Globalization generally crushes small languages. I consider it a blessing and a curse- the more people speak a common language, the more they can communicate and collaborate together; unfortunately they tend to forget their traditional languages as a consequence. It strikes me as inevitable.
Even if two different aircraft have the same space constraints for the hook (which is a pretty big if), they have different mass and deceleration characteristics (i.e. minimum and maximum approach velocity) during landing- changing the force exerted on the hook. Designing a lighter hook for the lower loaded aircraft is VERY desirable for high tech fighter jets- every ounce saved is better range, better agility, etc.
As far as the little lip at the very tip of the hook- it looks to me like the initial design was trying to minimize any risk of digging into the flight deck and causing damage- this is just a guess though.
“After the LSO finished what he had to say and left the ready room my B/N allowed that he might fly with me again. Me, I was still shaking inside.
The next morning I went up on the flight deck before flight ops started and walked to the aft edge of the deck. I was looking for something and found it.
About one foot from the end, there was a single, shiny, brand new, solitary hook imprint in the deck.”
You could break people up into political and wealth-based quadrants:
1. Conservative and rich
2. Conservative and poor
3. Liberal and rich
4. Liberal and poor
Consider the typical expressed beliefs of quadrants 1 and 2. Both advocate that individualism and an internal locus of control can help you succeed in life. The difference is whether they have "succeeded in life" (by socioeconomic measures/ whatever).
Consider the same for quadrants 3 and 4. They would typically be more likely to advocate for the idea that success is based on luck. Again, the difference between 3 and 4 is whether they have not "succeeded."
Of all the quadrants, quadrant number 3 (liberal and rich) has a unique cognitive dissonance between their lived reality and their stated moral position. They tend to believe that rich people have achieved their wealth largely through luck, and now have power and autonomy that others lack. They state that the rich should help the poor, and they are rich, so they continually must justify their own wealth. This type of cognitive dissonance does not exist in the same way for the other 3 quadrants. That's why TFA is inevitably critical of the left for its luxury beliefs moreso than the right.
I'm relatively affluent and I know that it's mostly the product of luck, I have no problem admitting that and that my salary is outrageous compared to the amount of work it requires (and required over my lifetime). I am also actively a militant in favor of an increase in taxes for the guys like me. I'd give away 80% of my capital instantly if it made all of my social class to the same because I know it would make life way better for most of us.
Among the people that care about cultural appropriation, there are so many different interpretations of which acts are offensive that it is a minefield of uncertainty. A lot of it feels to me like a vocal minority trying to railroad the discussion.
If you want it to last longer than 20 minutes it would weight about 250 pounds.
Chainsaws are at the very corner of tools that have to be both portable, handheld, and very powerful. This means that their energy source should very dense. Lithium does not come close for the big saws.
Urban tree climbing arborists (that need a small saw to chop limbs while up in a tree) now sometimes use battery powered saws that run off of an "umbilical"- a cable off of the saw runs to a separate (backpack or other container) battery. These saws are among the smaller chainsaws (maybe a 12" bar, sized for chopping limbs). The other extreme is a saw for bucking and felling medium and large trees, which uses a MUCH more powerful motor and a 30" bar or bigger.
If supply and demand don't set the number of surgeons, then who does?
Currently, the American Medical Association limits the number of new doctors being trained in medical school. The AMA judges this to be enough to attend to the population. The long working hours, high wages, and continuing shortage of doctors is direct evidence that their judgement is questionable.
> If supply and demand don't set the number of surgeons, then who does?
Public policy. Have public education and graduate X number of doctors every year no matter what.
Free market doesn’t work well for essential services. Lobbying will artificially restrict supply to make more money at everyone else’s detriment. Demand for health is unbounded and any patient will value life over capital, so without forcing oversupply it will be exploitative.
There's a joke that grad school and med school are polar opposites - med school is hard to get into and easy to get out of, while a PhD is easy to start and hard to finish
Being a postdoc sucks, and you have to be pretty willing to do something radically different than what you did as a student - but it isn't the end of the world.
I can't see a situation where it makes health in the US worse overall to increase the number of students.
There's no point in graduating more doctors per year if there are no residency program slots for them. We already have some students every year who graduate with an MD degree but are unable to practice because they can't obtain the necessary post-graduate training. We need to address that bottleneck first.
which is an artificial limitation. More positions can be generated easily, since there's a high demand for medical care and the costs currently are high to obtain medical care.
Until those residency programs have doctors sitting idle and twiddle their thumbs, the lack of position is just artificial in order to make it more competitive.
You appear to have a misunderstanding of the motivations and incentives here. The limit on residency program slots is not to make them more competitive but rather to hold down Federal government Medicare spending. If you want to help solve the problem then please ask your members of Congress to increase Medicare funding for residency programs.
Surgeons have to complete the same amount of training regardless of how many hours they end up working per week after training. There is just no practical way to train three times as many surgeons: the teaching hospitals have nowhere near enough capacity.
In japan, they have large teaching hospitals where patients get treatment from several doctors, effectively free of charge, because you're paired with one senior doctor and several training doctors.
You can go ask the people on the bread lines what they think today. There are 34 million people living with food insecurity in the US alone. A triumph of efficient resource allocation!
The equilibrium found between supply and demand implies the existence of "excess demand." For some, myself included, the choice between excess demand and efficient markets leans heavily toward reducing excess demand, despite it being less effecient.
The AMA has no power to limit the number of medical school slots. The actual limit is imposed by federal Medicare program funding for residency slots. The AMA has been actively lobbying Congress to increase those.
Sure, there is already some limited private funding for residency slots. If you have a few million dollars to spare you could probably endow a new slot at a teaching hospital. But in general the organizations that actually have a lot of money don't consider this a top priority.
To give a visceral example- There's an episode of Clarkson's Farm where the customers that parked in the grass at his farm shop need to get their cars pulled out of the mud by a tractor.
Hasn't the midwest host large herds of grazing buffalo for millenia? I think the last I read about this stuff, most cattle farmers want their grass to still be the old school deep-rooted stuff, if other grasses take over it is a symptom of overgrazing.
