Hildegarde

I don’t know. But democrats spent the past 8 years accusing trump of being a russian asset, then chose not to bring it up during either impeachment, nor did biden’s justice department didn’t charge him on that front.

In practice they seem to think that delaying a weapons shipment, or not returning documents to the presidential library were stronger cases to pursue. There’s surely a reason for that.

Either the claims about russia are false, or the evidence is not actionable. I can’t think of another reasonable explanation for their actions.

they win.

in 2016 jill stein campaigned on canceling student debt. that was a major part of her platform. in 2020, joe biden included student debt cancelation in his platform, and he won.

probably for the same reason they took no measures against trump when they accused him of the same.

not a trolley. trolleys don’t move vertically, they move horizontally.

not a train, its a car. a single unit not connected to any other passenger vehicle.

I took a vertical self driving car to my hotel room. It worked fine because it runs in a controlled environment with no obstacles.

If the voters are the problem every time, the problem probably isn’t the voters, it’s probably the system. The US always has bad turnout.

71 million in a country of 262 million adults. 27% voted for fascism. 74 million voted for trump in 2020. This wasn’t a shift towards fascism, but the opposition party utterly failing to win voters.

The country has never been majority rule. Every modern election has split the country in thirds, about a third votes one way, a third votes the other and a third choses not to vote.

Over 70% of voting aged americans did not vote for trump.

edit: spelling correction.

Going around the earth in 3 hours would require you to travel at 11 times the speed of sound, and that is without including the time it would take to accelerate or slow down.

The concorde flew at a maximum speed of twice the speed of sound. It would take the concorde 18h30m to fly around the world if it had enough fuel to do it.

Supersonic travel has some major issues. It takes a huge amount of energy to go that fast. Concorde could only cross the atlantic ocean, because it didn’t have enough fuel to cross the pacific. The other issue is sonic booms, which means you can’t fly supersonic over populated areas, like land.

Maglevs have the same issue as all other high-speed overland transport, it requires expensive infrastructure to be built the entire route. The faster you want to go, the flatter, smoother and more expensive the track will be to build.

Supersonic air is more plausible as it only requires a faster airplane. With wealth inequality, there are rich people who can afford their own supersonic plane, but an infrastructure project to build a global maglev network is far more expensive than that.

That quote comes out of nowhere. Changing the policies on their store has no effect on side loading software on the os, which still supports it.

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.

Computer code is very complicated, so when humans write code we write in a way we can understand. We name functions and variables with names that make sense, and we put comments in the code so we can understand how it works.

Compliers don’t care about any of those things. Variable names are turned into numbers, and comments are ignored.

You can convert machine code back to source code, it will be missing all those human readable labels and explanations. You can recreate them, but its a major process. Reverse engineering is done sometimes, but there’s a reason is not common.

There’s also the issue of licensing. An important part of free and/or open source software is that you have permission to modify the source code. You probably don’t have a license to use the code if its closed source. There are ways to do this legally but it adds extra hurdles and inconvenience to an already major process.

Russia now has a social credit system just like china and also the united states

It says (parody) in the name.

This is twitter, because elon lacks reading comprehension, so the rules require parody to be clearly marked.

Isn’t a crash screen the last place you should your branding?

They want to advertise a $2 chicken box without actually selling chicken for $2.

I bought an old business monochrome laser printer ten years ago. Still hasn’t needed a new toner cartridge.

Under because that way you can model it by making a cylinder and adding a plane to it, because the plane is attached to the back you don’t have to do the extra work of making sure the textures line up.

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.