The degree isn't about "getting a high-paid job", it's about knowing what the hell you're doing once you get a job. Although, fair enough, it's quite plausible that not many degrees would meet that standard either.

There is a possibility of a short-circuit causing an engine shutdown. Apparently, there is a known fault whereby a short can result in the FADEC "fail-safing" to engine shutdown, and this is one of the competing theories as the wiring apparently runs near a number of points in the aircraft with water (which is a really odd design choice).

Now, I'm not going to sit here and tell you that (a) the wiring actually runs there (the wiring block diagrams are easy to find, but block diagrams don't show actual wiring paths), (b) that there is anything to indicate that water could reach such wiring in a way that could cause a short, or (c) that it actually did so. I don't have that kind of information.

All I can tell you, at this point, is that aviation experts are saying that a short at such a location would cause an engine shutdown and that Boeing was aware of this risk.

I will leave it to the experts to debate why they're using electrical signalling (it's slower than fibre, heavier than fibre, can corrode, and can short) and whether the FADEC fail-safes are all that safe or just plain stupid. For a start, they get paid to shout at each other, and they actually know what specifics to shout at each other about.

But, if the claims are remotely accurate, then there were a number of well-known flaws in the design and I'm sure Boeing will just love to answer questions on why these weren't addressed. The problem being, of course, is that none of us know which of said claims are indeed remotely accurate, and that makes it easy for air crash investigators to go easy on manufacturers.

It's far from indisputable. Indeed, it's hotly disputed within the aviation industry. That does NOT mean that it was a short-circuit (although that is a theory that is under investigation), it merely means that "indisputable" is not the correct term to use here. You can argue probabilities or reasonableness, but you CANNOT argue "indisputable" when specialists in the field in question say that it is, in fact, disputed.

If you were to argue that the most probable cause was manual, then I think I could accept that. If you were to argue that Occam's Razor required that this be considered H0 and therefore a theory that must be falsified before others are considered, I'd not be quite so comfortable but would accept that you've got to have some sort of rigorous methodology and that's probably the sensible one.

But "indisputable"? No, we are not at that stage yet. We might reach that stage, but we're not there yet.

Seems more like political problems. They have been trying to build large wind farms and export cables for years. If they can't even manage that, they have no hope of building nuclear.

It's a tragedy really. They have massive amounts of space for this stuff. A lot of sun, and good on and off shore wind resources. The domestic solar market is actually doing okay, because it gets less political interference and there isn't all that much that can be done to stop people putting panels on their homes.

I would be surprised if software updating an aircraft is that simple. It probably needs to be controlled and tested after the update, with records kept by maintenance staff, and notifications sent to pilots.

They are going to lose the next election, maybe to Reform, if they don't turn things around. Pandering to Reform voters is pointless, they are not going to vote Labour unless they go full fascist. Meanwhile they are alienating everyone else.

LibreOffice doesn't have cloud sharing features that allow multiple users to access a shared file with different permissions.

LibreOffice Calc does allow multiple users to edit a spreadsheet on a network drive, but doesn't have a user permission system or integration with a single login somewhere. The other apps like Writer don't support collaboration at all.

That seems unlikely. The worst case I could find for high speed rail was 52.7g/km of CO2 emitted, with a capacity of around 1,300 passengers. That includes the emissions from the stations and so forth, and equates to about 0.04g/passenger/km.

For a typical A350 you are looking at 0.18g/passenger/km in economy class, and that is just the fuel, not the airport or the aircraft or the transport to get to and from airports at either end etc.

Odometers aren't all that reliable in general. A few percent at best. They don't account for things like putting different size wheels on the car either, and can be wrong if the wheel size is set wrong at the factory.

Doesn't excuse Tesla illegally voiding warranties.

I haven't been able to find a source for this 12,000 claim, but it seems likely that it's untrue.

My guess would be that they simply looked at every arrest where evidence included social media posts, e.g. if someone was assaulted and the attacker happened to have posted on social media about it, that counted.

I am no fan of the UK or the way it is going, but there were clear directions from the government a few years ago that social media posts should only be the basis of arrests in very specific and fairly extreme circumstances, e.g. where it is reasonably believed that there is an imminent threat of violence.

That was not a joke, that was part of a very long running campaign to incite violence against trans people.

Graham Linehan has just been convicted of smashing a child's phone when she confronted him about the months long harassment campaign he waged against her on social media, which included attempts to dox her.

He got off extremely lightly, all things considered. The only reason he beat the harassment charge was because the judge didn't think that the victim was sufficiently harassed, and the prosecution didn't prep her very well.

He's a bigot and a convicted violent criminal, and has gone straight back to harassing people.

The biggest problem for the government is that the welfare bill is expected to rise by around £90 billion/year by 2030 (OBR forecast), and half of that is pensions alone. The population is ageing and also turning against immigration of the young and healthy workers we need.

Mistakes were made going back to the 1960s and no government has the will to address them, only to kick the can further down the road.

The more expensive public charging is about on a par with a decently efficient fossil car. When it can get expensive (aside from rip-offs) is when you also have to pay for parking, which is common in London.

If you can charge at home then it is much cheaper, around 2p/mile, or free if you have solar.