Because the failure occurred after the airplane had passed V1 during its takeoff roll, the pilots had no alternative but to attempt to climb. V1 is the point at which there is no longer sufficient runway to abort the takeoff and safely stop the airplane.

Yes and no. This is the general rule, and V1 is general "decision speed". That said, this is not meant to be an automatic and unthinking rule. There are explicit conditions in which pilots are taught to abort no matter the speed: fire, loss of directional control and total loss of power.

The balance at this point is that there is no longer sufficient time to stop, and so the pilot needs to judge whether is the plane better off overrunning the runway versus taking off on a climb and coming around. That's a intricate question, although the installation of EMAS in a lot of airports actually makes a runway overrun significantly less dangerous that it used to be. But for sure a plane that's (for example) totally lost control authority (e.g. due to a complete hydraulic failure or a complete computer failure) is better off just plowing past the end of the runway than trying to takeoff and land without any functioning controls.

Finally, I'd add that this is in no way a criticism of the pilots (RIP) -- they probably had a handful of seconds by which to make the decision. In retrospect, knowing what we know now, we can absolutely say that even past V1 they should have just slammed it down and prayed, but there is likely no way they could have known that at the time.

After that we only see variants on existing designs in order to maintain type-ratings.

Because this is what their customers, the people that pay $100-200M for a plane, want and have asked for: fewer types.

Common type-ratings are insanely important to airliners. It allows them to shuffle flight crews around when needed without solving an NP-hard type matching problem (well, airline scheduling is still NP, but fewer constraints is for sure better). Even flight attendants have to be type-rated since they are a critical part of air safety.

Being upset at Boeing (and Airbus, who has basically 2 types, or 3 if you count the out-of-production 380) to Boeing's 5 (or 6 if you count the 757) for meeting their customers' needs is bonkers.

That's not what I remember happening to a number of subreddits whose content was banned site wide.

Now if only PG&E would sell me power to make charging my EVs in the driveway cheaper than an equivalent gas car.

Seriously, it's like $.50/KWH -- more than in Hawaii. At that rate, it's 16Â/mi vs 12-14Â for a decent hybrid (30mpg/$4/gal).

I suppose it depends on whether you want a comprehensive solution.

Switching to electric without also providing external ventilation doesn't solve the problem. Adding external ventilation to a gas range does, and still allows switching to electric in the future for even further gains.

In this sense "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good" doesn't tell you which of the two imperfect solutions is better -- but I'm making the claim that the proper ordering from best to worst is electric + ventilation > gas + ventilation > electric + !ventilation > gas + !ventilation.

What I'm saying is that a minimal safe setup anyways requires an externally-ventilated hood regardless of the cooking fuel type.

Given that this is not mandated by building codes as it is, it's silly to mandate electric over gas. Neither of them are safe without external ventilation.

I love my induction too, but you need an externally-venting range hood anyway.

Take your cheap air quality detector and sear a steak on your induction without the fan on.

Scriveners guild opposes printing press

Weavers guild opposes powered loom

Farriers guild opposes automobile

Tellers guild opposes ATM

Water still wet

The $7500 tax credit implies a discount in the ballpark of 15% on a vehicle but expires at the end of the month. I'd expect that this is bringing forward a lot of sales that would happen for the rest of the year to take advantage before it goes away.

To be a real sense of the trend of sales, you'd have to average the before-tax-expiration and after-tax-expiration months to see what's up. Otherwise you're just measuring noise.

In the case of (2), the RAT would have deployed at the (hypothetical) point where both engine RPMs fell below the minimum required to power the critical electrical systems.

The RAT being deployed doesn't support or exclude fuel contamination as a root cause.

It walked me through replacing a starter on an old freezer step by step. I know a decent amount, but it was extremely helpful at connecting some of the dots and explaining some of the topics.

Unacceptable according to whom?

Part of the design of the web is that anyone can run any service which exchanges any data they wish. While everyone is entitled to share an opinion on those protocols, it's not up to anyone else to proclaim what is and is not acceptable.

Ultimately what individual hosts o the web do is up to them.

Are you accusing the BBC of advancing american-right-wing narratives?

I really hope that this ends up winnowing out the field of renewable energy sources to the true winners. We've had a great boom in the ideas, innovation and efforts, all great stuff, now it's time to call in the bills.

I'd like to see where they can stand on actually offering to power a giant datacenter or whatever with these alternate sources -- put up your best offers: X GW for $Y/MWH for Z years, contractually set. That's what the natural gas folks will do.

Is there?. Doesn't look great to me.