Ya, probably the relevant length from stern to the end of the waist deck - as I understand it if you need go around ("bolt") on a carrier landing, your going off the waist deck. From peeking at some pictures, it doesn't look like the midway waist deck is much shorter than on a Nimitz or something.
In some countries the transit companies (public or private) also become the landowners of the adjacent areas - this would be the "rail plus property" model.
In fact, the rail plus property model allows the rail operate to better capture their added value, so it applies even in "private" scenarios. The most famous example would be Tokyo.
The goal shouldn't be for the public to be able to reap direct financial benefits from the induced activity around transit hubs, the goal should be to firstly to incentivize and maintain affordable, high quality, sustainable transit, secondly to provide more and better economic opportunities.
Same in Switzerland, with the added quirk/bonus that shops in train stations are allowed to open on Sundays, when shops outside of train stations usually can't open due to employment laws. This wasn't originally meant as a way to increase attractiveness of businesses in train stations and other public transit places, rather as a way to make sure that people travelling have services available while on their way. But nowadays it's definitely a big reason for people to come specifically shop in train stations on the weekend.
It's true that in principle, you need a stronger rocket (the whole rocket, not just the motor) and a bunch of extra infrastructure to be able to reuse.
However, without being able to recover a rocket, it's actually quite difficult to figure out just how much corners you can cut, while remaining reliable. Since blowing up revenue payload is an awful way to optimize this, I think this means that disposal rockets will be inefficient in a different way - there will be excess safety margin in the wrong areas.
Reliable re-use also changes the operating model of the company. Since each rocket in stock represents many customers over time, you don't need to be nearly as stressed about exactly matching your manufacturing pipeline to predicted demand. This likely also enables generally faster turn around time (as in from cheque signed to launch).
Finally, as it turns out, it's not unreasonable to expect a rocket to be reused like 20+ times. I think you're point would be reasonable if it turned out that reusing a rocket more than ~3-5 times was difficult. But like... it's REALLY hard to do disposal anything better than something that can be reused 20+ times.
This is hardly a serious analysis, and the author knows it.
No European would seriously consider the reduction of population density that comes from admitting Canada to be a meaningful improvement to the EU. Canadian energy resources would definitely be welcome, but that's hardly enough of a reason to extend membership, especially since a trans-Atlantic power cable (which would be needed to get the most out of Canada's hydro) would be a beast of an engineering challenge itself.
Tighter EU-Canada integration is a much more important and achievable goal, as the article points out in the final paragraph.
It's possible that the RFK thing is driving some urgency, but the timeline is broadly in line with their stated goals from their 2016 to 2025 strategic plan. They started this whole process with public consultation in 2017, and released the proposed plan back in 2022.
A change in urgency is good. The issues with our food have been known for quite some time. Given the carnage and damage to health at a massive scale, taking seven years to start acting is irresponsible. This isn't new knowledge at all.
An airplane crashes and it becomes top news for days. Five thousand children and a million people per year are diagnosed with a diet-induced disease with horrible consequences and the media pays no attention to the issue at all.
The death and destruction caused by the global metabolic disease pandemic should make everyone take pause:
For context, COVID is estimated to have killed approximately 7 million people world-wide. Metabolic disease is killing over TEN MILLION every year and has been killing over 8 million per year for the last 20 years. And I am just quoting data from the Cell Metabolism Journal publication, which only covers 20 years. The destruction goes back decades beyond that.
In other words, this has been a real "clear and present danger" case for decades. This is precisely why these agencies need to be shake-up to the core. What have they been doing for the last 20 or 30 years?
I think this should have moved faster, but there's no way this is a single days work.
Especially since a large part of the required work is meta work to show that they worked "properly".
There are executive orders (and maybe laws? can't remember) that require all rule making to be subject to thorough cost benefit analysis.
One of the required actions between a proposed and final rule is to review, reply to, and perhaps amend rules based on comments. The final report indicates 400 comments, and includes responses to basically all of them.
All of that is evidence of the ineffectiveness of government bureaucracies. You’re describing the way things work today. I’m saying the way it works is broken and needs to change. Allowing claims that salmon or water is healthy shouldn’t take long.
Unfortunately government bureaucracies basically operate in low trust mode because of accumulated scar tissue from previous problems.
Ripping out guard rails without building a high trust environment is asking for a speed run of all of the scar tissue to reform.
The fact that you characterized a slow process as corrupt, when a huge amount of the slowness is because of mandated rules put in place to attempt to mitigate corruption is in itself a sign of the low trust hell that these regulators live in.
The speed (or lack thereof) at which our administrative agencies make rules is a reflection of the speed (or lack thereof) at which our democracy reaches consensus on change. What you're seeing isn't so much inefficiency, but rather how process works in a democracy. It's slow because Congress made it slow.
If we lived in a dictatorship, things would go faster, public be damned. China gets things done, but at great expense to the impacted people.
Salmon is healthy and it is that simple. You’re bringing up unproductive questions that could go on forever about any food. If that’s the goal, we don’t need the bureaucracy. It’s the same outcome as shutting down this part of the agency, since they aren’t going to declare anything until decades after the world already moved on from their broken guidance and figured out that salmon or whatever else is healthy. No one serious questions that salmon is healthy, obviously. So let’s at least save the money.
> Allowing claims that salmon or water is healthy shouldn’t take long.
Seems suss. The root word of Salmonella is Salmon; clearly it may not be healthy.
Water is just a rebranding of dihydrogen monixide, and we all know how bad that stuff is. It's made from rocket fuel, and you're trying to push it off as healthy?
I guess the E190 got quite lucky. Pantsir doesn't fire a small missile. Wiki implies it has a 20kg warhead. Pantsirs' role as regimental air defense means that it is very much intended to take out fast jets.
One quirk I wonder about is if these types of missiles are biased towards detonating towards the rear of a target. For a fast jet this would be towards the engines and tail assembly, while for most civilian airliners that would "just be" the tail assembly.
I wonder where the launcher was sited. One would naively expect that the SAM would be sited near the airport, in which case there'd seem to be a high probability that the E190 was more or less flying head on towards the SAM and missile.
I'm just an armchair nerd, no expert, so I welcome corrections. Going only by Wikipedia, it's a fragmentation warhead probably designed to explode in proximity to the target.
20kg of explosive is a lot of hurt. But, depending on where the missile is in relation to the plane, only a small amount of that kinetic force may be transferred to the target. At best, 50% if it's directly beside the target? And at some point it's just kind of a dice roll whether those fragments hit anything vital, sever fuel and hydraulics, etc. From a military standpoint an air to air missile really only needs to damage a target. Any damage at all is going to remove a target from the fight and that airframe will not fly again for a long time if ever.
I will stress again my lack of anything other than armchair knowledge!
One of the rockets (57E6) has a thermal sensor but, also has radar and optical. Hypothetically it could have either hit the target early which was hitting the wing) and missed the tail end of the target or was homing for the heat source which would have been either aircraft engine and probably hit the one closest.
Note this is only going from the Wikipedia page and looking at the armament section.
I wonder if hitting an engine on an airliner is kind of a best-case scenario for the plane. Since there are always at least two engines and control surfaces on the other wing. Still extremely Not Good obviously.
An E190 on approach (remember, this airplane was trying to land at Grozny) has an approach speed between 125-145 knots (depending on load). A Cessna 172 for example has a cruise speed of ~120 knots and can cruise up to 10k feet. A typical instrument landing glide path is 3 degrees - that intercepts 10k feet at ~60km out.
The likelihood of confusing a regional jet with a small prop plane (purely based on speed/heading/altitude) is way higher during landing.
And for what it's worth, Vanguard doesn't have a pure gold ETF.
reply