Incorrect. Jet fuel is stored in a collection of tanks at an airport. One tank can be contaminated with, for instance, water, and this can be pumped into a single truck and loaded into a one aircraft. This has happened before. The fact that no other aircraft suffered bad fuel means nothing.

It could also be a case of debris in fuel, severely restricting fuel flow. The engines run at idle fine, but sometime after power is applied and the debris clogs pickups, the engines will fail. This has also happened to commercial aircraft.

The sheer difference in quantity of fuel there is going to raise eyebrows if you try and put AvGas into an aircraft that requires JetA.

Which is why the Jeju 737 didnt record any data once its engines shut down - the 737 didnt have a RAT.

Which means that the most important points of the accident were unrecorded.

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.

Another greater possibility is that one engine failed for some reason and the pilots reacted incorrectly causing the good engine to be shut down. This is the most likely and there have been other crashes caused by this kind of mistake. Pilots spend their whole careers maintaining equal thrust between a plane's engines, but then when an engine failure happens they have to go for maximum unequal thrust.

This is unlikely because its been shown that the time it takes to go through the 787 engine-out checklist, to get to the point where you do anything that could conceivably turn the good engine off, is longer than the time between when the aircraft took off and crashed.

If this was the case, it would have been done by a crew member not going through the checklist.

AI is taking out a lof of jobs, it's only normal. By the way, a degree in CS hasn't been a golden ticket for a long time. The average CS graduate slaves away until he or she (usually she because women are smarter and do not wait until they're middle-aged to move to other and more lucrative departments) is burned out and useless. A colleague of mine once said "computers are for chumps": unless you're a genius (and geniuses can find lucrative employment without clicking their lives away), it's a shit job and usually it attracts shit people. It was only to be expected that AI would take CS out of the picture as well. There will always be some jobs, but they will be for the top tier. The 99% is out. Move on.

That's the idea. Get this system fully optimized and serialized, we can develop all the farm land into thousands of cute little off-grid gated exurbs. Everything needed to protect ourselves from the hoi polloi when we outlaw their fossil fuel.

Its like claiming medical ethics laws are stifling the advancement of medical treatment and drugs, because you cant test on patients without their knowledge and explicit consent...

They might very well be, but its a limitation society is willing to accept over the protestations of drug companies.

Nothing. SpaceX is doing fine. Starship is ambitious. It is also being developed in a manner not suitable to the sensibilities of the Western aerospace commentariat. SpaceX performs many tests, analyzes many failures and refines designs accordingly. This produces great designs at low cost, in less time, and many dramatic RUDs. The Russians did the same. They performed many tests on initially flawed designs and fixed the flaws they discovered until they had confidence in their designs.

The traditional Western, big aerospace way, as we can clearly see with SLS is to take a decade or more and consumes oceans of money analyzing a paper design beyond any conceivable failure mode. This works, but it's extremely expensive, glacially slow, and suitable only for national superpower scale budgets funding cost plus contractors with little to no thought given to a feasible long term business model. That's why all their marquee designs are now historic, and the next one is still nascent, wildly over budget, years late and likely redundant.

So don't worry too much about the deep thoughts of our professional spectators. You can be absolutely certain that Musk doesn't.

You'd think Broadcom et al. would pitch a fit given the billions they've spent developing Wi-Fi standards that include 6 GHz, developing 6 GHz devices, etc. It's not just owners of existing equipment. It's an entire industry that has been investing in 6 GHz Wi-Fi for years now.

I am saying I have no patience for the drearily predictable "quality" and "safety" FUD. There are severe problems in healthcare. Bad enough to risk neglecting our worship of medical authority. Bad enough to risk suffering possible unknown failures as an alternative to our chronic known failures.

This presumes we have quality. Do you believe that, without doubt? I don't. I have a lifetime of anecdotal evidence of failures by doctors, personally and among family, friends and others. Without (hopefully) inviting a deluge of corroboration, I can assure you the people reading this now can bury us in such stories.

Beyond that, we are in desperate need of lower cost solutions for medicine. You're free to attribute the extreme costs we see however you wish, but finger pointing won't fix it: the powers and interests involved aren't listening. What is needed is a disruption, and this looks like a real possibility. I, at least, don't immediately dismiss it with AMA FUD.

If your country cannot develop a digital economy on its own it's just its fault as a government for failing to provide the right ecosystem. If you like nanny states, centralized government and bureaucracy, you will be a customer forever. One should applaud the canadiot government for understanding at last they cannot pick a fight with the US and prevail. Not now, not ever. All the fictional talk about joining forces with the EU evaporated in a moment. In time, the EU will see the light too, despite all the posturing. If you pick a fight with the US you end up with your bones broken into pieces. Now and forever. Forget about Trump, he'll probably be a lame duck by midterm and we'll find someone saner to run the country - of course both parties must come to their senses and produce sensible candidates. You won't be dealing with Trump in a few years but you'll have to deal with the US forever, and you know deep in your heart that being part of the American World is the right choice. You don't want to burn with the BRICS and you don't want to be a landfill nation. There are no other options. You may not love America but your kids will. They will wear jeans, love all-American music, eat burgers, drink cola, salute the flag and be happy.

The only person bringing SpaceX into this is you.

Why does there have to be any comparison at all? Why does there have to be a perceived competition between what Blue Origin are doing here and what SpaceX are doing over there?

There is something broken in western news media and social media, in that everything simply *must* be a race or a competition, and if one entity in the perceived competition is behind then they shouldn't even bother - it doesn't matter that none of the actual entities themselves see themselves as being in a competition or race, they dont matter, its an external thing being forced on them by observers.

The concept that an entity can be entirely about their own milestones, rather than judging their progress by measuring against another entity, is rapidly becoming an impossibility in many peoples minds.

You see it all the time, with SpaceX being used as the thing to measure against - someone hops a rocket, oh but they are a decade behind SpaceX so why are they even bothering. Someone launches a new rocket but its not reusable, doesn't matter than it meets all the internal requirements of the project and the project sponsors, its not reusable so they are so far behind SpaceX so why are they even bothering. Blue Origin launches a sub-orbital rocket, entirely meeting their own internal goals, but its not orbital so they are so behind SpaceX, so why are they even bothering...

Not everything has to be a competition.

Show evidence of code theft, where these models are built with proprietary code that hasn't been liberally licensed and freely offered. Otherwise you're engaging in FUD.

A.) Zero ads: wading through prevailing search engines is a total shit show. I'm paying for LLM service, and I don't have to suffer that crap.
B.) Most examples are written by learners that are, themselves, ignorant of the sort of subtleties I mentioned. LLMs do better than that: they evaluate code and point out stuff that would otherwise be overlooked.