A test engineer would be a good choice, but a better one would be a safety engineer, one who not only knows that things will fail but also who anticipates how they will fail and how the system (pilots and aircraft) will detect and react to the failure.

Worries about "the image of the industry" are nonsense. People won't stop flying.

Whoopi Goldberg did.

Yes, there are many alternatives to plastic that we don't use right now because the economics don't work out.

Or instead of charging anybody, just require retailers to accept the waste plastic and then either recycle it themselves or return it to the manufacturers to recycle.

Recycling plastic uses more energy than it saves.

Then to avoid paying that cost, retailers will stop selling single use plastics. Problem solved.

Rather than recycle, we should charge people for and refund them to return their plastic trash to the garbage man.

Or instead of charging anybody, just require retailers to accept the waste plastic and then either recycle it themselves or return it to the manufacturers to recycle.

It is not putting out the same product as a coal or gas power station because its supply is unpredictably intermittent

That's a myth.

Yes, you could use it to pump water into a pumped reservoir system. Or to heat a thermal store. Or maybe to generate hydrogen by electrolysis.

Yes, or to charge a Powerwall or an electric car with V2G/V2H.

So gas plants with very short startup lead times are used to cover when the wind is not blowing.

That's already obsolete.

If it's anything like California's SB 478, the advertised price only needs to include all mandatory fees, aside from government taxes/fees. So if Comcast allows you to bring your own modem, then the rental fee is optional.

The laundry list is to narrow down the field of job seekers to a specific person whom they've already chosen who lives overseas, in order to prove to regulators that they couldn't find a qualified candidate within the USA and need that H-1B approved.

I've long thought the argument for green energy should always have been economic and geopolitical, not environmental.

It's actually not an either-or question. Economists agree that the markets works best when market failures such as negative externalities are corrected, and so, in an efficient market, environmental and economic issues are inseparably linked. With the cost of CO2 emissions fully and accurately internalized into the price of fossil fuels, the question then becomes: what energy source to use that minimizes environmental harm in order to maximize profits?

The harm that might occur [from blackmail, swatting, or doxxing], has nothing to do with the speech per se, but the actions of someone with the content.

And therefore those acts are perfectly harmless. Thanks for clearing that up!

they are forms of speech that can harm a person.

Still no... Even if there is harm

You appear to be conflicted on whether there's harm or not.

Whenever I experience cognitive dissonance, it takes me hours, sometimes days of deep thought and research to resolve it.

How have we digressed so far that it is expected that our fellow citizens cannot be entrusted in forming their own opinions based on multiple points of view and expressions?

Because truth is no match for fiction.

On social media, it's generally ok to spread misinformation, but generally not ok to call someone a liar for it. We've taken political correctness a bit too far. Would you rather be lied to politely, or told the truth harshly?

These are covered by different laws. Already.

Yes, because they are forms of speech that can harm a person.

Doxxing, swatting, and blackmail will never hurt you? These are all examples of speech.