This is not true at all. You’re right that planes aren’t like cars, but airlines absolutely do their own maintenance. The maintenance program is initially provided by Boeing and modified by the airline based on statistical monitoring of issues.

There are lots of stupid people.

I haven’t tried Jellyfin yet mostly because I rely heavily on the native Plex apps for my TVs and phones. Outside network streaming without having to set up a proxy or VPN is another big reason.

I haven’t liked the direction Plex has been going for a while, but it’s hard to beat the convenience.

I finally overhauled my home server. I built a 12TB storage and media server using a few parts from the old server but am running it on Linux using docker rather than my old gaming PC’s windows 7 install. Should be much better for security and easier to upgrade or move.

Paid for PlexPass finally since hardware transcoding is locked behind the paywall.

Dropped Netflix after over a decade of using it regularly because the prices went up and I had been using it less.

Have used ChatGPT for help planning trips and developing goals and plans at home. I was restricted from using it or anything like it at work so I haven’t been able to properly use it to my advantage much.

Finally upgraded my router to WiFi 6 and my Internet bandwidth to gigabit from 250 mbps. It’s refreshing! Probably the best decision I made in 2023.

Dropped reddit (to include blocking the domain on my pihole). I still waste time but less of it is on social media.

Inspection intervals are based on expectation of damage over time, not to verify if the installation procedure was properly followed.

Design requirements for airplane parts that experience rotation or are part of control systems are regulated to have locking features to prevent loose bolts from happening. If the initial installation was done improperly it could be a failure in quality control at Boeing. Or if they were installed properly but weren’t designed with sufficient locking mechanisms it may be an improper design. Either way this could turn into an Airworthiness Directive which is when the FAA steps in to ensure safety.

“Do your own research” is a phrase with a lot of baggage. It means more than doing your own research.

It’s a phrase that has been used online in debates over every kind of conspiracy theory, religious idea, or political stance and carries with it the unsaid presumption that alternative sources are the key to learning the “actual truth.” It’s a loaded phrase that acts as a calling card for people who are overly confident that they have the right answer but can’t articulate how they arrived at it.

I roll my eyes whenever I read or hear someone say “do your own research” because I know the debate ends there and there’s no convincing them otherwise.

It’s more like educated guessing, which is a lot faster than brute forcing. They can use code to check the answers so there is ground truth to verify against. A few days of compute time for an answer to a previously unsolved math problem sounds a lot better than brute forcing.

Generate enough data for good guesses and bad guesses and you can train the thing to make better guesses.

It’s the trust thermocline again. When will companies learn to do more ground level research before pulling bullshit like this?

It bothers me that you want to educate people but you are being so combative and smug. This isn’t the way to change people’s minds. All you are doing is making people feel personally attacked and driving them further away from having an open mind.

This is the first I’ve heard of HVDC, my experience is with typical AC transmission that makes up most of the current grid. Not a lot of experience, but college physics level.

US high voltage transmission is usually AC in one of the following voltages: 345 kV, 500 kV, or 765 kV. I used the 765 kV worst case losses of 1.1% per 100 miles (according to American Electric Power Transmission Facts Q12) which is over generous since most transmission would likely not be using only the high efficiency lines.

Also, transmission range is affected by load and high load reduces line capability.

We’re talking about moving a huge amount of power across 3000 miles. In my experience transmitting power across a nation as large as the US is unheard of.

You also seemed to have missed my point about how much excess power would be required to power the opposite side of the country (in the dark) while basically at dusk. Let’s say 30% of the east coast’s power comes from solar. That would mean that the West Coast would need to provide that 30% excess on top of their current energy demands during a relatively high demand time period. It would also be a bit unfair for the West Coast to be the ones responsible for over-provisioning to accommodate the east coast.

Is HVDC even installed and able to transmit across the US now?

Yes.

Why would we limit our hedging to non-world destroying scenarios? It seems we’re already on track for a mass extinction event anyway. The reason you hedge is exactly for the worst case.

Transmission losses prevent most of what you are suggesting. Across a continent, even with high voltage low loss power lines, you lose 35% to resistance. This doesn’t count the added loss from stepping down the voltage at various substations and transformers along the way. You can expect another 8-15% more reduction from that.

You’re suggesting that the amount of excess power from one side of the country could be enough to power the other side (while still meeting the demands locally) with 40-55% losses. Come on.

Not a strawman when you respond to “sometimes it’s night and solar doesn’t work” with “it’s daytime somewhere”. The natural assumption is that your intention was that day side power could be used on the night side.

Do you have anything to back up your idea that the US grid can or does actually supply power across the entire nation?

Why would anyone waste money on the worse option?

Why do people have diverse stock portfolios?

Hedging and diversification is important. Unforseen consequences and unknown future conditions can screw up your long term plans for 100% renewables. The more diverse our energy portfolio is, the unknowns become easier to weather.

That is the answer for why we build and research something that is more expensive and may divert resources away from better options. To argue that there is literally no place for energy development other than purely renewable is a difficult position to defend.

Your sandwich analogy is lacking because we’re talking about far future consequences of our decision. Maybe you plan to eat the sandwich a week from today. Which do you buy? You don’t have enough information to determine which will be better in a week. Do you pick the chain store’s because it’s full of preservatives? Do you decide to buy both in case one of them gets moldy just to make sure you have anything to eat?

The consequences of developing or not developing potential viable solutions to energy requirements can be far reaching. Completely dismissing alternative options is just not rational.

If you used sources to make your argument it’s not so hard to add them to your comment. Makes it just that much harder for people to call you out like what just happened.

Honestly, I’m playing devil’s advocate here. I love working from home and feel that the benefits outweigh the drawbacks in almost all ways. I agree with your sentiment, but without a good understanding of what companies are giving away and whether they can afford it is a big part of why back to office was hurried along.

HR has to basically rewrite the book on everything after such a big shake-up in the culture of employment. New calculations for salaries, new requirements for liability, new hurdles for IT, infrastructure, and security. These are all costs to companies because the culture shifted. Working from home was mandatory for a short time, but it wasn’t obvious that companies could make it all work without time to sort out how to best do it.

Yeah, that’s how employment works.

Working from home is a benefit that is worth money. People are willing to get paid less for the benefit of working from home all else equal. Effectively, if you got to work from home, you got a raise. Forcing people to come back to the office after allowing working from home is like giving a raise and then taking it back. I agree that this is shitty and sucks.

However, when you negotiated your pay it was for a particular job with certain benefits. Complaining about your company not giving you a benefit that wasn’t initially part of your hiring negotiation is basically asking for a raise that they aren’t obligated to provide.

Edit: I guess this isn’t a popular opinion. I felt I was contributing to a conversation that seemed a little one sided by offering an alternative look at it. From an economic perspective there’s nothing wrong about what I’ve said. I don’t agree that it’s a nice or even ethical thing to do, but the backlash (against companies that push for RTO) seems overly dramatic to me.

This is only true provided a good faith effort has been made to moderate the platform to remove such content. At least in the US.

I thought this was a really great video. The point it makes is simple, but well supported. It was great seeing the whole series from this perspective.