Not quite.

The States shall mean such of the colonies of New South Wales, New Zealand, Queensland, Tasmania, Victoria, Western Australia, and South Australia, including the northern territory of South Australia, as for the time being are parts of the Commonwealth [of Australia], and such colonies or territories as may be admitted into or established by the Commonwealth as States; and each of such parts of the Commonwealth shall be called a State.

(My emphasis and gloss). Had NZ chosen to be part of Australia it would have been a state, but since it didn't it isn't.

That seems incredibly short-sighted. I could sort of see why there might be issues with some kind of active emissions system at ground level due to sheer noise at ground level, but up in the sky one would expect that any signals would be uncluttered enough to be incredibly reliable.

If they're governed anything like amateur radio antenna masts/towers are, the FAA only gets involved when the structure reaches something like 200'.

And regardless, the drone should not hit things. It needs to detect obstructions and avoid them. That it didn't detect a metal structure that was not moving says some rather bad things about the flight control system of the drone.

Plus all the handhelds either out now or on the way. Competition on hardware is getting fierce. A nice steady revenue stream from subscriptions is a lot less hassle and risk.

I'm confused. The title, the summary, and even the fine article all say "UK bookshops" but the "Locate a store" feature on bookshop.org only has shops in the USA. Huh?

And my point still stands.

When the next generation of engines become available, Airbus could choose to do a refresh of the A320 family at a fraction of the cost of a brand new aircraft.

Airbus can choose to do that because theres still a massive amount of development potential in the A320, whereas Boeing has run to the end of the 737 - even if there was still technical room in the 737, the public wont accept it any more.

Boeings only hope is Airbus choosing to do a clean sheet for the A320 replacement.

How does Airbus manage to build its sub-assemblies in geographically diverse locations, and then integrate those sub-assemblies on multiple FALs around the world? Airbus seems to have great success doing that - their only issues recently was with the A380, and that was due to a CATIA software issue at the design stage, rather than the actual manufacturing stage...

No. There are college students that are doing exactly what you say, but there are also college students that know they're broke and can't afford to continually party, or at least not where that partying costs money. There are students that know they're skating on thin ice and they don't want to fail. There are students that are super responsible in college just like they were in high school. There are students that are lost because they had a lot of coddling up through high school that are suddenly having to do everything for themselves. There are students that are actually feeling free because no one is coddling them telling them what not to do. And all other manner.

Societies seem to be fractal in nature, sub-groups reflect a distribution similar to the main group from which they come. I've seen this firsthand in several scenes. There are bullies and wallflowers and know-it-alls and nerds and jocks and tinkerers and artists in small groups that reflect a distribution similarly to the larger group that all are drawn from.

Boeing is considering a new plane because Airbus is considering a new plane.

If Airbus decide to refresh the A320 family again (and they can, theres plenty of development room left in it - it hasnt had a new wing since the 1980s for example), then Boeing will be in a bad spot.

The problem Boeing has is that most of the efficiency gains come from the engines, so if Airbus can chuck a new engine under the A320s wing for a fraction of the price and timeline of a whole new aircraft design, Boeing is stuck. They would be bringing an equivalent efficiency aircraft to the market, years later than Airbus, and have to charge significantly more than Airbus for it.

I tend to disagree somewhat.

By the McDD merger, Boeing was on its third iteration of the 737, with no new design on the horizon at all, and its fourth iteration of the 747...

Boeing was no stranger to wringing every last drop out of existing designs.

Yeah, the ivy-league and other upper-end schools tend to overperform in their graduates finding work in their fields after graduating, and the now-mostly-defunct ITTs, University of Phoenixes, and other trade schools that don't tend to have as much in in-person education and are there mostly to profit off of the student-loans programs for people who would never be accepted at even state-schools tend to have the worst placement after graduating.

This is admittedly a supposition on my part, but having sat through college courses where very conservative students tried to push their uneducated mentality that was clearly factually wrong and faced pushback from lecturers or professors with actual research behind their instruction, the act of education itself takes a student out of uneducated provinciality and gives them a more complete view. Someone that's uneducated is usually pretty provincial in their attitude and thinking, and if they perceive even learning about the wider world as change, they will attribute that to liberalism same as if a new attitude were brought into their little provincial area, even if it's merely giving them a more complete picture of what's wider than their scope of influence and experience.

The problem is that this is an outright reactionary approach, actively hostile to anything that requires the individual to do more than continue doing the exact same thing that has always been done. It's also foolish because it makes the individual less adaptable when other situations come along that require rolling with the change because it's happening whether or not it's wanted.

The little secret that people who insist on enforcing what they consider to be conservative values fail to get is that even in a society that is generally more permissive in a liberal sense than they want, generally nothing is stopping them from making the choice to live personally conservatively. One can even have incredibly liberal views and can still personally choose to live in a way that a conservative would find to be pretty normal and acceptable.

Mmhmm. Prior to the McDonnell-Douglas takeover, Boeing seemed to have generally been on a track of continuous development/redevelopment, working on new designs and working on revamps of their existing designs for subsequent revs even as in-development revs were approaching final approval.

Looking at the history of McDonnell-Douglas, they basically relied on the legacies of the DC-9 (1965) and DC-10 (1971) until even after the Boeing merger. The DC-9/MD-80 series/MD-90 Series/Boeing-717 and the DC-10/MD-11 were long LONG production, arguably even going back to before McDonnell was in the picture, they were Douglas projects.

The MD mentality of iterating on existing designs when they have to is what put the merged new-Boeing into this position now. It took around 25 years for this mentality shift to truly break the merged company. Arguably even though it was started around the time of the merger, the 787 was the last gasp of old-Boeing, having been kicked off after the MD takeover but before the MD financial attitude towards R&D had fully infected the operating company. After that we only see variants on existing designs in order to maintain type-ratings.

Although, hmm. I might potentially be persuaded to watch Encanto at some point, if the right other people are watching it and invite me to watch it with them. If so, it'll be the first Disney movie I've seen since Shrek.