He doesn't hate trans people, any more than he hates anyone else
FTFY. Trump hates everyone who isn't himself.
Rivalarrival
joined 2 years ago
I would expect more mishaps from a regional turboprop, flying ten 45-minute flights a day, than a widebody flying a single 12+ hour flight a day.
Mishaps are most prevalent on takeoff and landing. The aircraft that make the most takeoffs and landings are going to have the highest mishap rate.
The risk of a mishap is greatest on takeoff and landing. Inflight mishaps are extremely rare.
A "flight" is one takeoff and one landing. The largest aircraft have the longest duration flights. They might be airborne 12+ hours at a time. They might fly fewer than 10 flights a week.
Small commercial aircraft flying local and regional routes might be shorter than an hour. These aircraft might have 70 flights a week.
A student pilot in the smallest, single-engine GA aircraft might spend all day shooting touch-and-goes to build time and experience. Each touch-and-go is a landing-and-takeoff. These aircraft might have 300 "flights" a week.
Yes, the smallest aircraft are going to have the highest per-airframe mishap rate, simply because they experience the most risky phases of flights much more frequently than large aircraft.
Per-flight, the risks aren't significantly different.
A320 seat configuration is 3-3. ATR-72 is 2-2. I'd take a guaranteed not-middle-seat any day.
Exists. I won't link, but I can assure you: It Exists.
Burdick v. US.
A reporter was ordered to divulge a source. Reporter refused, on 5th amendment grounds.
Reporter was given a blanket pardon. Government argued that because the reporter could not be convicted regardless of what they said, the reporter was compelled to testify and name the source.
SCOTUS said that accepting a pardon was tantamount to an admission of guilt. The reporter could refuse the pardon, maintain their claim of innocence, and continue to exercise their 5th amendment right against self incrimination.
Yes, you can refuse a pardon.
UBI needs to be pinned to inflation, or we will have made the existing problem worse.
But we should definitely phase in a UBI. Consider it a citizenship dividend: it is what you are owed as a "shareholder" of USA.
How much is cocaine?
"The math is somewhat different" does not give adequate consideration to the importance.
That 777 I mentioned? The fuel weight on a maximum range flight is more than twice its remaining payload capacity. Fuel weight is the primary consideration you need to be looking at. The efficiency gains from charging batteries (relative to electrically-produced fuel) cannot justify the losses from their constant weight.
Some estimates say that between electrolysis, transportation and fuel cell conversion it's almost twice as bad in terms of energy efficiency, so you ultimately need double the energy for the same thing.
Only twice? Then its not even a contest. I was assuming fuel production was 1/10th as efficient conversion as battery charging.
The typical issue with fuel cells is not energy density, it is the fact that you need to waste a lot of energy to regenerate and transport the fuel.
I've never understood that thinking. Yes, it takes energy to produce fuel. So what? We started with a form of energy that couldn't be stored and transported, and converted it to a form that could be. That's the entire point.
So, overall, you'll need to spend much more energy (= both recurring and upfront costs) compared to running battery-powered transportation if you want to make it a close cycle similar to batteries.
That's not actually true.
A 777 can carry up to 320,000 pounds of fuel, which gives it a 9000 mile range. It will land about 300,000 pounds lighter than it took off.
Build an electric version of the 777. Put enough batteries on board to make a 9000 mile flight, and it will weigh the same amount on landing as it did on takeoff. It carries the whole load for the whole flight.
Put that original 777 on the 2600 mile flight from LA to New York, and it doesn't need a full fuel load. You can drop 200,000 pounds of fuel, and add 200,000 pounds of payload.
The e777 will still have the same weight of batteries needed for that 9000 mile flight.
Swap out the batteries with fuel cells, and you can take on an optimal, sub-maximal fuel load for your shorter flights, radically improving total efficiency over batteries.
You are defending someone
Most of the people here are rebutting your general claim that self defense is only available to the unarmed. Those rebuttals don't constitute support for this woman.
If you are armed you can force them to leave through threats
I am making a general comment on your argument, and not specific to this case. Like most of the arguments directed at you in this thread, My comments should not be construed as support for this woman in this particular case.
You are conflating "threat" and "force". They are distinct. A "threat" is an attempt to influence the subject's decision to act, by making them fear a future action. "Force" is a physical action imposed on the subject.
A threat is something intended to convince the subject to decide to act in a particular way. Force is when the subject's choices are removed, and their body is physically manipulated against their will.
Force can also be a threat, but a threat alone is not force. Holding a knife to your neck and demanding your wallet is force (your neck is being physically manipulated against your will) and a threat (you are being coerced into giving up your wallet).
There are six generalized criteria for defensive force. A person who 1. Reasonably Believes an imperiled person faces a 2. Credible, 3. Criminal, 4. Imminent, 5. Sufficient threat (sufficient = "death or grievous bodily harm") may use any level of force 6. Necessary to stop that threat.
When you articulate your arguments about this specific case using the above terminology, you will find that your opinion is shared by the overwhelming majority. There is very little support in this thread for her self defense argument.
An armed person theoretically has a greater capacity of force than an unarmed person, but threats made be an unarmed person can certainly justify a forceful response by the armed person.
Taco de Pollo