It actually sounds more like you have no clue what "jet propulsion" means. The render in the article, while admittedly cartoonish, does actually seem to represent the concept of an e-fan, i.e. an electrically driven compressor fan.

Alright, so we have finally arrived at the insults. And "butthurt"? Seeing as you're the one wanting to throw insults, feels to me like you're projecting. Maybe you should have asked me "why do you think this is a bad idea?". Then you wouldn't have to assume I wanted you to take my word for it.

Ah yes, the classic "but they mocked the Wright brothers!" excuse. To that, all I can summon is the power of Carl Sagan:

This circular runway idea falls straight into the "clown" category.

You don't have to try every dumb idea before concluding that it's dumb. Otherwise, I propose you try to stick a rusty nail in your ear. Hey, you don't know until you try, right?

You should conclude that it won't work by understanding the problems with it. And you'll figure those out by either learning about how and why things are done a certain way in aviation, or talking to somebody who does.

Runway identifiers are two-digit.

That part was my opinion, not some broad consensus. Of course you'll find people fapping about stupid ideas everywhere just because they sound "cool" at a first glance. Look at the mountain of shitty kickstarters that promised the world, raised huge sums and ultimately ended up going bust, because "cool" doesn't necessarily translate into "viable".

The simulator community has you covered. And yeah, it works about as well as you can imagine (i.e. badly).

The rotors appear to be pretty tiny and are probably nowhere near large enough to generate significant lift in auto-rotation. That is assuming that the blades even feature adjustable blade pitch (which is needed to induce autorotation on a propeller designed for thrust).

Forget my earlier post, turns out the 777-300ER doesn't have enough range either way.

I guess Qantas wouldn't even need to purchase the overpriced A380, a 777-300ER might do the job just as well for a lot less. A little less capacity, but a lot lower operating costs, with ETOPS no problem operating it over the Pacific anymore and a far easier job finding suitable gates and airports for it. But I suppose if you already have it in your fleet, might as well go ahead and use it.

They are without overlap. You can't just swap aircraft types without serious infrastructure changes in an airline. Airplanes aren't cars.

No. The Mria is much larger than is often needed or even wanted (airport/handling restrictions), it has terrible fuel economy and doesn't fit within the fleet composition of FedEx or UPS. Again, you can't just switch airplane makes like you do with cars. There are training considerations, certifications, maintenance, parts availability, manufacturer support, etc. etc. Bigger isn't always better. Just ask Airbus about their A380F (total market flop).

Ukraine to what rescue? The demand being discussed here is for passenger aircraft in the 100-200 seat category for short-to-medium routes. Did I miss a recent Ukrainian aircraft in that category? Mria is basically a 1980s huge empty flying box, a completely different aircraft for a completely different job.

Aircraft aren't like cars, you can't just hop from one to the next. There are certifications, training, simulators, supply chain, support infrastructure, etc. etc. It's why low-cost carriers are total monocultures in terms of aircraft they use. Ryanair *only* flies the 737NG. Easyjet *only* flies the A320 family.

The source bases between Oracle ZFS and OpenZFS are still probably 90% identical. The disk format has changed recently, but you can still create an old-format pool to facilitate data interchange between the two and it'll work without a hitch (if not, file a bug).