Incorrect. Jet fuel is stored in a collection of tanks at an airport. One tank can be contaminated with, for instance, water, and this can be pumped into a single truck and loaded into a one aircraft. This has happened before. The fact that no other aircraft suffered bad fuel means nothing.

It could also be a case of debris in fuel, severely restricting fuel flow. The engines run at idle fine, but sometime after power is applied and the debris clogs pickups, the engines will fail. This has also happened to commercial aircraft.

Where are you getting that from? The purpose of a RAT is to sustain power. It will deploy automatically under a variety of conditions, including dual engine failure on takeoff.

All this bit of spin tells us is that the aircraft wasn't grossly misconfigured by the crew. Great.

This is going to be bad fuel. But that won't come out for a long time, because it will put the fault on a state operated airline, from a state operated airport, investigated by that state's authority. If India could plausibly pin this on a Boeing design fault they would be shouting it from the mountain tops, and they've had nearly 3 weeks to analyze the complete data set from both flight data+voice recorders. That fact that what we're getting, instead, is spin stories like this, should tell you everything you need to know.

That's the idea. Get this system fully optimized and serialized, we can develop all the farm land into thousands of cute little off-grid gated exurbs. Everything needed to protect ourselves from the hoi polloi when we outlaw their fossil fuel.

Nothing. SpaceX is doing fine. Starship is ambitious. It is also being developed in a manner not suitable to the sensibilities of the Western aerospace commentariat. SpaceX performs many tests, analyzes many failures and refines designs accordingly. This produces great designs at low cost, in less time, and many dramatic RUDs. The Russians did the same. They performed many tests on initially flawed designs and fixed the flaws they discovered until they had confidence in their designs.

The traditional Western, big aerospace way, as we can clearly see with SLS is to take a decade or more and consumes oceans of money analyzing a paper design beyond any conceivable failure mode. This works, but it's extremely expensive, glacially slow, and suitable only for national superpower scale budgets funding cost plus contractors with little to no thought given to a feasible long term business model. That's why all their marquee designs are now historic, and the next one is still nascent, wildly over budget, years late and likely redundant.

So don't worry too much about the deep thoughts of our professional spectators. You can be absolutely certain that Musk doesn't.

You'd think Broadcom et al. would pitch a fit given the billions they've spent developing Wi-Fi standards that include 6 GHz, developing 6 GHz devices, etc. It's not just owners of existing equipment. It's an entire industry that has been investing in 6 GHz Wi-Fi for years now.

I am saying I have no patience for the drearily predictable "quality" and "safety" FUD. There are severe problems in healthcare. Bad enough to risk neglecting our worship of medical authority. Bad enough to risk suffering possible unknown failures as an alternative to our chronic known failures.

This presumes we have quality. Do you believe that, without doubt? I don't. I have a lifetime of anecdotal evidence of failures by doctors, personally and among family, friends and others. Without (hopefully) inviting a deluge of corroboration, I can assure you the people reading this now can bury us in such stories.

Beyond that, we are in desperate need of lower cost solutions for medicine. You're free to attribute the extreme costs we see however you wish, but finger pointing won't fix it: the powers and interests involved aren't listening. What is needed is a disruption, and this looks like a real possibility. I, at least, don't immediately dismiss it with AMA FUD.

Show evidence of code theft, where these models are built with proprietary code that hasn't been liberally licensed and freely offered. Otherwise you're engaging in FUD.

A.) Zero ads: wading through prevailing search engines is a total shit show. I'm paying for LLM service, and I don't have to suffer that crap.
B.) Most examples are written by learners that are, themselves, ignorant of the sort of subtleties I mentioned. LLMs do better than that: they evaluate code and point out stuff that would otherwise be overlooked.

Yesterday, I wanted an example of a PIO program to generate high resolution, arbitrary waveform (variable frequency) PWM output using DMA on an RP2350 MCU. Gemini 2.5 Pro generated a correct, working, basic example. I refined it further by changing and adding requirements to deal with end state, corner cases and the deficiencies in the generated code. The final result works perfectly. Guessing here: It took probably perhaps 25% of the time to accomplish this than it would have without "AI." And while PIO appears simple, there is actually a lot of subtlety in the hardware that a new PIO programmer, without an AI, would likely either not know provides useful capabilities or would overlook, yielding less than optimal results and/or actual flaws. By using Gemini, I believe the code is on par with what a PIO expert would have produced.

So yes, it is actually helpful. And no, I don't believe this makes me or others like me obsolete: non-technical people cannot achieve the same results in reasonable amounts of time because they don't even know what to ask for, much less how to evaluate the answers.

All Overstreet needs to is continue development as he wishes. There is no fundamental reason bcachefs must be included in Linus's mainline kernel. The kernel has loadable modules. This work can simply be a loadable module. There are tools to make this next to transparent to an end user, up to and including as a root file system. ZFS On Linux has existed this way for 15 years now. There are entire commercial empires built around it, and it has never, at any point, been in the Linux mainline code base.

Whatever benefit bcachefs previously enjoyed by being in the mainline kernel has been entirely squandered by the recurring drama. Best to separate the parties and forego future squabbles. Another wise and brave decision from Torvalds.

It's getting to the point where we're going to need a live tracking app of ongoing EV carrier fires drifting around the oceans.

This angst about the impact of tariffs on prices appears purely selective and disingenuous to me. There is no such hand wringing about the impact of other government policies on costs when it comes to energy or housing or food or vehicles and many other matters. Just tariffs. Somehow the costs imposed by tariffs are a great crime, but all the rest is fine and of no concern.

Will tariffs work to achieve the stated intentions? No. As you point out, it would require fundamental policy change that survives changing presidents and congresses over decades to effect a re-industrialization of the US. And to actually produce any standard of living benefit, that shift would somehow have to forego rapidly improving automation capabilities.

Neither of these are real or likely. So at the end of the day, this is all performative and pointless. That won't stop you from crying about prices though, as though you actually care about the poor slobs being hurt. And it won't stop me from enjoying pointing out your biases and selectivity.

And the auto parts stores. And the electronics stores. And the clothing stores. And...

boltdepot.com baby: I'm on about my 10th order with them this year.

I guess Amazon Prime wants some of that from me.

Fuck patent trolls.

Does your righteous anger extend to the solar industry, paving over 1000 acre chunks of rural land with each new deployment? Wiping out farms and forested habitat?

I'm betting not. I'm betting your anger is highly selective; reserved for only some of the forces making your dreams more expensive.