that as crazy high pay for a place like SF.
