So I read through the article, and it seems like this guy has a lot of selection bias. He makes the claim that nothing is done about right-wing protesters, but completely ignores that the J6 trials happened, and right-wing extremists do actually face charges for violent or criminal acts.

He also spends more time on that than elaborating on his claim that “inequality demands oppression” or talking about that in greater analytical detail.

This just seems like ragebait.

The E195 is a bit too small for mainline use, though a good aircraft otherwise. The others however I’m not sure are ready for the prime time.

The Comac has potential, it’s a completely new aircraft developed for the Chinese domestic market, I don’t know if it will be sold in the west though. One issue is that the aircraft market doesn’t lend itself to new players. Planes typically last 30 years give or take, so taking on a new type from an unproven manufacturer is a big risk. It could, however, be successful in the long term.

Irkut is majority owned by the Russian government, and given the war, is likely going to have issues. It has flown, but now they have to move to entirely homegrown parts, which will likely make the aircraft completely shit.

Speaking of, the Tupolev Tu-204. It is still in production, and since the war started it has begun to ramp up again. Unfortunately it still has significant problems. For an aircraft built today, it still uses a three person cockpit crew, and is very underpowered. It also has had nearly no changes since its introduction in 1989, and is way behind pretty much any aircraft of its size.

It’s worth considering how much room there is in the airliner market for more competitors. Since aircraft require a huge amount of R&D, you have to sell a lot of them to break even. So if there’s too many manufacturers vying for a finite market, it gets hard to find any RoI. This has happened a lot historically, it’s like streaming services except you can’t actually get anyone to buy duplicates and very rarely will anyone split their orders.

There are considerable safety concerns regarding private jets, mostly down to the quality of the pilots. At the bigger airlines, pilots are unionized and have consistent schedules they work and routes and aircraft they fly. It’s reliable work and where most pilots (even military) end up.

Meanwhile private aviation needs to be flexible and easy to set up. Contrary to your comment this is the sector that you can usually expect to find more unscrupulous operations and pilots who are basically just Some Guy. Most of the near miss accidents lately have involved private planes (though that can often be attributed to problems in the ATC network).

As for the doors that’s more of a Boeing specific problem, they’ve made a lot of questionable business decisions in recent years and this is the fallout of that. Airbus planes don’t seem to have this problem, and customers seem to be making it clear that they would like their planes to work thank you very much.

One thing the article doesn’t make super clear to me is if that figure includes investment funds and whatnot, and to what degree. It sounds like it might but elaborated very little beyond a vague statistic.

I must say, you’re the first person I’ve seen to cite ChatGPT as a source.

I literally just told you two things that make them more dangerous, what makes them safer?

I’d wager most people have been in one considering how common they are, doesn’t make them any less terrible. Size is definitely a problem, they are very space inefficient, and quite dangerous. The center of gravity is very high, and because the front end is high up, anyone hit by it is more likely to end up under the vehicle. The solution is to lower them down to make them safer, and replace them with safer and more efficient vehicles like station wagons and minivans.

True, I’d expect pretty wild conspiracies like flat earth and chemtrails to be laughed at here, but a disturbing number of lemmings and even progressives in general follow a set of less outlandish - but more insidious - conspiracies that usually fall into the “collusion and malice” type. I could say that General Motors et al. killed most of the US passenger rail and streetcar systems, and most people here would accept that as a fact. Case closed, capitalism is evil and should be abolished, every bad thing is cause by someone with I’ll intentions making it worse.

I, however, tend to be suspicious of those sorts of takes in general. Returning to the alleged “streetcar conspiracy”I’ve actually done quite a lot of research into this and can decidedly say that the primary cause of the decline of mass transit in the US was… There were at least 5 primary causes, none of which were shadowy groups deliberately working to destroy it. Rather it was killed by a changing urban environment, failures to adapt to modal shifts, legacy streetcar systems just generally sucking, and local governments taking transit for granted and assuming that they can hold streetcar companies to exacting standards while expecting them to remain solvent, all while not considering it their problem.

I could go on, and can send some sources and references (maybe not direct links though) if you’d like to learn more. But my main point is that far too many people assume there’s a nefarious actor pulling the strings the whole time when it’s usually several factors lining up all the holes in the Swiss cheese and creating a negative externality we still talk about to this day.

There (usually) isn’t a conspiracy, and if there is it’s unlikely to be anywhere near as all-encompassing as you think. People say there is because it gives them someone to blame, helps channel their anger at something tangible, and just makes a good story.

I exist in several categories of people who’s right to exist have been threatened many, many times throughout history, I agree that everything is political, or rather, that politics encompasses everything.

However, not every discussion should become politically oriented, as it’s not particularly the most productive in many cases. This is most prominent on the internet, where nuance, which is ESSENTIAL for productive political discourse, is often absent. I find much political discussion. This is especially true in dialogues where it is either discussed on a broad scale, or where it is discussed in a reactionary manner. When my answers to political topics are so often “it depends”, this stuff tends to be quite straining, especially when my attempts to create dialogue are shot down.

In short “not everything is political” exists because you’re either detailing a discussion to talk about how horrible everything is, or you’re on the internet and internet politics just suck.

Friendly reminder that rowhouses exist and essentially break reality with how they provide the best of both worlds.

That might technically work, but in the real world, it wouldn’t make much sense. Sure you could set something on fire to commit a robbery nearby, but that’s a lot of effort to do what you were already doing.

Regarding OPs argument, it doesn’t strike me as making that much sense, and considering the lack of evidence, Hanlon’s Razor dictates that it’s unlikely.

I consider bigotry very real and very much a threat, and as such, respectfully disagree.

I will go ahead and question whether this has a place in !memes however. It’s not funny in the slightest and it’s only purpose is to express a strongly held political belief of the poster.

I came here to laugh, not to argue, please stop posting these.

Being phased out in DC too. That said, the transition period has been rough, many places are now using service fees to cover the costs, which makes sense but the fact that it’s still so inconsistent causes great annoyance.

Then again, so do tipping expectations, what exactly am I paying for? Can I opt out? What legally constitutes a tipped employee? WHY ARE THERE TIPPING OPTIONS AT FAST FOOD PLACES NOW!?

Overall, a clusterfuck that I’m happy to see is dying out, (I’ve also heard that it’s racially and sexually unjust.)

What you seems to be describing is Single-Family Housing. True medium density is actually really compact, using lots for more efficient housing and including public green space.

Pretty sure that’s just NIMBYs.

“There’s nothing illegal about getting the lads together to go resonate a bridge.”

Nicely done, let’s keep going.

Edit: Building works.

It’s not profitable, it just lowers the operating ratio, which is what railroads (quite stupidly) judge their productivity on.

Operating ratio =/= more money despite what they think.

The core principal here is open access, where the government owns and maintains the infrastructure, and anyone can make use of capacity on it provided they comply with regulations concerning safety and crew certification. They pay fees to the government agency responsible for the infrastructure to help cover its costs. This is how highways and air infrastructure works in the US, and state-owned rail infrastructure is required to be open access under EU law.

So far it seems to have been successful, state-owned rail operators have historically been the jack of all trades, but that doesn’t always help when people want to travel to odd destinations or at odd times. Open access improves that significant and has been instrumental in helping the EU begin to transition away from air travel.

I think it may be referring to the people who blame all social ills on “corporate greed” and think that belong leftist is exclusively being anti-capitalist. I think this may go along with some pro-Putin/pro-Xi viewpoints, possibly because they believe that “the west” is bad and capitalist, Andy anyone who opposes it is anti-capitalist and good.

I’m glad I know who these people are, so I can be more careful of them. Both here and on Reddit it felt like I was trapped in a bubble with these guys.