China's economy can always sell product to Chinese people. There are a lot of them. Not to mention the rest of the world, which is happy to trade with China, if only because China isn't constantly making unreasonable and incoherent demands on everyone.

Yup, one stated reason for the RAT on documents I have seen is to extend the data collection by the FDRs by maintaining power to the sensors and canbuses.

Where are you getting that from? The purpose of a RAT is to sustain power. It will deploy automatically under a variety of conditions, including dual engine failure on takeoff.

All this bit of spin tells us is that the aircraft wasn't grossly misconfigured by the crew. Great.

This is going to be bad fuel. But that won't come out for a long time, because it will put the fault on a state operated airline, from a state operated airport, investigated by that state's authority. If India could plausibly pin this on a Boeing design fault they would be shouting it from the mountain tops, and they've had nearly 3 weeks to analyze the complete data set from both flight data+voice recorders. That fact that what we're getting, instead, is spin stories like this, should tell you everything you need to know.

That's how I read it. It should say it has no thrust.

A typical jet turbofan airframe has two engines that each have a generator shaft taking turbine energy and making electrical current. It then has a whole 'nother turbine engine used on the ground and in some other flight legs called the APU; this exhausts out the tail cone usually, and can start engines or provide extra hydraulic power if needed, but is slow to start just like the main engines.

For power loss emergencies, a small spring-loaded fan pops into action super fast, called a Ram Air Turbine or RAT. It can only make enough electrical power to reboot key systems like engine FADECs or avionics, often only on one electrical channel instead of all channels. It's only a turbine, not a thrust-producing fan. It's a pinwheel toy in comparison to the APU and even the APU cannot produce significant thrust.

        Because I am drunk, this Independence Night,
        I watch the fireworks from far away,
        from a high hill, across the moony green
        Of lakes and other hills to the town harbor,
        Where stately illuminations are flung aloft,
        One light shattering in a hundred lights
        Minute by minute. The reason I am crying,
        Aside from only being country drunk,
        That is, may be that I have just remembered
        The sparklers, rockets, roman candles and
        so on, we used to be allowed to buy
        When I was a boy, and set off by ourselves
        At some peril to life and property.
        Our freedom to abuse our freedom thus
        Has since, I understand, been remedied
        By legislation. Now the authorities
        Arrange a perfectly safe public display
        To be watched at a distance; and now also
        The contribution of all the taxpayers
        Together makes a more spectacular
        Result than any could achieve alone
        (A few pale pinwheels, or a firecracker
        Fused at the dog's tail). It is, indeed, splendid:
        Showers of roses in the sky, fountains
        Of emeralds, and those profusely scattered zircons
        Falling and falling, flowering as they fall
        And followed distantly by a noise of thunder.
        My eyes are half-afloat in happy tears.
        God bless our Nation on a night like this,
        And bless the careful and secure officials
        Who celebrate our independence now.

Well, advanced lithography equipment isn't easy to make, so it's not surprising they're having problems. If they solve those problems it will be a permanent benefit to them.

Also, there's no particular reason to believe that "the AI bubble" will pop. Certainly parts of it will, but other parts are already solid successes. The rest is "work in progress", which, of course, may fail...but the odds are that large portions will succeed. (Much of the stuff that's "not ready for prime time" is just being pushed out too quickly, before the bugs have been squashed.)

"Mad Max" seems to have seriously underestimated the creativity of Australians regarding energy production :)

Yeah. Even here in Iceland, which isn't exactly a solar paradise, these would be really useful in some places. Though realistically your best option would be a mix of solar and wind.

I think we're forgetting the other two possibilities in this grid: "solar mine" and "strip farm".

The... trees?

If you're annoyed by jet skis, I would strongly recommend not living on the shores of Lake Havasu. Also, yes, it does take way more energy to get there than it does to jet ski around while you're there. Also, there are electric jet skis.

in modern history

Do you drive long distances without stopping to get food and drinks?

If so: please stop that.

My language does reflect the new reality. By your own admission EVs are a minority.

Would you say that white people should be called "normal people" in front of a bunch of black people in the US, because the black people are a minority?

You talk about EVs like they're some obscure just-invented thing. They're not esoteric.

We're not talking weight, we're talking wind resistance.

You very much are talking both. For an extreme case, with freight trucks, aero is only like 1/3rd to 1/2 of aero losses. And they have aerodynamically awful shapes and are on very low rolling resistance tyres (though also have very heavy cargos... but also very large frontal areas).

For a passenger vehicle / truck towing a trailer, it will really depend a lot on the vehicle and trailer. It's not even some simple additive process, the aerodynamics is complex; it's actually possible to even lower Cd by towing a trailer in some cases (though not usually). And if by definition of the topic at hand (discussion was of a "big" trailer), then you're talking something like similar to the vehicle's mass (F-150 can tow up to 3 times its mass). Which - if on the same tyres - then doubling your mass equals doubling the rolling resistance. The ratio between rolling and aero resistance at highway speeds varies on speed, vehicle, tyres, weather, etc, but saying 60:40 aero:rolling is probably reasonable at normal "towing" speeds (somewhat lower than drivers without trailers) and averaging across weather conditions. Doubling the rolling drag increases the total drag by 40%. If your cross-section stays the same (again, this depends on the vehicle and the trailer), the Cd would need to rise by 67% to keep the ratio between rolling and aero the same. Which is a really big Cd rise. Now, if you're starting with a very aero vehicle and have a very unaero trailer, sure, you might pull that off and then some (but remember that it's not additive, the airflow is complex). Or if it's a low car and a high trailer, again, same story. But to treat rolling as negligible is just not right. Trailers add a lot of rolling drag, amounts that very much are relevant.

First off, "normal car", please. 20% of all new cars sold worldwide are EVs now. Update your language to reflect the new reality.

Secondly, that's just not true. Towing a heavy trailer with a truck will see its MPG drop by like half. The rule of thumb is that every 100 pounds you have a truck tow drops its fuel economy by about 2%. 2500lbs = 50%. That's a very rough rule, but it gives a sense of what's normal.