Sounds like the perfect use-case for big-small processors. A power-sipper for routine 99.99% of operations and a more powerful beast for the CPU intensive ops.
8,871 karma · joined September 6, 2013
Bear in mind when the crashes occurred there were fewer than 100 MAX in service.
If they feel they're never going to succeed in that competition, then why put themselves through that heartache and financial burden?
Maybe WOPR was right, the only way to win is not to play.
Some people are physiologically suited to running, but many aren't.
I've been running 4-6 times weekly for 28 years and still dread every single run. Every step is a slog and I can't wait until it's over. It never gets easier and in fact I'm getting slower with age, which is even more depressing.
I'm glad it's mediative for you, but please bear in mind that you are exceptional in that regard. I think it's better to be pragmatic and say "try running but maybe it won't click for you, don't feel disheartened if so".
Turboprops can't, of course, contain a propellor failure which is why they have a big slab of armour in line with the prop disk. So in that case, yes, safety wins over cost and weight.
Try going for a run along a pavement with frequent curb cuts, it's not pleasant. UK dropped curbs are somewhat less of a trip hazard but are so frequent in towns that you end up running with an ankle at an angle.
Yes, because it hurts.
Lifting weights is sore and exhausting. You're never going to persuade rhe plurality of people to improve their physical condition by enduring pain, it needs to be engaging and appealing.
All physical exertion causes pain and discomfort, otherwise it isn't exertion. That's not ever going to be enjoyable. Tolerable, perhaps, given focus on the goal, but few people would be willing to tolerate it.
Maybe it's a surprise to you but most people's reaction to doing exercise is "when will this end?" rather than "yayy pain and breathlessness!"
Maybe in some sort of topsy-turvy techbro world.
I've never, in three decades of developing, had a user say "what I want are new features updated frequently and I'm happy to accept sluggish, buggy code".
What they do say is "I want more features, sooner, without bugs".
Any rational reader will adjust their faith in a publication based on the identified errors it makes. Too many and they'll reject it as a source for anything beyond "a thing may have happened".
They don't have it, because they've limited shelf space and only stock popular books that are on best-seller lists. The History of Scruggs Biplanes 1907-1919 isn't one of them.
1. Better, real-time atmospheric data that allows use of boom-refraction flight profiles to prevent the boom reaching the ground. This is a trick that Concorde sometimes used when conditions were right, but only works up to about Mach 1.2. This is what Boom used for quieter flights.
2. Crazy 1950s-style airframe shaping with the X-59 that reduces boom but is impractical for an actual commercial transport. This is intended to establish a baseline for tolerable routine boom intensity, but we don't yet know how to make a commercial airframe with the same quietness.
Nothing is really new.
BluRay no, because your player's keys can be revoked when you pop in a new disc.
Oh gracious no, Airbus started with the utilitarian A300 widebody twin[1].
Concorde was Sud Aviation and BAC joint venture, nothing to do with Airbus which didn't even exist at that time.
[1]The original A300A might have been interesting, having a fuselage as wide as the much later 777, but Airbus got cold feet and scaled it down to the dull and worthy A300B. Every Airbus widebody until the A380 was constrained by that decision.
A naval force isn't required to control the Strait. Artillery, drones and missiles fired from inland can do that quite easily.
This video gives a good example of the signal breaking down from 00:38
Google Accounts aren't linked at birth, and many people don't even have one.