FWIW, it takes way more than 1 second for the engines to spool up. And an engine not producing sufficient thrust would not doom the plane -- as long as the airplane makes it to V1 (decision speed), it should be able to fly with a single engine failure after that point. And the pilots should already have talked through the takeoff and come up with a go / no-go based on distance: "if we're after this point and we haven't reached V1, we'll abort".
One detail: V1 is the last-chance speed for being able to abort the takeoff within the remaining runway length, but it is predicated on the weight, among other things, being correct. If the airplane is heavier than the figure used in calculating it, you will not be able to stop in time from V1 (you will reach it later and further down the runway, yet need more distance to stop.)
Having said that, a speed-at-distance rule like the one you give here, especially if it was evaluated at a distance before you expect to reach V1, would be perfectly good. There is a rule-of-thumb for small-plane pilots saying you should have reached 80% of the rotation speed before you are halfway down the runway (though that speed is also weight-dependent - as demonstrated in these incidents.) There is a tacit assumption here that your deceleration after choosing to abort will exceed your acceleration up to that point.
True, but the spool up rate and thrust produced during spool up is all predictable.
Basically, I'm saying the plane should have an internal mathematical model of what it expects to happen, and anytime that sufficiently differs from reality, it should trigger an abort - especially if you're still on the ground at the time!
This parameter is displayed on some aircraft, notably French (Mirage 2000 & Rafale) which display the longitudinal acceleration (labelled Jx) in the headup display. Part of the takeoff procedure for the pilot is to confirm the Jx is nominal with regards to the takeoff parameters (loadout, density altitude, etc.).
Hopefully you mean tell the pilots to abort and not start the process itself. What if there's something on the runway or the runway is too short or slick for the plane to decelerate? There's differences between conditions and runways that would have to be accounted for and then you'd have to add a lot more capabilities to the plane's sensors for every other possible issue.
It's often a judgement call when things don't happen quite right and I don't think our technology is anywhere near ready to hand the abort process over to the plane's programming.
That's more due to exclusionary zoning than building codes. There is no reason why we couldn't build, for instance, a boarding house under modern building codes, which would create more affordable housing on the low end. The reason that doesn't get built is that the zoning doesn't allow it.
That's partially true, but it's really a combo of both. Things like dual staircase requirements, elevator size requirements, and sprinkler requirements make it extremely expensive to build any sort of housing.
A recent affordable building in SF cost over $1 million per unit. That's completely unsustainable.
> Things like dual staircase requirements, elevator size requirements, and sprinkler requirements make it extremely expensive to build any sort of housing.
And you want and need precisely that in a house with fluctuating occupants of which a high percentage will have some sort of mental health issue.
Cutting corners on boarding houses will lead to fire catastrophes.
> Cutting corners on boarding houses will lead to fire catastrophes.
Nobody denies this. The question is whether said fire catastrophes really claim more lives than homelessness and wintering on the street. (Obviously fire catastrophes are a bigger PR problem and get more media attention, but is that really the appropriate metric for human suffering?)
They don't, but fire catastrophes are one of the most gruesome ways to die - and worse, a fire can always spread around and endanger even more people. There are reasons why fire codes are among the oldest laws in humanity.
A good advice is to remember that in case of fire what kills people most of the times, is the smoke. Having extinguishers -and- breathing bottles could help. Maybe there is room for designing a new product that would act as two in one?.
Setback, minimum square footage, minimum parking are all part of “building codes”, and can be used to enforce zoning and restrict development without sounding as political as “zoning”.
Or just regular medium density housing, like say 4-story 8 unit buildings. The stuff that makes up the majority of the housing stock in most Western countries, but seems impossible to build in most of the US due to zoning.
> The reason that doesn't get built is that the zoning doesn't allow it.
The problem is not just zoning. A boarding house simply doesn't generate noticeable income compared to standard residential housing, and with exploding land prices it simply makes no sense financially to cater to poor people.
If only there were some sort of organization that didn't need make a profit and wasn't "run like a business". One that everyone gave money to, for the benefit of all society, to make things better all, but especially for the lowest on the totem pole. If only such an organization existed! It could be in charge of governing the people, and the people could choose who runs it with some sort of choosen-ing procedure.
Not sure how old your son is, but this is what I'm doing with my 5 year old with the same issue. Find some good old-school funk from the late '70s / early '80s with a four-on-the-floor type of drum beat. Zapp, Cameo, Gap Band, or something like that. Get your son to count along "1-2-3-4" with each of the beats and clap his hands on "2" and "4". Once he's reliable at doing that when you don't start it for him, then get him to stomp his foot on "1" and "3", or just "1". Once he's got that down, there are all sorts of things you can do. He can copy rhythms you clap, or if he's good with notation, he can practice writing down a rhythm you clap.
Alternatively, you could always get him drum lessons. This is the meat and potatoes of what a good drum teacher would cover.
I agree with you on the vast majority of this, but I think it's a bridge too far to put intonation above feel unconditionally.
You are correct that keeping time (what an engineer would call "maintaining a common time base between transmitter and receiver") is necessary to play together with other musicians. But what musicians would call "feel" is what an engineer would call "phase modulation" -- whether a note is ahead of the beat, on the beat, or behind the beat; and by how much. Especially in Black American music (jazz, blues, soul, R&B, and a bunch of pop that's been influenced by those styles), there is a lot of crucial information there beyond what is conveyed in the "gridded" rhythms that are conveyed in Western musical notation. If you are not aware of this, you will still have problems playing with other musicians. From personal experience, it is anxiety-inducing to play with musicians who are ignorant of their beat placement and as a consequence have what an engineer would call "jitter" -- their timekeeping is correct on average, but on each given beat, they might be a little bit ahead or a little bit behind. You can play with a metronome for ages and never realize you're doing this wrong, as you're not consistently rushing or dragging, you're just inconsistent.
> whether a note is ahead of the beat, on the beat, or behind the beat; and by how much. Especially in Black American music (jazz, blues, soul, R&B, and a bunch of pop that's been influenced by those styles), there is a lot of crucial information there beyond what is conveyed in the "gridded" rhythms that are conveyed in Western musical notation.
I agree wholeheartedly, but I actually lump this in my head under "rhythm" rather than "feel". One of the reasons that black musicians tend to have on-average better <"feel" for you, "rhythm" for me> is that they often have spent a lot of time physically dancing or playing live gigs at church/with their adult friends, and had to learn how to place notes just by hearing other people do it. This is a more effective method for training feel/rhythm than showing someone note durations on a sheet of music and telling them to figure it out themselves.
I think the way to correct the bad "feel" habits you're talking about is to play a lot with talented, on-beat musicians who will correct your playing in rehearsal. They will also assign you parts that you can handle that serve the sound of the band, rather than serving the intentions of the composer per the sheet music. Another issue that young western musicians have is that they most often play with other players at about their skill level, which stops them from being able to quickly learn good habits from better musicians.
There's a video up of Barry Harris giving a class around feeling the and that this reminded me of. Not sure why you're being down-voted, because feel is super important to practice: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_uMNrujMdJU
I think the article takes the "discrimination is important" quote as cryptic and philosophical when it has a very real meaning. Compare it to an interview with the great Dizzy Gillespie:
> Interviewer: What’s it take to make a great trumpet player?
> Dizzy Gillespie: (long pause) Well, the first thing is to be a master shit detector. Detect what is valid and what is not.
And to the well-known Feynman quote:
> The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.
What Monk is getting at is that when you're woodshedding (practicing by yourself) and trying to build up your playing and improvisation, you have to be your own critic a lot of the time. Are you really playing something hip, or are you playing something corny? Are you swinging? Are you making the chord changes? Are your time and intonation as good as you think? Amongst all the other musicians you hear, live and recorded, are you selecting the influences that are really going to build your playing in the way you want? If you're coming up with ideas on your own, are they really fresh and valid, or are they just the first thing that came to your mind?
Right, and it also connects to what he wrote about not playing all those fancy notes, and about how what one doesn't play is important. An undiscriminating musician plays everything that comes to mind. A discriminating musician chooses what notes to play.
Before internet the physical cards ware the proof that you had had that contact.
They ware needed for awards in in many countries to even advance from your license class upwards.
In Finland one had to have 300 confirmed (paper QSL card received) contacts with morse code before you could even attempt the tests for higher license classes that allowed voice and data.
Thankfully now abolished, along with the mandatory morse code requirement.
Part of it was from listening to his own recordings, part of it was from discovering it inside his brain again. As Pat's aneurysm grew over time, it's likely that his brain had already somewhat remodeled to accommodate it. IIRC, in a TV show about it, they talked with one of his friends/students whom he would play guitar duos with. His friend was playing for Pat after the aneurysm (Pat wasn't back to playing yet) and the guy hit a wrong chord and Pat suddenly said "No, D minor 9th" and grabbed the guitar and played the right chord.
Pat also tells a similar story about meeting Joe Pesci backstage and knowing him only from movies until Joe tells him, "I can tell you what you used to drink at Smalls' Paradise in the '60s". Video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=niUwDegpYyo
Amateur watchmaker here. Its half life is ~1600 years, so it's still plenty hot. Hot enough, in fact, to burn out the phosphor in the radium paint, so it stops glowing, but flakes off as radium dust as the binders in the paint break down. Radium produces mostly alpha radiation, which is blocked by glass or your skin, but if you inhale or ingest the particles, it's not good for you, as the alpha particles will go directly into the surrounding tissue. The people exposed to the worst of it would be the ones stripping the radium paint off the dials and refinishing them, as that generates a lot of dust that you might inhale.
Major questions doctrine. They ruled that the current law does not empower EPA to require producers to shift generation to different methods (e.g. natural gas, renewables), and that if Congress had meant for the law to do that, they would have written it explicitly.
Congress can still pass a law empowering EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.
> Congress can still pass a law empowering EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.
Congress gave the EPA broad discretion that it could have revoked -- using your argument -- at any moment. This issue has been bouncing around for over a decade, and Congress has systematically declined to do so.
I think the argument is that the EPA considered itself to have broad discretion and congress was silent on the matter, and more generally do the executive functions have whatever discretion they assume to have unless congress specifically limits them? Or rather, do they have only the permit that congress gives them?
That's a horrible argument. The Executive branch should never had default allow permissions for anything. The amount of mental gymnastic many of our current regulator bodies have used to claim more authority is already obscene.
No they can't. I mean, legally they have the authority to do so. But congress is pretty broken. By the time a congress is elected that can effectively legislate a solution to climate change, it will be too late.
Giving a broken legislative body the sole responsibility of literally saving the world is a really, really dumb idea.
Do y'all not consider how the EPA came into being in the first place? It exists because a previous congress did do something and delegated their authority for a very specific reason. Like it was a joint effort between Republicans and Democrats even.
What this Supreme Court has decided to do is say that what they did doesn't matter, knowing that the current makeup in congress is in gridlock due to how modern day Republicans behave. Like the dissent was posted here. Congress explicitly empowered the EPA to work towards the best system of emission reduction.
Congress has to be explicit with what powers they delegate. They can’t just say “do whatever you want to fix this problem”. Neither does it say that in the law. It’s not the job of SCOTUS to give you the outcome you want. It’s to rule on what the law does say and is constitutionally acceptable.
Congress granted the EPA power to regulate air pollution. CO2 and methane are harmful pollutants that cause a greenhouse effect, and the EPA was granted the authority to address this.
Our activist extremely biased Supreme Court has several members who are part of a political advocacy operation called the federalist society and ensures that members get Supreme Court placement specifically to achieve federalist society goals.
Nothing about this is secret.
Nothing about this is acceptable
The problem is that our federal legislative system is heavily tilted in favor of Republicans despite them being firmly a minority party. This is most apparent in the Senate, but gerrymandering gives them an edge in the House too.
So when you're talking about consensus, the country has it. There's consensus on immigration, gun control, and abortion. It's just that Republicans prevent us from acting on it.
Consensus doesn’t just mean 51%. It means general agreement. If you have 100 people in a room, 51 people are in favor of something and the other 49 are not, is that your “consensus”? Prior to the US each of the states were their own sovereign entities. Why enter the US (or stay in it) if you are going to be ruled against your will? The states agreed to give up some of their power and joined under the explicit conditions of the senate that they would have an equal say.
A majority of Americans support the right to choose [1] (61%), a path to amnesty for undocumented persons [2] (60%), restrictions on firearm purchase and ownership [3] (> 64%), moving off of fossil fuels and treating climate change like the threat it is [4] (76%), a wealth tax on people with a net worth of over $50m [5] (56%), the expanded voting rights in HR 1 [6] (>61%), etc. etc. etc.
These are big majorities, and I'd wager most Americans don't think this stuff is broadly popular.
The key word here is "sufficient consensus." Your judgement of sufficiency is a personal opinion.
I could, for example, define "sufficient consensus" as requiring that all laws require a 90% supermajority in the Senate. Or I could reduce this to 50% of the Senate. Alternatively I could reform Congress so that lawmaking requires voting totals representing 50% of the population.
Each of these is one possible version of "sufficient consensus", and still none of them actually matches the version we actually have. What is clear is that the sclerotic nature of today's Congress is problematic, and it's doing a great deal to undermine faith in our democratic system.
It might be obvious, but I feel like it's lost due to partisan motivated reasoning. eg. when your preferred party doesn't control the senate, then the filibusterer is an important part part of democracy that forces widespread consensus, but when your party does control the senate the filibusterer is a undemocratic tactic used by the minority to obstruct the majority.
Consider, for example, how the FDA operates. They have a broad mandate to keep food clean and drugs safe. They don't have an explicit mandate of "you must only regulate tylenol and aspirin, we need to pass a law for new drugs each time they come up."
This ruling finds the EPA, who has the mandate to keep pollutants out of the air, can't determine that CO2 is a pollutant. Why is that? The 2016 clean air act specifically gave them the power to regulate air pollutants.
The only answer is political activism. There is no difference between the FDA's broad mandate and the EPA's broad mandate.
I recommend reading the dissent on this case. It makes it absolutely clear that this is an EPA power. The conservatives couldn't get new laws passed repealing the EPA, so instead they packed the court with political activists so they could make law from the bench.
The rise of China is testing and will continue to test this assumption. The Chinese government does not require consensus. It can build 40,000 kilometers of high speed rail in just a few years. It can pull hundreds of millions from poverty. It can shut down entire companies and industries overnight (e.g. private school tutoring), jail corrupt corporate executives, and in general coerce compliance to any law.
Do you know how many school teachers in China must buy supplies for their students with their own money? Zero.
Do you know how many Chinese ambassadorships are left vacant because of political bickering? Zero.
I am not a shill for the Chinese Communist Party, Xi Jinping, or the ideology of the Chinese political system, but I increasingly am a shill for the ruthless efficiency of the Chinese government.
China is one extreme. The other extreme is the United States, which isn't able to accomplish anything, good or bad. All the US does anymore is renaming post offices, mailing social security checks, funding the army, and tax stuff. Tax cuts, tax credits, tax rebates, tax incentives.
China may well supersede the United States in the future, despite its treatment of minorities.
They also can't enforce building codes leading to fires that kill a lot of people, have no real food safety and dramatically impinge on any sense of individual rights.
Unlikely. Republicans were only barely willing to work with democrats after the latest in a long string of people gunning down school children. Since hatred of the environment is practically a party platform, they certainly aren't going to cooperate on giving the EPA anything ever.
Why do you see a blow to the chevron deference doctrine as a good thing?
I'd say that the doctrine properly tries to keep the supreme court, the least democratically responsible branch of US federal government, from being the most powerful of the three branches of government.
The buerocrats take their orders from the president, and if they don't can be overruled and fired by the president, who is elected by the people every 4 years. That's a pretty big difference, no?
The "lifelong bureaucrats" are typically (but not always, see the CDC) policy and subject matter experts.
Chevron deference's main purpose is to free Congress from writing exhaustive laws. If the executive branch does something Congress doesn't like, they can change the law and make it more specific. Of course Congress does almost nothing, so when you say it has to take legislative action to regulate something, what you're effectively doing is deregulating it.
This decision follows more from the Court where they pick and choose what they doom in this way based on their personal politics, contrary to precedent and reliance interests.
We shouldn't think too hard about what this Court does; it's a nakedly ideological power grab that's the endgame of a generation long effort by Conservatives to control the US through the court as they slide further and further into permanent minority status. Future generations will look back on this era as one of infamy.
> The "lifelong bureaucrats" are typically (but not always, see the CDC) policy and subject matter experts.
We really, really needed one of those groups of unelected bureaucrats to be policy and subject matter experts, and they weren't. But don't worry, all the others we haven't actually checked are!
I'll try and read into your low-effort dismissal here a critique of my singling out the CDC and explain further:
The CDC is a relatively unique case of an institution that was really gutted by a mistake decades ago (the swine flu vaccine in the late 70s [0]) and then got some pretty bad Trump-nominated leadership [1] [2]). Elections matter, it turns out.
What agency would you hold up as an example of competence, sanity and political independence, then?
The FAA's got egg on its face from the whole 737-Max situation, the FDA is approving vaccines for under-5 year olds despite no evidence of benefit (and has had a few reviewers resign in protest after the same set of vaccines were approved for other age demographics), I'd bet dollars to donuts that people are going to be mightily unhappy with the Treasury in 6 months, the DOJ has all-but-eliminated the jury trial while providing generally substandard prisons, I've heard many things about the VA but I don't recall a single positive thing, and there's a ton of things that could be said of the DEA/ATF/FBI/DHS gang but very few of them are positive.
Your post is a couple of pot shots at departments that do thousands of things every day and some unsubstantiated claims. Here's guest piece by those two FDA staffers who resigned explaining their disagreement with the administration [0]; the headline is "We don't need universal booster shots. We need to reach the unvaccinated." It's a pretty good piece written by people who sound--at least to me--like policy and subject matter experts. The VA is the largest socialized health care system in the world. Etc. etc.
---
I will say a couple of things to try and reach an agreement here. The first is that our gov't is pretty corrupt, even the executive branch (remember the CDC pulling down testing/masking requirements for flying around the holidays last year?) and it's pretty clear to everyone who looks at it. I'll defend the career civil servants, but the political appointees? Generally nah.
The second is that the US press is basically junk. Their incentives are so screwy that even people who want to be fair and rigorous are forced out in favor of profiteers, which creates an awful dynamic amongst viewers and readers. For example, this article is "Hillary Clinton's emails got as much front-page coverage in 6 days as policy did in 69" [1]. This one says NBC Nightly News spent 31 minutes on emails and 8 minutes on issues [2]. What were readers/viewers supposed to think? Has literally anything been covered so strenuously and consistently? It got more air time than actual terrorism.
How do you see the Supreme Court as being more democratically responsible than the administrative personel of the executive branch?
To me, it seems clear that the "administrative state" is overseen by the president, who can overrule them and fire individual people, and the president is elected by the people every four years, and that makes the executive branch more democratically responsible than the supreme court, which is not elected by the people, and who serve for life with no democratic accountability.
But I'm open to hearing your argument for how the supreme court is more democratically responsible than the offices of the executive branch! Maybe we don't mean the same thing by "democratically responsible".
> Supreme Court can just ignore its own precedents
I’m not a fan of the current Court, but stare decisis has never been binding. Landmark rulings are landmarks because the create or break precedent. Courts have been doing that since there were courts.
Stare decides bound Casey, at least. It's never before been ignored when it established a new individual right (Dobbs overturns precedent to remove a right, which has never been done before). This really can't be minimized as "Courts gonna Court".
I haven't read the opinion in detail but it doesn't appear they touched Chevron, merely ruling this particular case falls under the preexisting major questions doctrine/exception to Chevron.
If you read the dissent they seem to be claiming the majority opinion greatly expands the circumstances in which the major questions exception applies. Which would be a big hit to Chevron making it apply in far fewer cases.
This is a decent definition: "administrative law principle that compels federal courts to defer to a federal agency's interpretation of an ambiguous or unclear statute that Congress delegated to the agency to administer." The ruling basically undermines the previous notion of the judiciary deferring to an administrative agency, because it just didn't, therefore forcing the legislature to be more explicit in its desires.
