121–130 of 137 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This might have made sense for the original 13 colonies but after westward expansion, it clearly does not. Most of the western state borders were formed for administrative reasons
It still makes sense today. It's not perfect but it's a pretty good balance most of the time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When they'll get a president with a subservient congress elected twice, and go on to drive the country into a burning dumpster, I will be willing to entertain the possibility that the existence of the Senate protects us from their destructive and authoritarian ideologies. (Despite it demonstrably failing to do so, twice.) --- (I'm not even going to bother to ask how a movement for police accountability is a 'destruct…
From the prospective of many millions of Americans, and me to some extent (actions that align with my interests and ideology are good regardless of political leadership) the country is going in the right direction. If you throw the Senate out you'd just further embolden those in power today.
There does not seem to be any red line for them when it comes to support of the unterfuhrer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are really only 2 choices. There is a third, Embrarer. They have most of the market in small regional jets in some cases, but those are in reality very different than say a 777 or 787. These two choices are conglomerates of what used to be a much larger set of manufacturers. In short Boeing, Airbus and it's suppliers are basically what is left of all the old big aerospace manufacturers.
Indeed. Embraer (Brazil) does jetliners carrying up to around 150 pax. So did Bombardier (Canada), though they sold their C-Series to Airbus (now the Airbus A220). Then there's COMAC (China) and UAC (Russia; also a conglomerate of Sukhoi, Tupolev, etc.). These compete with the smaller versions of the Airbus A320 family (like the discontinued A318 "Baby Bus") or Boeing B737 family. So, in that narrow-body and regional…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Come on, you can’t say you can’t be bothered to read the document and also double down on your interpretation of it in the same breath.
My "interpretation of it" is explicitly in the document. " Therefore, the NTSB recommends that the FAA require Boeing to determine the critical fan blade impact location(s) on the CFM56-7B engine fan case and redesign the fan cowl structure on all Boeing 737NG-series airplanes to ensure the structural integrity of the fan cowl after an FBO event. The NTSB also recommends that, once the actions requested in Safety Rec…
The engine is built by CFM, and it's CFM who will have to actually design the required fix. Boeing doesn't have the skills for that because the complexity of a modern turbofan is more similar to a microchip than the rest of the airplane. They certainly cost more than the rest of the airplane put together!
The public loves fire-and-brimstone responses to safety issues but the honest truth is that sometimes airplanes crash for stupid reasons and vaporizing all of the accumulated experience a company has following a crash is not going to make things safer.
Even with MCAS, even with the doors falling off, Boeing aircraft are incredibly safe because the US has spent nearly a century working with the company to improve things. This is a tricky thing to get right, because the FAA and NTSB have to unilaterally decide on a system that will make airplanes safe while also keeping them affordable enough to be flown.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's not the same as designing a system based around a single sensor that is known to fail Right, they designed the their system with two sensors, and if they disagree, the system gives misleading indications to the pilots! That’s so much better!
My understanding is that the Airbus equivalent (they don't really have the same thing) uses 3 pitot tubes/angle of attack sensors, not 2. More importantly, Airbus pilots know about the system, while Boeing only told airliners about MCAS after the Lion Air crash. I'm not a pilot and I don't know that much about planes, but I've read/watched enough about crashes to know that these sensors fail way too often. To rely on…
That wasn't possible in the 737 MAX because the airplane is an older design with hydraulically connected control services, so a separate system had to be added to force the nose down using the trim.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you actually read into the case it's more complicated than just it's Airbus fault. It was caused by one of the confused pilots input. Why they were confused is a complicated story.
That particular failure mode would have been impossible in most other planes including all Boeings. 1. Pretty much only Airbus doesn’t have linked controls 2. Pretty much just airbus changes what the controls allow you to do (the “law” as they call it) without input from the pilot. No other airliner make on earth could have suffered that accident. It would have been extremely obvious what the issue was, and how to so…
Flying airplanes is not a natural fit for the human brain. It's very helpful to have a computer mediating inputs to keep the aircraft stable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My "interpretation of it" is explicitly in the document. " Therefore, the NTSB recommends that the FAA require Boeing to determine the critical fan blade impact location(s) on the CFM56-7B engine fan case and redesign the fan cowl structure on all Boeing 737NG-series airplanes to ensure the structural integrity of the fan cowl after an FBO event. The NTSB also recommends that, once the actions requested in Safety Rec…
It's not a question about fault. Boeing is responsible for the final integration of their aircraft, so naturally any orders to fix the engines would be given to them. The engine is built by CFM, and it's CFM who will have to actually design the required fix. Boeing doesn't have the skills for that because the complexity of a modern turbofan is more similar to a microchip than the rest of the airplane. They certainly…
From what I can tell, Boeing designed the existing cowl and NTSB says they need to redesign it. The complexity of the jet engine itself doesn’t seem particularly relevant because the cowl isn’t needed to make the engine function. It’s needed to catch shrapnel if the engine fails and flies apart.
> The public loves fire-and-brimstone responses to safety issues but the honest truth is that sometimes airplanes crash for stupid reasons and vaporizing all of the accumulated experience a company has following a crash is not going to make things safer.
No idea why you are saying this in response to my comment. All I said is the NTSB wrote that Boeing needs to redesign the cowl and you seem to think I said Boeing needs to be liquidated.
As long as a mad king is ruling over the USA, no US product or service should taint european markets. I fail to see why money should go into companies that are hostile to europeans. Canadians already made that decision months ago (granted, due to the tight coupling of their own market to the USA, this is mega-difficult; most Canadians live on the southern area, aka close to the USA - realistically Canadians can only…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That particular failure mode would have been impossible in most other planes including all Boeings. 1. Pretty much only Airbus doesn’t have linked controls 2. Pretty much just airbus changes what the controls allow you to do (the “law” as they call it) without input from the pilot. No other airliner make on earth could have suffered that accident. It would have been extremely obvious what the issue was, and how to so…
Because the vast majority of the time, that design stops pilots from stalling the aircraft and makes maintenance easier. Flying airplanes is not a natural fit for the human brain. It's very helpful to have a computer mediating inputs to keep the aircraft stable.
If you go full stick back in any other airliner, the other pilot will know it immediately, and can physically correct the input. Other planes have stall prevention and awareness in the form of stick shakers and stick pushers that give the pilot physical feedback, and in the case of a pusher makes the pilot physically fight against the safe action (in the case of the MAX, trim adjustment - a roundabout way of stick pushing - was implemented in an exceptionally stupid way that made it overpower the pilots)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Vermonters might not want that because they hold outsized influence on the direction of the country, but then they shouldn't pretend to believe in Democracy. So, yes, 50 million people should have more say over the country's direction than 1 million. We should stop pretending we have 55 mini countries, because the Supreme Court has stopped pretending we have a 10th Amendment.
> Vermonters might not want that because they hold outsized influence on the direction of the country, but then they shouldn't pretend to believe in Democracy. A Republic is a form of democracy. Having a Senate in the structure that we do is entirely consistent with democratic principles. To suggest otherwise is incorrect and counter to established definitions in the realm of political philosophy. > So, yes, 50 milli…
> Right, like how Donald Trump and his 75 million voters get to have more sway of Kamala Harris' voters
They do in the Presidential race (and only because of FPTP and because we don't have i.e. approval voting), but they shouldn't control the House as well (because trump voters don't always vote R for reps).
States aren't sovereign entities -- they can't make agreements with foreign countries that isn't granted by Congress.