You are comparing a stock to a flow. Billionares in the US don't make $7 trillion per year. They accumulated that wealth over their lifetimes. If you want to compare apples to apples: The net worth of the US (as much as that concept can make sense) is around $176 trillion. That includes $269 trillion in assets and $123 trillion in debts.
I doubt there is any form of ABS filament with such a low glass transition temperature. As the original poster said, it was probably PLA.
I find it odd that the report didn't name the manufacturer of the part, and that the part was not listed on the LAA modification form. There can't be many people selling such parts at airshows, so you'd think the investigators would have been able to find out who made it.
Now I wonder if the previous owner (who installed the new fuel system) printed the part himself, then claimed he bought it overseas to avoid blame.
That truck carries 500 packages. That drone one or two at best so to replace one truck you're looking at 100's of flights + return flights. And I'm not convinced the risks are lower.
Trucks also don't sound like a swarm of angry bees, in fact the all-electric fleet that Amazon uses around here barely sounds like anything at all. Drones would be a huge step backwards for noise pollution.
A truck travels a greater distance to deliver those 500 packages to the same locations, as it must take roads instead of flying in a straight line. And roads are much more likely to have people on them than a random patch of ground. Also the truck weighs several tons. The weight requires more energy to move stuff around, and has more kinetic energy than an 80lb drone.
You should really consider how much energy it takes to levitate an 80lb drone while flying across town, compared to how much energy it takes to roll an 8000lb van across town (even ignoring the fact that the van might deliver 100 packages while making it's way across town).
An 8,000lb van will be using fossil fuels and emit particulates from tire and brake dust. Unless it was incredibly efficient and electricity for the drones was coming from coal plants, the van would emit more pollution.
But the biggest harm is people getting hit by vehicles. Delivery drones are much smaller and don't spend nearly as much time near people. Since drones can deliver stuff more quickly than large vans, they also substitute for individuals driving to a store to pick something up. So the total risk to pedestrians is even less than you might expect from eliminating many van deliveries.
I'm not so sure that the numbers will bear out what you sketch here. If we assume a drone flight per package and we scale this up to get rid of all of the delivery vehicles the number of people hit by and killed by drones will rise substantially. Drones are immature tech at best and a 5 Kg drone will put you in the morgue on impact with a greater likelihood than an accident with a delivery van. Gravity has no brakes and a drone isn't going to be able to refuse its imperative when the tech inevitably fails. I think you have to watch out not to be so 'anti' one thing that you end up with another that is as bad or even worse. Maybe the solution isn't drones and not delivery vans either.
Considering the distance from one delivery to the next in a van is short, and the warehouse to town distance is split via a hundred packages, it just has to be the electric van.
Maybe things will make more sense if the drone can carry 20 lightweight packages. But even then you gotta wonder how much energy it takes to hover/fight gravity the entirety of the trip.
The semi truck isn't driving through my backyard recording video of me. And I doubt the economics of scale make the truck more environmentally damaging than a drone delivering a single item
It's almost as if .. if noise, property damage, enviro damage, injury and death.. are the problems, then we should regulate everything that do those things equally rather than trying to pick winners among various transport modes. But among other things, this would mean holding people responsible for the incredible damage anyone can do with a car and the people will not stand for being told they cannot go vroom vroom. Additionally since we refuse to regulate until there is a crisis, anything that is new automatically has an advantage over anything that is old, regardless of which causes fewer issues per unit of work (package delivery etc).
"I don't want a noisy neighborhood, but I want to drive my two-ton death trap that you can't see toddlers in front of and I also don't want to see any of my neighbors and also I want any object in the world deliverable within 24 hours."
I chuckled when I read this post. It is well written sarcasm. I will say observing some if the "individual driver vs. X wars" on HN (usually between North Americans), there are many who think this way.
>"I don't want a noisy neighborhood, but I want to drive my two-ton death trap that you can't see toddlers in front of and I also don't want to see any of my neighbors and also I want any object in the world deliverable within 24 hours."
I live in a noisy neighborhood with commercial truck thru traffic.
I don't have any particular love for the noise or the trucks, but the kind of people who complain about noise and machines will mostly don't select to live here which is good because I find those people to be bad generally.
The post doesn't link to the report itself. It looks like you can only read a summary of it for free and must pay 5.90 to download a copy.[1] From what I can glean from reading TUV's summary, it seems like the Teslas had significantly higher mileage than other vehicles (>50,000km in 2-3 years). Also their failures were mostly in brake discs and rear axle issues, which makes me think that due to regenerative braking, the discs were rusty from disuse. The rear axle issue they mention is probably a clicking noise caused by under-torqued rear halfshaft nuts.[2] Tesla updated their torque values last year[3], so this shouldn't be a problem anymore. Any older vehicle that has the click can be fixed by re-lubricating the hub and torquing the nut to the new value.
Without paying for the report, we can only speculate as to what TUV considers a serious defect. If the rates are as high as claimed (17% Model Y, 13% Model 3), then the issues are most likely minor things such as rusty brakes or rear axle clicking. Rusty brakes are less than ideal, but they're common on EVs and they work just fine. The fix is to simply use the brakes occasionally. If anything it's an indication that the vehicle requires less maintenance because the brake pads won't need replacement as frequently.
As a Ford Fusion Hybrid owner I blow out my rear brakes a lot more often out of rust and lack of use due to regen too, so the TUV is just calling out people not getting their vehicles inspected and serviced as regularly as they should.
In other words... Tesla owners just don't pay attention to service intervals as dedicated and surefast as a VW owner would.
Can cobfirm, I’ve been driving a Model 3 for 6ish years and the brakes have problems from disuse pretty regularly. It’s annoying but not critical. Other than that it has been shockingly reliable. This matches my experience.
Your pediatrician is either mistaken or lying. Children and adolescents who take SSRIs for major depressive disorder show increased rates of suicidal ideation, suicidal behavior, and hostility towards others. These effects persist for at least 9 months after starting SSRIs.[1]
Common side effects of long-term SSRI use in adults include weight gain, emotional numbing, loss of libido, and sexual dysfunction. It seems to me that anyone taking SSRIs when their brain is still developing would be more likely to have these side effects, and to have them persist after ceasing use.
It's anecdotal, but I know some people who were prescribed SSRIs during puberty. It's not possible to know how they would have turned out if they hadn't taken these drugs, but as adults I pity them. Their lack of sex drive causes relationship problems, which is especially sad since they do want children. They're starting to get older, so I doubt it'll ever happen.
I thought we were talking about long-term effects, i.e. ones that persist to and through adulthood? The sources in that Wiki article appear not to address that.
The clinicians I've interacted with have always warned me of the possible side-effects of psychotropic medications, and said they should be notify immediately if the side-effects appear. I believe this is at least standard procedure, if not legally required?
I do have a low libido. Can't say whether or not that's due to Prozac, but regardless it hasn't negatively affected my life, probably because it was low before I met my wife. If someone enters a relationship while their libido is at one level and then during the relationship it changes considerably then I can certainly see how that could be a major challenge. That's an important thing to weigh when evaluating medication.
In addition to the increased rates of suicidal behavior and aggression in children (which we know lasts for at least 9 months, but don't know if it's longer because the study only ran for that long), the Wikipedia article talks about long term effects in adults, at least one of which you have. Why should it be less likely for children to end up with these same issues?
You are asking for evidence that does not exist because nobody has done good studies on it. That's too high of a bar. There are many drugs and life interventions that we don't have studies on regarding children, but that doesn't mean those things are safe for children. To use an example so ridiculous that we can both agree on it: There are no studies showing long term effects of fentanyl on children. Yet if some parent managed to get a fentanyl prescription for their kid, I think we would both be concerned.
Obviously I'm not implying that giving a child Prozac is as harmful as fentanyl. I'm saying that your line of reasoning proves too much. If someone did get their kid on a dangerous drug, and defended their decision by pointing out that there are no studies on children showing its long term harm, there is nothing you can say to that parent that others in this thread haven't already said to you. That should give you pause.
I believe Raptor 2 operates at a lower chamber pressure. According to Wikipedia, Raptor 3 is 350 bar, and its thrust to weight ratio is 183.6:1.
BE-4's chamber pressure is low for its design, but it would be very difficult to increase it to Raptor's levels. Full-flow staged combustion causes the propellants to be gasses when they enter the combustion chamber, and chemical reactions in gasses happen more quickly, allowing for efficient combustion in a smaller combustion chamber. The smaller volume makes it easier to contain higher pressures.
1) epigenetic inheritance is just if a horse stretches its neck to reach up high, so to do that horses children and their children, and so on, until you end up with a giraffe
2) yes methylation and epigenetics resets, not so much at meiosis as at conception zygote formation
3) it doesn't 100% reset more like 98.3% resets, the remainder does NOT reset, thus, epigenetic inheritance. Sometimes that reset process fails, thusly, (epi)genetic disease. Also all this process called "imprinting" is why it was hard to clone various organisms including until recently humans - you can "reset" a skin cell 100% but that's not the ticket, you need to reset it 98.3% and leave the imprinting regions. Oh. And the specific imprinting regions are different for the chromosome that come from mom, vs, the chromosome come from dad
So the big takeaway is that DNA no longer is the main mechanism of inheritance as Darwin taught but actually epigenetic, and the basis is along the lines of horses stretching their necks and becoming giraffes. There's a lot of getting into the weeds as to how this all works molecularly is that's it's really complicated but it is inherited
Their main differentiator is cost. The Boring Company bid $48.7 million for the initial LVCC loop. The total cost to complete it was $53 million. The second cheapest bid was Doppelmeyer Cableliner, which would have built a people mover for $215M. The people mover would have had about 50% more capacity per station, but at 4 times the cost.
Tunnel cost is mostly dependent on the volume of material removed, which means that cost goes up linearly with length but with the square of the tunnel diameter. Trains and people movers tend to require significantly larger diameter tunnels, so their costs tend to be much higher. Also Boring Company tunnels don't need much infrastructure in them, so they save money on rails, high voltage power systems, rolling stock, etc.
If we're counting in the past six months, the list should also include the Capital Jewish Museum shooting, the Boulder Molotov cocktail attack, and the shootings at ICE facilities in Alvarado & Dallas.
I was going for attacks on specific high profile individuals. there were indeed these events and more others if we're counting all politically-motivated terrorism.
I think the reason the school bought this silly software is because it's a dangerous school, and they're grasping at straws to try and fix the problem. The day after this false positive, a student was robbed.[1] Last month, a softball coach was charged with rape and possession of child pornography.[2] Last summer, one student was stabbed while getting off the bus.[3] Last year, there were two incidents where classmates stabbed each other.[4][5]
That certainly sounds bad, but it's all relative; keep in mind this school is in Baltimore County, which is distinct from the City of Baltimore and has a much different crime profile. This school is in the exact same town as Eastern Tech, literally the top high school in Maryland.
I skimmed through all the articles linked in GP and finding them pretty relevant to whatever decision might have been made to utilize the AI system (not at all to comment on how badly the bad tip was acted on).
Hailing from and still living in N. California, you could tell me that this school is located in Beverly Hills or Melrose Place, and it would still strike me as a piece of trivia. If anything, it'd just be ironic?
For context, Baltimore (City) is one of the most dangerous large cities in the US. Between the article calling the school "Kenwood High School in Baltimore" and the GP's crime links, a casual reader could mistakenly picture a dangerous inner-city school. But in reality it's located in a low-rise suburb in the County. Granted, it's an inner-ring blue collar suburb, but it's still a night-and-day difference from the worst neighborhoods in the city. And the schools in those bad neighborhoods tend to have far worse crimes than what was listed above.
So my point was that while the list of incidents is definitely not great, it's still way less severe than many inner-city schools in Baltimore. And honestly these same types of incidents happen at many "safe" large suburban high schools in "nice" areas throughout the US... generally less often than at this particular school, but not an order-of-magnitude difference.
Basically, I'm saying that GP's assertion of it being a "dangerous school" is entirely relative to what you're comparing to. There are much worse schools in that metro area.
I doubt that. I moved around a lot as a kid, so I went to at least eight different public schools from Alabama to Washington. One school was structurally condemned while I attended it. Some places had bullying, and sometimes a couple of people fought, but never with weapons, and there was never an injury severe enough to require medical attention.
I also know several high school teachers and the worst things they've complained about are disruptive/stupid students, not violence. And my friends who are parents would never send their kids to a school that had incidents like the ones I linked to. I think this sort of violence is limited to a small fraction of schools/districts.
> I think this sort of violence is limited to a small fraction of schools/districts.
No, definitely not. I went to a decently-well-ranked suburban school district, and still witnessed violent incidents... no weapon used, but still multiple cases where the victim got a concussion. And there were arrests, a gun found in a kid's locker, etc. This stuff was unfortunately relatively normal, at least in the 90s. Not quite as often as at the school in the article, but still.
I went to a very small rural school, and remember the big deal made when the administration asked the seniors to take their rifles out of the rear windows while on school property.
There were fights, but no one was ever harmed with a weapon to my memory.
Based on your reporting, that's one violent crime per year, and one alleged child rapist. [0]
The crime stats seem fine to me. In a city like Baltimore, the numbers you've presented are shockingly low. When I was going through school, it was quite common for bullies to rob kids... even on campus. Teachers pretty much never did anything about it.
[0] Maybe the guy is a rapist, and maybe he isn't. If he is, that's godawful and I hope he goes to jail and gets his shit straight.
reply