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.
Just as a thought experiment, I wondered just how sophisticated a sound engineering system someone like Delia Derbyshire could have had in 1964, and so set out to design one using nothing but the materials, components, and knowledge available at the time. In terms of sound quality, you could have matched anything produced in the early-to-mid 1980s. In terms of processing sophistication, you could have matched anything produced in the early 2000s. (What I came up with would take a large comple
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.
On the flip side, I have enjoyed the few Canadian shows that made it to the U.S. (especially during the writer's strike).
Changing economic systems does not make it less totalitarian.
Its apologists should be purged from the West without apology.
On the other hand, If I have an ultralight and realize I need to move over 200 people at once, I know I'd better talk to a domain expert rather than trying to tie 250 ultralights together with kite string.
During the Biden admin the US passed several support packages. None during the current administration. The support now falls squarely on Europe alone.
https://www.kielinstitut.de/to...
There also has been a bipartisan sanction bill ready in the senate for months now but it won't move unless he gives the go ahead.
The current DimWit "peace plan" obviously originated in the Kremlin and Witkoff couldn't act more like a Russian agent if he tried.
The NATO operating budget is but peanuts and I am not aware that any member ever missed their dues on those.
The GDP targets were politically set goals. I don't have an issue with Donnie hammering on those, I just wished he would have made clear that this was about overall defense spending.
Of course by abandoning Ukraine he now gives EU countries plenty of motivation to play catch up and to spend more on defense.
Sorry, but you sound incredibly butt hurt and whiny.
Lets base our foreign policy on who was mean to me online
Yeah, that's the ticket!
While the Soviet Union existed it tempered capitalism's worst excesses. The Communist threat was enough to ensure that Western leaders were compelled to spread enough wealth around to the working class as to not give them ideas.
As soon as the Soviet Union collapsed America was off to the races towards the next gilded age.
Europe with its strong trade unions kept this more in check, but with an aging demographics it is now outcompeted.
There is no such obligation to NATO. The obligation is about the percentage of GDP spend on defense overall. The money doesn't go to NATO. Donnie boy either never understood this or simply kept lying about it.
Pax Americana means that the world standardized around the US dollar as the most important (arguably only) reserve currency.
This gave the US enormous economic clout and the ability to issue USD denominated debt at very low interest.
As the trust in America's leadership erodes so does the trust in the US dollar. This can be seen by the enormous appreciation of the gold price since Trump was sworn in. Central banks around the world have been acquiring gold to diversify their reserve holding away from the US dollar, and I don't see this stopping anytime soon.
6 Curses = 1 Hexahex
