601–610 of 633 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
SFO is surrounded by numerous highways, office buildings, and residential areas
well yeah but im talking about the part where the planes land not the terminal.
Go look at a satellite view of SFO.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I had been a Economist subscriber for almost 20 years. But then gradually I realized that their reporting on some issues are extremely biased and they conveniently skip reporting some facts to match their intended narrative and lead the reader to distorted conclusions. So I would assume they would be doing the same with other topics as well. I did not renew my subscription.
Could you give some examples?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What do you read? I’m an economist reader too for weekly news. Would love other sources, but it’s hard to find anything with similar depth and a similar lack of sensational-ization found in most news. Edit: Oh, and global reach. The economist covers earth in almost equal detail for every region. Not quite equal of course, but darn close compared to most outlets.
I think WSJ is a good complement to the Economist. They have good, unsensationalized coverage of the facts. I ignore their opinion columns as they don't seem very serious.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What do you read? I’m an economist reader too for weekly news. Would love other sources, but it’s hard to find anything with similar depth and a similar lack of sensational-ization found in most news. Edit: Oh, and global reach. The economist covers earth in almost equal detail for every region. Not quite equal of course, but darn close compared to most outlets.
I think WSJ is a good complement to the Economist. They have good, unsensationalized coverage of the facts. I ignore their opinion columns as they don't seem very serious.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Why is it always foreign airlines that crash? And why is it always Boeing planes?
I'm not sure, my guess is maybe foreign pilots are less fimilar with Boeing planes. The reason for the Max crashes from the past was due to the pilots not getting enough training on the new plane and made assumptions about it based on the previous generation plane. It wasn't the actual plane that was bad it was Boeing training wasn't good enough for pilots to understand the changes they made.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They've always been upfront about their bias, in no way are they trying to hide it. Way back when I was in college 20 years ago they ran a very funny article poking fun at all the PhD's doing "deconstruction" on The Economist. Like super post-modernist fluff. I could tell the writer had a great time responding to it. Their punchline: "so there you have it - a newspaper to make you feel good about tomorrow by promotin…
Haha, that's so funny.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They could both point to poor maintenance by the airline
In other words, they are the "No green jellybeans" clause, proving the vendor didn't thoroughly check all the details. I'm a system engineer - the hardware kind, not the more familiar network kind - and that is my job.
one dude sitting in 11A jumped out & survived pretty much unharmed. This was the Emergency Exit. https://x.com/indiatoday/status/1933160181871099943?s=46
Given the fake news that came out of India after Sindoor, with the government insisting no fighters were lost even after third-party confirmation from France and the US, I'm hesitant to believe a purported "sole survivor" silver lining narrative when the only evidence is a few still photos and some brief video clips, especially in the age of AI.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
India has an aviation safety record the past 20 years nearly as good as USAs. Your comment isn’t helpful.
I do not agree