Hildegarde

Lawyers will also usually advice the safer option. Even if your actions are legal, if its boarderline enough you have to defend your actions in court, its expensive and risky.

I’ve not used windows regularly since XP but I recall being very confused that the keyboard layout setting defaults to being per-application rather than syatemwide. Don’t know if that’s how its still done and I have no reason to care.

Not when the voterbase has common interests.

IMO, we need to diversify our EV makers and help provide the capital to bootstrap it.

Good business when the us does it, evil market destroying subsidies when china.

How did you drink that much?!? Were you distilling your coffee?

Many people self medicate with caffeine. It helps with focus and productivity, which is why coffee is incredibly popular. Its not just for the neurodivergent, it helps most people focus, making it a staple of workplaces worldwide.

I have only ever heard people with ADHD describe coffee as calming, but it helps with focus. The problem for those with ADHD is that the mind is too active, so being more calm helps focus.

If coffee helps you do the things you want or need to do, you should use it. Avoid excess, proper dosage is essential for any drug even ones as benign as caffeine.

The us is actively sanctioning venezuela. The us is not an impartial observer, they have an active interest in the outcome of the election.

Statements from most other countries on venezuela’s election are more credible than the us.

The olympics let literal nazis host the games, this is entirely on brand for them.

Most old systems used two digits for years. The year would go from 99 to 0. Any software doing a date comparison will get a garbage result. If a task needs to be run every 5 minutes, what will the software do if that task was last run 99 years from now? It will not work properly.

Governments and businesses spent lots of money and time patching critical systems to handle the date change. The media made a circus out of it, but when the year rolled over, everything was fine.

Her plane is worse than most. Its one of the last trijets in production. Planes with a small number of large engines are more efficient than planes with many small engines, which is why modern planes are all twinjets with wide high-bypass engines.

Airlines care about fuel efficiency. A minor reduction in fuel burn results in increased profits, and they operate large fleets. A small increase in efficiency across an entire fleet is huge. If you own a private jet, you are spending huge amounts of money to have one, the cost of fuel would only be a minor concern.

The solution to private jets is regulation. Private jets don’t need to exist. They don’t need to be replaced by another kind of airplane. The solution is to replace all planes on overland routes with electrified rail. Let the rich buy private railcars for transport.

I’m not skeptical on the concept of small aircraft. I wanted to give context because very few people will picture bush planes and puddle jumpers from the mention of “commercial aviation.”

PS: My calculations for fuel burn were based on comparing the range to the fuel capacity. Those are the numbers I have ready access. Planes are much less efficient when the tanks are full, and swift’s plane has a longer range, so it’s probably not quite as bad as my calculations indicate on comparable flights.

The carbon comes from the fuel. Burning a ton of jet fuel will release the same amount of carbon regardless of the plane that burns it.

Taylor Swift’s plane is a Dassault Falcon 7X. It weighs around 17 tons and seats 12 to 16 passengers.

Her plane burns 60% less fuel than a 737 MAX 8. However, her plane holds 9% of the passengers of the MAX 8, so its far less efficient per passenger than typical commercial aircraft.

Private planes are not a huge contributor to carbon emissions in comparison to others. They’re bad, obviously. But there are far more commercial airplanes, and they fly much more frequently than private jets.

Private jets get people’s attention. One person being directly responsible for that much carbon is notable is unconscionable. But it’s the scale of transportation overall that is the issue.

I got the number from wikipedia. Following the references, the number came from a BP datasheet about Jet A-1, where it is listed on a typical properties table, and the number is the net specific energy, which means it accounts for the inefficiency of the engines. Or at least that’s my assumption.

All the weights listed were operating empty weight. The battery planes will be even smaller than the planes I listed for comparison.

Weights of planes vary in flight, so I picked the one that disadvantages the point I’m trying to make in the interest of fairness.

Trains don’t need to store the energy at all. Pantographs are a mature technology. High speed renewable long haul transportation is a technologically solved problem for all overland routes, it just requires infrastructure investment.

The plane in the article is a 4 ton airplane, they mention plans to make an 8 ton commercial aircraft.

The Learjet 31 is 4.4 tons. It seats 8 passengers. The Cessna CitationJet CJ3+ is right around 4 tons with a maximum of 9 passengers.

The future 8 ton aircraft is around the size of the 10-ton Dash 8 Q200 with a maximum of 40 seats.

There are commercial uses for aircraft this small, but these jets are significantly smaller than most commercial aircraft.

For context jet fuel is around 9,720 Wh/L. However, energy density(energy per volume) is less important in aviation than specific energy(energy per mass) as weight is far more likely to be the limiting factor.

A standard lithium ion battery has 100-265 Wh/kg

The article claims 500 Wh/kg in this new battery.

Jet fuel has around 12,000 Wh/kg.

Though this is a major improvement in battery tech, batteries are unlikely to ever improve to the point to even approach the energy storage of liquid fuels.

Batteries cannot run commercial aviation as it currently exists. Battery planes will need to fly slower and shorter. There is no other way.

If the us supported the two state solution, they wouldn’t have vetoed Palestine’s UN membership.

True, but this article is specifically about the 737. Apart from the a220, none of the aircraft you listed are both in production and part of the 737’s market segment.

The a320 neo family has about 7000 orders awaiting delivery. It is not feasible to switch for most airlines for the reasons I previously mentioned.

The biggest limiting factor in airplanes is the production speed. Building airliners is slow which is why there are very long waiting lists. Nothing’s wrong that’s just planes. New planes are cheaper to operate so its a good idea to order new planes even if you’re not planning a significant expansion.

This is also why airlines will be slow to react to boeing’s safety record in orders. Switching orders means losing your place and going to the back of airbus’s waiting list.

Do you really think the us is so small we can only arm one war at a time? Nonsense.

Gaza does show that the us has little say over how their weapons are used. There are serious consequences for crossing biden’s red line, like having to move the red line.