So I read through the article, and it seems like this guy has a lot of selection bias. He makes the claim that nothing is done about right-wing protesters, but completely ignores that the J6 trials happened, and right-wing extremists do actually face charges for violent or criminal acts.
He also spends more time on that than elaborating on his claim that “inequality demands oppression” or talking about that in greater analytical detail.
This just seems like ragebait.
I’ve adopted a policy of buying the latest iPhone every 5 years, which is about how long they tend to last in my experience. So far it’s worked out well.
How you pay for charging is super weird in those cases. I think you have to enter your card info into the car’s OS or something, or it’s more restrictive? Either way, pretty stupid since there are times when you want to just go to a card reader (like with a work credit card on a work trip) and just pay normally.
I don’t think this will be necessary in the future, if we’re going to have widespread EV adoption, charging stations need to become more like gas stations.
Now I’m curious how easy it will be to retrofit existing vehicles with a NACS connector. Ideally the voltage should be compatible, and you’d just have to change the port. But I’m not completely sure.
The E195 is a bit too small for mainline use, though a good aircraft otherwise. The others however I’m not sure are ready for the prime time.
The Comac has potential, it’s a completely new aircraft developed for the Chinese domestic market, I don’t know if it will be sold in the west though. One issue is that the aircraft market doesn’t lend itself to new players. Planes typically last 30 years give or take, so taking on a new type from an unproven manufacturer is a big risk. It could, however, be successful in the long term.
Irkut is majority owned by the Russian government, and given the war, is likely going to have issues. It has flown, but now they have to move to entirely homegrown parts, which will likely make the aircraft completely shit.
Speaking of, the Tupolev Tu-204. It is still in production, and since the war started it has begun to ramp up again. Unfortunately it still has significant problems. For an aircraft built today, it still uses a three person cockpit crew, and is very underpowered. It also has had nearly no changes since its introduction in 1989, and is way behind pretty much any aircraft of its size.
It’s worth considering how much room there is in the airliner market for more competitors. Since aircraft require a huge amount of R&D, you have to sell a lot of them to break even. So if there’s too many manufacturers vying for a finite market, it gets hard to find any RoI. This has happened a lot historically, it’s like streaming services except you can’t actually get anyone to buy duplicates and very rarely will anyone split their orders.
There are considerable safety concerns regarding private jets, mostly down to the quality of the pilots. At the bigger airlines, pilots are unionized and have consistent schedules they work and routes and aircraft they fly. It’s reliable work and where most pilots (even military) end up.
Meanwhile private aviation needs to be flexible and easy to set up. Contrary to your comment this is the sector that you can usually expect to find more unscrupulous operations and pilots who are basically just Some Guy. Most of the near miss accidents lately have involved private planes (though that can often be attributed to problems in the ATC network).
As for the doors that’s more of a Boeing specific problem, they’ve made a lot of questionable business decisions in recent years and this is the fallout of that. Airbus planes don’t seem to have this problem, and customers seem to be making it clear that they would like their planes to work thank you very much.
One thing the article doesn’t make super clear to me is if that figure includes investment funds and whatnot, and to what degree. It sounds like it might but elaborated very little beyond a vague statistic.
Is this like a high fantasy setting or a more sci-fi one. I’ve had this for the former. Though with a number of different vehicles.
Momentum. Plenty of communities on a variety of subjects use twitter as their primary forum, and once something is standard, it’s difficult to change. In my (limited) twitter experience it’s also not too difficult to isolate yourself from a lot of the shit and just follow people who you’re interested in.
It’s still fit for purpose for specific communities of people. And moving to a new platform can cause a lot of problems - tell me with a straight face that Lemmy has reached the same levels of engagement, variety, and diversity that Reddit had.
They pollute more than you think, and using concrete is very rare in certain parts of the world. Outside of elevated roads I’ve never seen in used in my area or any part of the northern US.
I must say, you’re the first person I’ve seen to cite ChatGPT as a source.
I literally just told you two things that make them more dangerous, what makes them safer?
I don’t fully understand why SUVs are more profitable. What makes them worth more than a minivan or wagon for instance. I know premium versions of both those vehicle types exist (actually I’m pretty sure some of the only new wagons you can buy today are from premium German brands.)
We would also have to get rid of tires to do that, tires pollute a lot. And roads too, heavier vehicles wear out roads faster, and asphalt requires petroleum products to produce.
I’d wager most people have been in one considering how common they are, doesn’t make them any less terrible. Size is definitely a problem, they are very space inefficient, and quite dangerous. The center of gravity is very high, and because the front end is high up, anyone hit by it is more likely to end up under the vehicle. The solution is to lower them down to make them safer, and replace them with safer and more efficient vehicles like station wagons and minivans.
Yeah that one’s gonna cost them a lot down the road. They might need state assistance to buy that thing out.
Aviation has always been reactionary. Change comes from finding the cause of accidents, and unfortunately it’s somewhat difficult to do until after that type of accident happens. In the 60s and 70s it was common for passenger jets to just crash in to mountains when there was nothing wrong with them. We implemented better navigational technology, and warning systems that detect obstacles in the plane’s path to prevent this from happening.
This community is by far my favorite part of Lemmy, and you’re one of my favorite posters here.
That makes you among my favorite Lemmy posters. Do your damndest to have a good Thanksgiving.
Cincinnati?
That’s the commonly cited example among rail advocates. Yeah Ohio rail currently sucks, but the proposals I’ve seen for intercity rail seem quite robust. That said, you guys made a huge blunder selling that railroad.