Hildegarde

No… That’s why I want biden to step down.

If any democrats want my vote they have to replace biden.

Isn’t a crash screen the last place you should your branding?

They want to advertise a $2 chicken box without actually selling chicken for $2.

What even is the point of this debate? They’ve both had a term in office. We know how both of them actually govern the actual country. What can this debate possibly convey that the past 8 years of governance hasn’t?

I bought an old business monochrome laser printer ten years ago. Still hasn’t needed a new toner cartridge.

The piano for when dodecaphony doesn’t subvert tonality nearly enough.

Under because that way you can model it by making a cylinder and adding a plane to it, because the plane is attached to the back you don’t have to do the extra work of making sure the textures line up.

We’ve had flying cars for about 60 years. They’re called helicopters.

If they made you forget, why would they admit to it on a sign? Does that make any sense whatsoever?

The carbon comes from the fuel. Burning a ton of jet fuel will release the same amount of carbon regardless of the plane that burns it.

Taylor Swift’s plane is a Dassault Falcon 7X. It weighs around 17 tons and seats 12 to 16 passengers.

Her plane burns 60% less fuel than a 737 MAX 8. However, her plane holds 9% of the passengers of the MAX 8, so its far less efficient per passenger than typical commercial aircraft.

Private planes are not a huge contributor to carbon emissions in comparison to others. They’re bad, obviously. But there are far more commercial airplanes, and they fly much more frequently than private jets.

Private jets get people’s attention. One person being directly responsible for that much carbon is notable is unconscionable. But it’s the scale of transportation overall that is the issue.

All the weights listed were operating empty weight. The battery planes will be even smaller than the planes I listed for comparison.

Weights of planes vary in flight, so I picked the one that disadvantages the point I’m trying to make in the interest of fairness.

Trains don’t need to store the energy at all. Pantographs are a mature technology. High speed renewable long haul transportation is a technologically solved problem for all overland routes, it just requires infrastructure investment.

The plane in the article is a 4 ton airplane, they mention plans to make an 8 ton commercial aircraft.

The Learjet 31 is 4.4 tons. It seats 8 passengers. The Cessna CitationJet CJ3+ is right around 4 tons with a maximum of 9 passengers.

The future 8 ton aircraft is around the size of the 10-ton Dash 8 Q200 with a maximum of 40 seats.

There are commercial uses for aircraft this small, but these jets are significantly smaller than most commercial aircraft.

For context jet fuel is around 9,720 Wh/L. However, energy density(energy per volume) is less important in aviation than specific energy(energy per mass) as weight is far more likely to be the limiting factor.

A standard lithium ion battery has 100-265 Wh/kg

The article claims 500 Wh/kg in this new battery.

Jet fuel has around 12,000 Wh/kg.

Though this is a major improvement in battery tech, batteries are unlikely to ever improve to the point to even approach the energy storage of liquid fuels.

Batteries cannot run commercial aviation as it currently exists. Battery planes will need to fly slower and shorter. There is no other way.

No iron clothes is a lie. They say no iron on the label in the store, but they tell you to iron in on the care label.

Research the fuses on the car. The smart systems or modem can most likely be disabled by removing power to them.

Pretty much yes. Proper documentation is important for safety, but calling the itself titanium fake is incredibly dishonest.

The rest of the headline doesn’t fair any better.

The planes that included components made with the material were… Boeing 737 Max and 787 Dreamliner airliners as well as Airbus A220 jets

Headline only mentions one of the involved manufacturers, misrepresenting it as a boeing problem because they know what will drive clicks.

The issue is not that the parts aren’t titanium, its that there isn’t a paper trail documenting the titanium.

This is an issue, because improperly forged titanium can have issues that makes it unsuitably weak for its intended purpose. Having documentation showing where the materials came from, when it was inspected for defects and when it was manufactured is critical for safety.

United flight 232 had an engine explode in part due to defective titanium. This is a real safety concern.

Though the headline says boeing, the article mentions these undocumented parts being found in airbus planes as well. Its an industry problem, not a Boeing specific one.

MCAS, (must crash airplane system,) the system that caused those crashes is present on all max variants. The involved aircraft were max 8’s because that was the first to enter production.

Every other max variant has the same system. Changes to, and knowledge of MCAS should prevent future crashes but this is an issue that affects every 737 max, despite only max 8’s crashing from it.