There's probably a tipping point between the stack effect (hot air rising and pulling on the radon) and drafts bringing in fresh air diluting the radon.
I don't want to start a snippy argument, so sorry if this sounds combative, but when you realize that there isn't a "policy which ensures the gains are fairly distributed", then what would you suggest?
Unionization and collective action does work, it's why we have things like the concept of the weekend. It's also generally useful when advocating change to have a more extreme faction.
Sorta similar with a lot of plants I imagine, we planted a Madrone tree and it's very tempting to want to water a small & new tree but they can also get root issues if the ground is too wet or doesn't drain well enough. They're highly adapted to living on the sides of cliffs.
We recently had this discussion about house plants as well. The unexpected part is: Too much watering hurts more than too little watering. Especially with bad drainage.
If the watering is on the too-little side for the evaporation and plant size going on, well, the plant will look a little sad for a bit. Then you water it, and it goes back up and looks happy again. This is a situation plants regularly deal with in the wild - drought - and they have adapted to it.
If you water too much, especially with bad drainage, there will be stagnant water in the pot, roots rot and the plant dies with little recourse.
So now I make sure my pots can drain, take my plants outside once or twice a week, absolutely drown their soil and let that drain for an hour or two. This way, the soil becomes saturated without stagnant water and... some of these plants are reproducing and growing at unreasonable rates for the amount of effort placed into them.
I've been trying to grow a mango from a seed for so long. The roots always get hit by black fungus and it dies off. Tallest I got one to grow was about 10"
yes, b. subtilis produces exogenous anti-fungal peptides and VOCs. Additionally, sterilizing the seed before inoculation using sodium hypochlorite or h2o2 would help.
Labor of love (beautiful trees), but they are very iffy trees to get going. I did attempt to help things along by putting lots of madrone duff with it, so as to try to get the right biota.
I imagine the slower speed is a closer fit to combat drones (which have a payload and sometimes a fiber optic cable)? Also watching MultiGP they sorta move/accelerate too fast for me to fully appreciate the maneuvering.
Feels kinda similar to the innovation around manned aircraft about 100 years ago when we went from toy/observation platform to killing machine in only a couple of decades. With the ardupilot news today, it was hard to not watch this and imagine the applications to a combat environment.
> I imagine the slower speed is a closer fit to combat drones
A lot of comments are trying to draw connections to combat drones, but drone racing like this has been a hobby thing for a long time. The capabilities of the drones are set to have an even playing field, not to match combat drones or anything.
These aren't meant to have any parallels to combat drones, drones that fly long distances, or drones that carry payloads.
It's really just a special-purpose hobby thing for flying through a series of gates very quickly. Flight time measured in a couple minutes, no provisions for carrying weight.
We all understand that. People are simply observing that there an obvious path from this technology demonstrator to something similar in the battlefield.
I'm afraid not. RC/FPV is already a niche hobby, and media coverage is universally negative. No wonder laypeople mostly think of kamikaze drones when they see something like this.
This is a half-truth. The flying experience was much different back then. As another commenter posted, airlines competed on amenities then, they compete on prices now. Look at the ads from that era; you see full roasted turkey being served and even an in-cabin piano bar! Your statement lacks nuance and is comparing apples and oranges to shoehorn in a “regulation is bad” narrative.
In the US, government-regulated fares meant that fares were basically static on a given route. The only way to bring passengers to your airline was to serve places nobody else did, or to offer extras that slightly offset your profit in the hope that you'd get more, regular customers.
Since air travel was substantially more expensive then than now, the amenities gravitated to what attracted the most frequent fliers: businessmen. So stewardesses (they certainly weren't called flight attendants then) had weight limits, age limits, and if-you're-married-you-must-quit deals, and as a glance at some 1970s uniforms will show you, they were basically hiring models who happened to have the right skill set (usually at least one would be a trained nurse, and they all had to be reasonably confident) to dress them in revealing outfits. Like Hooters for travel.
If that's what you want, great. If you'd prefer other amenities... maybe not.
It has never struck me as coincidental that smoking was banned on US aircraft before no-smoking policies became nigh-universal at restaurants, but in just about the right timeframe for airplanes to shift from a boys' club to a place that catered to families.
If you want to pay more to get more, there are a lot of options, starting with coach plus (coach seats, business class legroom, priority boarding) and going through first class before branching out into niches like all-first-class flights (JSX is an airline in the US for which this is the business model; they fly smaller regional-size planes, and the reduced capacity legally allows them to skip the whole TSA and terminal experience and just let you on the plane if you show up and buy a ticket twenty minutes before departure) and then on into the various levels of chartered and truly private aviation.
You do, definitely, get what you pay for, but sometimes you don't need a Michelin-starred meal experience. And when that's the case, you've got cheaper options that didn't exist before deregulation (except for Southwest, which avoided problems by not making interstate flights at all in the early days.
A former co-worker who lived in Singapore at the time told me that that the deal with Singapore Airlines "flight attendants" was you got the job after college and then got married and left.
We can debate seat pitch I guess but economy seating hasn't been great for decades and something like United Polaris is better than Pan Am first class ever was even if food is arguably a downgrade.
Because most airlines have become monopolies at their respective hubs so their loss would severely inconvenience a ton of people so government is encouraged to prop them up.
For example, if Delta went under, Atlanta, Detroit and Salt Lake City would lose a total of 50%+ of their flights. That would be absolutely devastating.
Devastating to individuals sure. I hold a pretty high bar when it comes to something being truly critical enough for the government to bailout, economic concerns never meet that bar for me.
If we allowed markets to become monopolized we have to deal with that when the bill comes due rather than kick the can down the road.
If Delta went under another carrier would buy their planes and gate access at those airports, it might be chaotic for a short time but if there is enough demand to fly from point A to point B someone will provide the flights.
If Delta went under, one or more airlines would rapidly go "hey, there's a proven demand that's suddenly unmet", and there would very quickly be replacement flights.
I had numerous in person paper exams in CS (2009 - 2013) where we had to not only pseudo code an algorithm from a description, but also do the reverse of saying/describing what a chunk of pseudo code would do.
Hoping for more easy columnar support in databases, which is one of the things that can lead you to storing json in database columns (if your data is truly columnar).
Currently the vendor lock-in or requirements for installing plugins make it hard to do with cloud sql providers. Especially hard since by the time it's a problem you're probably at enough scale to make switching db/vendors hard or impossible.
How does columnar = json? json isn't colunar at all... If you just want to have a schema in json instead of sql, use a no-sql db, postgres nosql features are strong, but the db features are actually much stronger.
json isn't necessarily columnar, but it is a natrual fit for stuff that is columnar that's otherwise harder to model in a traditional relational db
here's my usecase:
- we have a bunch of attributes (all different names by customer, and many different values for each record that a customer stores)
- it's a fairly natural fit for a json value with only one level of key: value mapping
- we use mysql on GCP (no columnar plugins, too hard to switch to postgres)
Someone could go back in time and correctly model it as columns and not json but that ship has sorta sailed. While it's not impossible to change, it would be pretty hard, time will tell if that ends up happening.
I would love to be able to tell mysql "put this column in a collumnar engine and use that when I query on it" (AlloyDB is this for postgres on GCP)
Too bad mysql doesn't even have materialized views - its not a good combination with a json only situation, but you clearly are suffering through that, good luck :) probably etl it to clickhouse and move on.
Could always try and dump to GCP/Parquet/json and use duckdb/bq to just query it all.
