jeffrey_t_b

Yes! Sorry for not including it in the post: https://github.com/jborlik/ipyrowtable (and for accidentally commenting out the urls in pyproject.toml).

For data analysis tasks in Jupyter, I often end up configuring a list of component properties. E.g. a list of layers (each with a material and thickness), for a 1D heat transfer calculation. To provide a better user-interface, I wrote this little ipywidgets-based helper... You describe the columns and write a compute function; it gives a table to add and remove rows, edit inputs, see computed results update immediately, and easily use the configured inputs in downstream cells.

It looks like his results are taken from the Federal Reserve 2022 Survey of Consumer Sentiments. https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/scfindex.htm The data is publicly available. I don't think that this was hallucinated.

Well, maybe I should have said "made proposals, research projects, and demos". It takes a lot of time and money to bring an actual product to market through flight qualification, and nobody will take that on until there is sufficient interest.

Sorry, thought that was in the story: Environmental Control System, which is the aircraft subsystem responsible for pressurizing and cooling/heating the cabin.

I wouldn't say "designed to avoid this problem", because I'm pretty sure that cabin air quality didn't play much of a role in the engineering trades regarding ECS architecture.

The 787 was intended as a more electric aircraft, from the very start, even called the "7E7" during development. An electrical ECS requires special cabin air compressors with big motor drives and power electronics, but there was significant savings for the engines by removing bleed air. It makes sense as a system: Electrical main engine start, generator-optimized engines/APU, electrical cabin air compressors. But the trade criteria were the typical ones: weight, installation volume, total lifecycle cost, etc.

The choice of a lower cabin altitude _was_ a big deal though, and if I had to guess, is the main source of a more pleasant experience.

The main ECS vendors (Honeywell, Hamilton Sundstrand, and Liebherr) all have cabin air quality products, which have mostly gone without interest by the aircraft manufactures and the airlines.

Having children has always been a choice, e.g. historical birthrates are closely coupled to harvest success. So people are choosing to have fewer children now, and most of that has to do with opportunity costs.

Caplan's "Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids" (https://www.amazon.com/Selfish-Reasons-Have-More-Kids/dp/046...) has some data showing that parents are putting more and more time into children. (And his argument is that it is mostly unnecessary, i.e. it doesn't correspond to improved outcomes for children, given a relatively normal stable family.) I wonder how much of this is just changed social expectations (e.g. call Police / Child Services if you see a kid walking home along from school), how much is social signaling, how much is reduced family support.

That stuff _is_ ridiculous. I don't know if the human bladder is sized for that level of tea.

On the other hand, it looks like an infographic-style addition, added by the newspaper to make the article more interesting, rather than the contribution of the author.

While I agree on your main point, I think that you are confusing marginal tax rate with average tax rate. E.g. the 2017 federal income tax for a single making $300k is in the "$46.6k + 33% in excess of $191k" bracket. This means an average tax of 27.5%. Same for state income tax. So you aren't quite down to $150k/year.

That said, one _does_ face a marginal tax rate of over 50%. So any _additional_ income opportunity is basically cut in half.

On the other hand, an addition expense (but pre-tax) is retirement savings. People in their early-to-mid careers (especially those making $300k/yr) should not be planning for getting anything out of social security.

Perhaps it meant to say that one needs a $303k/yr salary to support a $1.2M mortgage (i.e. the loan on a $1.5M house after a 20% downpayment). At an interest rate of 3.5%, that's about $5400/month. A $303k salary is maybe about right for that, considering taxes (income and property), insurance, private schools/daycare and things like "food". Wow, this can't go on.

Well, even if you say that capital expenses are irrelevant considering the very long time frame, you still have to make the argument that operating expenses of the rail are smaller. What are they, and are they smaller than air travel (~$0.10/passenger-mile)? The only estimate of that I could find with two minutes of googling is ~$0.39/passenger-mile (via http://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=88 supposedly using the National Transit Database). That means that a rail line is even _worse_ in the long run.

> I guess the Airbus/Boeing duopoly is here to stay.

Comac is a promising competitor, too, and are explicitly targeting the bread-and-butter size classes of Airbus/Boeing.

It seems like Airbus paid nothing for this (maybe taking on some of the manufacturing expenses?).

See: https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/16/airbus-teams-up-with-bombard...

It certainly isn't a payday for the Quebec government, but I suppose that 19% of something is better than 49% of nothing. One can _still_ criticize the irresponsible handling of taxpayer money AND now (if the manufacturing part is true) the benefits of the original buy-in will not go to Canadian factory workers.

A better, bigger, perspective: http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/05/11/silicon-valley-a-realit...