asd4232

You can always move away from that dense city. With booming property prices you should even profit in case you own the apartment, just sell it.

I would also argue that small apartment can be very limiting also for living. I mean, sure, if you spend all your free time in those restaurants, parks, grocery stores and theaters, then it may actually work. But if you wanna do anything that requires personal space, then living in a small apartment is very limiting.

A typical pilot switches aircraft type multiple times in their career. It's all about the cost and convenience ultimately, allowing same pilots to fly both 737MAX and the older 737NG as most 737MAX customers operate both.

As far as MCAS goes, in my opinion Airbus got it right already in the 80's in their A320 with their flight envelope protection.

Yeah, toxic workplaces are usually toxic to also people other than those belonging to particular minorities.

"Facebook is the best site in the world for dating and for expanding your social horizons/circle"

Maybe for boomers and some emerging markets. It appears to be losing popularity very fast among younger folks in most Western countries. Not that alternatives are much better IMO, Twitter in particular is even worse.

Nothing beats going out and talking to real people. It gives you a competitive advantage over the masses that are too lazy to socialize in real world.

Bruh here in Europe there's a thing called welfare state. The gov can pay poor people to compensate.

It would already have a significant impact if people stopped (most likely against their own will) buying anything they don't really need. Brainless consumerism, buying material stuff simply because it makes you feel good for a while should be stopped through global government intervention.

The amount of clothes, electronics, food and such that gets wasted is just enormous on our societies. Only places in the world where people live somewhat ecologically are those where they simply can't afford such waste. So, IMO everything that isn't a basic necessity should be made much more expensive to force people rethink their consumption habits.

Sweden quite simply took way more poor migrants (many of them for humanitarian reasons) from developing world than it could effectively integrate, and that failed integration resulted in hopelessness, high crime and unemployment in these communities. Most of them ended up living in cheap apartment blocks located in suburbs while more well-off people started avoiding these areas, and that's why those suburbs are the bad areas.

Obviously you also have also suburbs with villas where richer people live and little crime. Sweden at this point is a highly segregated society.

That's why individuals should not have the freedom of choice. China's actions against the virus proved rather effective because the government actually has authority there. Western democracy is clearly weak when it comes to dealing with crisis of any kind.

This. I like WFH as a concept, but I feel like it would require a separate office room to really work, and right now I don't have the space for that. Working from living room just mixes up work and leisure really badly.

Or, instead of burying cut trees underground you could build houses from it. That's what we do in Finland where forests are plentiful. This way you effectively capture the carbon for 50+ years, and reduce use of cement which causes significant co2 emissions.

In fact, a well built log house can last for hundreds of years if maintained properly. We have plenty of those with original wood from 1800's. Wood can be used to build larger buildings as well.

If exporting freedom involves bombing civilians you're supposed to free and spraying their country with herbicides, then perhaps you should rethink your strategy.

The Vietnam war was a lost cause all the way from the start, just like more modern endeavours of trying to make ultra-conservative societies of Iraq and Afghanistan democracies by invading them. Pointless waste of money and lives.

That is true. Not a major concern for most shorter people though. As a teenager I once did a 12 hour flight (with refuel stop) on a charter 757 with 29" seat space. Didn't find it terribly uncomfortable back then to be honest. Apparently Ryanair has 30" space.

Many plants are still pretty easy to grow from seed, as long as you use good soil and find a spot with plenty of sunlight. Tomatoes and chili seem particularly easy, even some commercial varieties not optimized for hobbyists seem to grow okay in a greenhouse here in Northern Europe. I just took some seeds from supermarket vegetables.

Next I'm going to try some more traditional varieties that should be better for hobbyists.

Yeah, it's one thing to question how historical figures are portrayed, and another to support actively erasing historical figures who did bad things by present day's moral standards.

I think it's best to remember history as it is, no worship or mixing it with present-day politics needed. Learning from history can be useful, but actions of historical individuals should also be seen in context of the world they lived in.

Cherrypicking only parts of history you like to be remembered is something totalitarians have always enjoyed. It's always a bad idea if you believe in freedom, human rights and democracy, no exceptions.

I think buying new expensive laptops for personal use is waste of money anyway, unless you do something like heavy video editing or gaming where you really need the power.

For my daily use (programming hobby projects, studying, browsing) a 10-year old Thinkpad T520 with i7 is more than adequate after upgrading it with SSD and 16GB of RAM, especially when using Linux instead of Windows.

It's safer to invest both in green power and nuclear. As long as we get rid of fossil fuels ASAP it's a victory, we can always replace those nuclear plants with solar/wind in 50 years if that seems to make sense by then.

Nuclear is still better than coal and gas. At this rate we will never limit temperature below 2.1C pre-industrial, so anything that gets helps getting rid of fossil fuels ASAP is a good deal.

Also, even worst-case scenario like Chernobyl ultimately wasn't that bad. Several natural disasters in the 2000's have killed way more than it did.

More energy in absolute terms, or per financial transaction?

I mean, what matters is whether replacing the entire financial system with Bitcoin would produce more emissions through mining than the system currently does.

Your argument is like claiming that a private jet is more economical than a 747 jumbo jet, because it burns less fuel. Energy consumption per transaction is what really matters, and Bitcoin really sucks there.

The ER vs LR thing is easy to explain. The most realistic Boeing 777 simulation addon available for Microsoft FS at the time included only 200LR and 300ER models, so using 200LR would have been pretty much the closest option to 200ER available with all the systems modelled in high detail.

Besides, the two aircraft don't have that much of a difference in fuel burn. A professional 777 captain could certainly figure out how far the fuel on 200ER could get him.

Of course the FS data doesn't prove anything, but I can't see how the aircraft could have ended up where it ended without any input from either pilot. If both pilots died you would certainly expect a more straight flight-path.

Humans have been pretty good at improving their lives, but not so good at doing it sustainably. I'm not very impressed until we get the climate change under control and build an economy that isn't dependent on fossil fuels.

Nuclear power has its issues, but I think burdening future generations with old nuclear plants is better than burdening them with a catastrophic climate change. I would much rather see developing countries building nuclear than building coal.

Reducing emissions of energy production as fast as possible should be the first priority now, and nuclear can be helpful there. After this problem has been dealt with, then we have plenty of time to switch completely to better alternatives, like renewables.

Even a worst-case scenario like Chernobyl is still way, way less bad for nature than the consequences of climate change. Thanks to lack of humans, the area around Chernobyl is actually doing better biodiversity-wise than before the disaster.

Some more modern aircraft indeed have such protections, but this was an old 737 without any such stuff. Simply pushing the control column fully forward would send the plane into a dive pretty quickly.

Even if another pilot was present, from that altitude a suicidal co-pilot could easily cause an unrecovable dive and crash. If two pilots pull/push controls to opposite directions they kind of neutralize each other, and obviously the suicidal one would have element of surprise as an advantage.

In fact just that happened on EgyptAir flight 990. A suicidal copilot was able to crash the plane even with another pilot present, and that happened from a higher altitude.

Usually when a plane "falls apart" you'll have an accident scene with larger pieces intact compared to a plane nosediving to the ground in one piece.

If the weather was bad it could also be caused by a pilot getting disoriented, or perhaps an instrument failure. Plenty of aircraft with perfectly working flight controls have been nosedived to the ground either due to spatial disorientation, or pilots believing a faulty attitude indicator.

Of course suicide is another possibility in such cases.