I seriously considered going twin, but there are lots of disadvantages. Money is a huge one (cost, fuel, maintenance, insurance). But it's really not clear if twins (especially light twins) are actually any safer.

1) If you lose an engine on takeoff, there is a certain risk that you auger in, especially in a light twin, especially if you are not super current. Landing straight ahead in a field might actually have more survivability (depending on the surroundings for your airport).
2) The most common reason that engines quit is fuel (bad fuel, out of fuel) and the twin doesn't help with that.
3) If you do lose both engines, now you have a heavier aircraft and a higher approach speed. The energy of a crash is mass * velocity^2. A lighter and slower aircraft will do better.

I'm a former skydiver and a current pilot, so I'm not afraid of risk. I certainly do my best to manage it. All life is risk vs reward. You can die sitting at home. You can die in a car. When I found myself not jumping enough, I retired from skydiving. Over the years the fun went down and the risk went up (due to me doing it less often).

Honestly looking at the video posted below, I can't figure out what happened. It seems hard to get into that extreme of an attitude at such a low altitude. I'm a 500-hr private pilot.

Impact caused it to deploy: https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Faviation-safety.net%2Fwi...

It's not a Boeing.

LLMs like ChatGPT actually can't do math at all. They understand words, that's it. They try to predict what answer is expected from them. But they can't do math to figure that out.

Look into FairTax. It's basically a flat tax plus Universal Basic Income.

In the 50s we didn’t have cell phones, video games, high def TVs, generally no A/C, etc. so some of that increase has gone towards better stuff, not just more stuff.

I looked into this for my parents for their RV but when I looked at the signup process it seems the system relies (at least currently) on the user being stationary. Can anybody confirm or deny that? If that is so, is it a temporary limitation during the beta stage?

I was going to order the new Air but then I saw there was no headphone jack, so I ordered the basic iPad. I'm sure Apple won't miss the $300 less in revenue but there are consequences to removing things...

Sorry, you are correct. I ordered the HP Reverb 2 which is about 9 million pixels. I have just learned that it is just a tad bit more on the pixel count than a 4K display. So that's great news really. It is 2.5x more pixels than the Oculus Quest which I have and enjoy but am bothered by the pixelation. I hope that will help. But at "only" about 9 million pixels it won't be much tougher than a 4K display for the GTX 3090 playing Flight Simulator.

Hmm, you are correct, I'm not sure why I didn't know that. So the new HP Reverb 2 is pretty close to a 4K monitor. That's good news, I hope it will perform really well with the RTX 3090! :)

I hope so. On my GTX 2080 Super I'm only getting 30-40fps on my single 4K monitor. So I'm hoping the GTX 3090 can really produce triple the performance so I can get up to around 60FPS at 8K as they talked about in the launch video.

This is correct; 8K is overkill for a single monitor. But as somebody who is just getting into the new Flight Simulator I can tell you there are other scenarios:

1) Three 2K monitors in a wrap-around configuration for simulators is 6K of resolution.

2) The upcoming HP VR headset is 4K per eye, or 8K total. As an Oculus Quest owner I'll tell you that 2K per eye isn't all that clear.

But for a single TV sure. I have a 4K OLED TV (55") for my gaming monitor and sit about 3 feet away and it's plenty big and 4K is plenty detailed.

Yes, exactly. I just ordered an 8K VR headset for the new Flight Simulator because I know 4K (2K per eye) isn't super great (I own an Oculus Quest).