The Throttle Control Module (TCM) does have separate logic for different flight phases, including on-ground or on-air. Not trying to blame Boeing, I still think its a pilot error issue but that the cutoff switches may have been triggered by the pilot well before takeoff but the cutoff logic may have been inhibited while on ground.

The flight data recorder would not have captured the state of the cutoff switch, it will only capture the engine cutoff signal being sent to the engine. One possibility I can think of is that switches were set on ground during takeoff roll, but while the aircraft's wheels were on ground, ground logic would apply. On ground logic would only enable fuel cutoff if throttle was also at idle. Once the wheels were off the ground, the throttle management switches to in-flight logic and throttle idle condition no longer applies - engine cutoff signal is now sent. This would also explain why the RAM air turbine deployed immediately after takeoff. Doesnt explain why it the switches were set to cutoff but it could have happened well before takeoff.

Early aircraft had multiple crew. Asides from a pilot/co-pilot position, they also had a navigator, radio-operator, mechanics (servicing the engines in-flight and carrying spare parts due to low reliability), and flight engineers. One by one each of these positions has been made obsolete due to improvements in automation and aircraft reliability. The aircraft safety record has only improved over time, so eliminating aircrew has not affected safety. One man commercial flight operation is already allowed for small aircraft with under 20 passengers and has not been seen to adversely affect safety. For short haul flights, a 2nd pilot is only needed as a backup, and modern auto-flight systems are reliable enough to handle the small chance of a pilot incapacitated mid-flight.

The problem is that many of these remaining uses are in older out-of-production safety critical systems with regulatory oversight. As an example the Boeing 747-400 still uses a 3.5" disk to update its navigation data which needs to be done once a month. It's a tried and tested system that works. Updating this would require a safety engineering assessment, complete regulatory review to ensure the new system complies, and update the training for the maintenance teams who load in the avionics data in a monthly basis. All this for an aircraft that is no longer being manufactured and is slowly being phased out. It is not cost effective, and I suspect most of the remaining uses of the floppy disk would run into similar issues.

Yes, because when there is a brutal crackdown on political demonstrators by a repressive regime, aided by Russian troops in a replay of cold-war era Warsaw pact style military crackdown reminiscent of Prague 1968 or Budapest 1956, my concern should be whether the crypto-techno-elite can still carry out their pyramid-bitcoin scheme....

That's because this is a one-off concept vehicle. And the concept they are trying to showcase is their electric "e-crate motor", which can be used by anyone with the proper know-how to turn an ICE vehicle into an electric vehicle. The range would depend on the battery used, and this package only includes the motor - presumably, the battery, traction inverter and control system would be for you to source.

An aircraft flying over the ocean or in a remote area, line-of-sight communication is not possible, and communication with the drone is typically done over satellite, adding around 500ms of delay. When you add in hardware processing and sensor delays, the total delays on a drone like the Predator UAV can experience latencies of as much as 2s, which is significant enough to create problems during landing and takeoff. According to the Telegraph:

The 2s delay is not a problem for a typical Predator mission. In a dog-fight, however, 2s is an eternity and it would mean the drones would be unable to respond effectively to a manned aircraft.

A commercial aircraft cannot be certified if it is not stable in its operational envelope, and they would have been required to fly with MCAS off to meet the longitudinal stability requirements of FAR 25.173. I have a hard time believing that any reasonable pilot would not have noticed an inherent aircraft stability issue during certification flight test. It is, as the poster said, less stable at high angles-of-attack due to the engine placement, but still stable nonetheless. The main reason for MCAS was not for stability, but to maintain the aircraft stall characteristics similar to the earlier 737 models and eliminate pilot training.

Note also that the 737 is not the only aircraft type with this type of automated pitch trim command. The airbus A300 has a mach trim and angle-of-attack trim compensation that automatically moves the horizontal stabilizer to compensate for the aircraft pitch down tendency at high mach numbers and high angles-of-attack.

A good engineering manager has to have a broad technical knowledge, but he does not need to be a specialist in his field. He needs to be a generalist that understands well how all the specialties underneath him integrate together, and how these disciplines interact with other groups. It is key that he has a good enough technical knowledge of those working under him so he can communicate their needs and requirements to upper management. It is also important to have a broad understanding of the overall field he is working in so he can understand the impact any engineering change from other groups will have on his or her own department.

Actually, it is California that is America's second silicon valley. Up to the 1950s, most of America's electronic industry were centered around the New Jersey-New York metropolitan area. Edison's Menlo Park, Bell labs and GE's Research lab were all based in the area. It wasn't until Shockley moved to northern California in 1956 to start Shockley Semiconductors that northern California began displacing the NY-NJ metropolitan area as a tech sector hub in the U.S. So in essence this is just a return to tech's roots.

Basic income is to benefits payment what flat tax proposals are to taxation. Both are doomed to failure because the reality of replacing a progressive taxation system with a flat taxation, or a progressive benefits system with a flat rate benefit (basic income) is that a large number of people who benefited under the previous system will lose substantial amounts of money.

In both flat tax and basic income schemes, the people who lose out the most will be the most disadvantaged. In the case of basic income, those who currently claim multiple benefits - e.g. children with disabilities who may eligible for both childcare support and disability assistance; seniors on a pension who may be getting medicare assistance - would likely see a reduction in benefits under a basic income scheme. On top of it, a universal basic income scheme means everyone would be getting the same amount, so any goverment implementing it now has to explain why they are cutting back benefits from a poor family with special needs children while Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos are now getting $1,000 a month checks that they don't need.

The current supporters of basic income appear to sidestep the issue by framing it as an additional payment on top of existing benefits, but this not only goes against the premise of basic income, but is financially unscallable at a national level. Alternative, one could implement a basic income where the payment is distributed according to income and to need, but this would eventually lead back to a re-implementation of current welfare benefit systems.