I'd like to see those studies. In my fairly extensive experience with this subject, CR is a percentage reduction of a given individual's baseline metabolic rate, not an arbitrary number of calories. One example is here, under the heading "Baseline."

Though I can't get to the full text of the study at issue here, the summary discusses the participants' percentage reduction from their normal intake.

Roy Walford died from ALS, which, ironically enough, may have been caused and/or accelerated by his practice of CR.

It's also become increasingly clear over the past couple of decades that CR is correlated with significant decreases in bone density.

It's probably a useful tool in moderation -- much like many other dietary techniques -- but it's not a panacea.

Ah, but you've unwittingly stumbled onto the problem: it's clear this project is being driven by marketeers, not engineers.

I actually do -- the trick is that I also know how conventional airplanes work. This specific plane we're discussing is a conversion of a dual-engine airplane where both engines are indeed intended to run throughout the flight. And the engines already run at a fairly constant speed over the vast majority of a flight -- there's just not much opportunity to capture stop-and-go inefficiencies as there is in cars.

The website says the electric motor is 215HP, which is about 160KW.

Li-ion battery density tops out around 265 Wh/kg. So for even 1 hour of operation you're looking at about 600kg of batteries, which is most of the useful load of the 337. (You'll probably pick up another 100kg or so swapping out the second avgas powerplant for the electric motor, but that's not going to move the needle much.)

If instead the goal is to run a generator off the avgas engine with minimal battery storage, that itself would cut the stock range in half (a good deal less, actually, given the conversion inefficiencies and given the fixed 45-minute fuel reserve requirement). But I don't think so, given the claim that this mod cuts fuel cost in half.

So this basically looks like a cute toy for short hops with minimal passengers/gear. There's simply no free lunch that will address the miserable energy density of batteries compared to conventional fuel.

This appears to be an attempt at a reboot of Neah Power Systems, formally and tellingly known as "Growth Mergers, Inc." back in the 2000s. Their prior claim to fame was going to be fuel cells -- apparently that didn't go so well for them as they've never made a profit and their penny stock was finally delisted around 2017.

Their technology white paper for this supposed battery technology is 5 pages of poorly-written buzzword bingo and fanciful graphs. Particularly given their history, I'll cheerfully eat my hat if this is suddenly The Big One for them.

Nothing you said is incorrect, Mr[s]. AC -- it's just addressing a completely different situation than the one at issue here.

The problem happened on Wednesday, and Uber said they had fixed it on Thursday. There's no credit card company under the sun that requires payment immediately after the end of a billing cycle -- most are around 3 weeks. Plenty of time to understand whether the merchant is actually fixing the problem (to the extent the errant charge was even finalized on your bill before they caught and reversed it).

And putting all that aside, you jumped into a thread that started with some idiot beating his chest advising people to immediately dispute charges like this, that the merchant had already said they would fix and without giving them any time at all to do so, solely to hurt the merchant.

Please explain (with citations to the relevant authority for this sort of situation) exactly why it's retaliation when (1) the merchant already promised they were going to fix it, and (2) in full knowledge of that, you went ahead and disputed the charge (and in so doing, as I mentioned in my last post, certifying that you made a good-faith effort to resolve the problem with the merchant) without giving the merchant any opportunity to actually fix it as they promised.

I'll be very surprised if you can. That sort of situation, ironically enough, is a lot more like retaliation on your part, not theirs. Why in the world would a merchant (or a credit card issuer, for that matter) be forced to continue doing business with someone who maliciously invoked a dispute resolution mechanism by brazenly lying about having tried to resolve it with the merchant first?

Not when the customers opportunistically dispute charges they already know Uber is going to roll back themselves. That could also get you in trouble with your credit card issuer, most or all of which make you certify that you made a good-faith effort to resolve the problem with the merchant, prior to disputing the charge with them.

Damn good thing I just saved all that money on Amazon camera gear....

Yup -- just a bunch of cowardly downmods and not a single effort to articulate how OP could possibly be correct in the face of actual facts about who received money for what. I'm shocked -- shocked.

Nope. Yesterday's announcement is not about new bid winners, but about a new funding round actually releasing funds to some of the bidders from last year's auction. From the press release:

And here come the -1, TruthHurts mods. Keep 'em coming -- I have tons of karma (generated, amazingly enough, by actually knowing what I'm talking about rather than mindlessly braying what the masses want to hear).

Shhhhhh! There are memes to be maintained! See above for several examples of people desperately looking for the cloud wrapped around the silver lining.

Verizon is receiving $18.5 million out of a total of $563 million, Jeremy. To save you the trouble, that's about 3%.

The vast majority of the money, as explicitly stated in the summary (you know, the part you skimmed over to get to Verizon's name) and laid out in detail here, is going to small, rural ISPs.