The COVID mRNA vaccines were the culmination of decades of research into genetic vaccines that could be in essence engineered to target a selected antigen without the years of trial and error that are required by the methods we have been using since the 1950s. Within days of the virus genome being published, they had a vaccine design, the months it took to get to the public were taken up with studies of the safety and effectiveness of the heretofore untested technology, ramping up production, and preparing for the distribution of a medicine that required cryogenic storage.

It would be unreasonable not to give the Trump administration credit for not mucking up this process. But the unprecedented speed of development wasnâ(TM)t due to Trump employing some kind of magical Fuhrermojo. It was a stroke good fortune that when the global pandemic epidemiologists have been worried about arrived, mRNA technology was just at the point where you could use it. Had it arrived a decade earlier the consequences would have been far worse, no matter who was president.

The lesson isnâ(TM)t that Trump is some kind of divine figure who willed a vaccine into existence, itâ(TM)s that basic research that is decades from practical application is important.

Yup this is creepy as shit....

Makes me happy, however, that I've never been on social media nor had SM accounts.

The importance of "not being seen" .

Hey...it could have been worse had the cackling creepy Harris had somehow won....

Can you name one republican that could win a debate with Pete Buttigieg ?

Vance would wipe the stage with Gov. Pete.

I'd like to see Byron Donalds out of FL to be VP for the Republicans besides Vance as POTUS candidate.

I don't think the Dems have anyone that could touch either of those folks in any sort of debate.

It is probably safe to assume the next Republican ticket to have Vance as POTUS and Rubio as VPOTUS

I think the 2028 dream ticket would be Vance and Byron Donalds out of FL....

That guy is just as cool and a great speaker publically as Vance is...

I don't think the Dems could put up anyone that could touch them in debates, etc.

They both handle the press like champs....

And it wouldn't hurt the minority vote the Reps need either....

Wow....you guys have really gone off the deep end....

A flamethrower negates this... Like instantly.

Which reminds me, almost never should you write a serious response to what at first appears as a genuinely clueless AC.

I wonder what are the comparable figures for manpower? It's not like only drones are dying...

It's like trademarking Osama Bin Laden's Bagel Store.

Oh jeez, that guy. It figures.

That's what said, Nimbyism applies to any kind of development, energy generation or other.

Whereas with, say, nuclear, there are a significant number of people who just don't think it should be done anywhere, whether or not it's within 100 miles of them. Same with oil. Same with coal.

I can't think of any protests against solar in general. Although I'm sure there must have been some conflict about developing particular sites, same as if they were going to build apartments or anything else.

I imagine that is why they were supposed to have that locking mechanism. Someone else mentioned that Airbuses have an additional safety mechanism that the switches cannot be moved to OFF until the throttle is set to 0. That might be a suggestion for future redesign.

1) Fuel switches do not look like the landing gear switch on this plane. Fuel switch: black knobs. Landing gear: grey disc. They are not located even in the same place. Fuel switch, under throttle. Landing gear: Between the two pilot displays. I am not sure why you even hint they "look like" each other. 2) The landing gear switch would be in the down position until the pilot moves them UP to retract them after takeoff. To start the engines, the fuel switches must be moved to RUN (UP). Even if somehow a pilot confused the two during takeoff and wanted to retract the gear but instead reached for the fuel switch, he would try to move the fuel switch UP. It would already be UP. If the pilot meant to turn the fuel on, he would not needed to do that as the engine should have already been started.

Again you do not seem to understand the point. "Cutoff" is very specific jargon for a Boeing. For these specific controls switches. If the display does not mention "CUTOFF" why would the pilot use that term? He wouldn't.

Again not everyone uses American English phrasing in an airplane environment. As international pilots, they would use airplane terminology like "turn off", "disable", "power down", "trim", etc.

Think for a second about the situation. You are a pilot in a Boeing 787. You've lost engine power. You can hear it. You can feel it. But according to you, you would NEVER look 70 degrees from primary attention to check the throttle or fuel supply switches even for a moment to determine why you have no power.