What zoom (if any) do you typically run at? For instance, a 200% zoom would give you an effective resolution of 4K, but with much sharper and smoother text and rendered graphics.
How much effort to create a weather app for ios or andriod that works like this? Maybe so something for the nest home max or echo show? I love the idea, but what is the easiest way to get this onto the most number of devices?
I agree: if you a part of a two-parent household, who lives in a home with off-street parking where you can add a charger, the best of both worlds is one EV (Tesla) and one plug-in hybrid (e.g. Prius Prime or Rav 4 Prime). Then you only go to a gas station on longer trips.
What percent of the US population falls into this demographic? And what percent of this demo already has one EV?
If you click on the words "always be free", you will be taken to the GitHub project, from there click on the release in the right column, and then download it for your platform. The store links are for the "donation" purchase process.
I remember Disney Dollars as a kid that were pegged to US 1:1 and could be used at any Disney-owned property. They were basically gift cards with no expiration date. They ended up not being cost efficient, so Disney discontinued them in 2016.
So, if the Libra ends up costing more to run than in earns (hardware, software, labor, and the cost of pegging it to a basket of currencies), then they won’t continue funding it. Since it’s not going to be a speculative currency like bitcoin, how will they pay or it? Will they take a transaction fee?
I also keep on reading that it will help the unbanked in the developing world facilitate payments. I guess it can be risky and hard to carry a lot of cash around for large purchases in parts of the world. But for this to work do you need better identity management? Or if you hold the cell phone, you hold the wallet? If it’s target is micro payments, then there are already many expanding options.
So that leave cross-border transfers, which is a huge thread to the US’s economic dominance. It is much harder to embark Iran if you don’t control the currency they sell their own for.
You can do some of these tricks with Excel 2016 or later and SharePoint Enterprise or Office 365 -- which many corporations already have.
You can embed an auto-updating Excel file in a SharePoint webpage using a "webpart" that renders as HTML. (Microsoft is getting away from web-rendering Excel with Silverlight,and allowing more functionality without the need for a browser plug-in.)
The trick is to setup the Excel data connection using the "Get External Data" -> "From Other Sources" -> "OData Data Feed" and not use the "Data Connections / Microsoft Query" method. Note: Microsoft Query connections won't update server side, the Excel file needs to be opened, data connections refreshed, and re-saved.
It does require a bit of Excel expertise to setup, but there is no need to create a Java application to get it to run.
Not a direct answer, but what you’re more or less asking is “why did they not modernize the 757 instead?” The answer is type ratings. Pilots can fly certain classes of planes based on common training. I.E. the 757 and 767 are common enough you can be trained for both at the same time. The issue with changing geometry of the 737 is you have to then retrain pilots against a new type instead of letting them take an orientation course on the new plane.
Honestly if the accidents did not happen we’d be calling them geniuses. After all, that’s why the 737 is the best selling plane ever.
Not really - they definitely could have extended the landing gear of the 737, as evidenced by the fact that they did exactly that for the 737 MAX 10. To handle the extra length they added telescoping landing gear that are about 10 inches longer than on the other variants
True, it wasn't done to solve the problem of the engine placement. It solved an entirely different problem. But it does show that the changing the landing gear whilst maintaining type commonality wasn't impossible.
Is there a point where the pilot is expected to remember so many procedures that it’s no longer possible to know all of them? You’d forget something critical here and there.
> Is there a point where the pilot is expected to remember so many procedures that it’s no longer possible to know all of them? You’d forget something critical here and there.
I don't think they have to remember all of them. Pilots rely heavily on checklists to make sure procedures are followed correctly and few mistakes are made.
True. However, there are "memory items" that have to be done from memory when the situation does not allow time for a checklist. Stall recovery is one of them, which is exactly when the MCAS is supposed to activate. I'm pretty sure runaway trim is another since it won't take long to end up in a very bad attitude if this happens, especially at high airspeeds.
There’s just not much time as often cited as the problem when a pilot makes a mistake in a stressful situation, so seems like the add more training mantra ignores a more fundamental issue.
When US Airways Flight 1549 lost both engines, Captain Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger intentionally skipped some items on that checklist. The checklist had been written with the assumption of higher altitude and he didn't have enough time to go through everything.
The 757 didn't sell nearly as many planes in total as the 737. There's entire airlines (e.g. Southwest) that only use 737s and have their entire business built around them. The 737 MAX was designed for this use case; a newer 757 might not have sold to these carriers at all.
Plus, the 757 has some features on it that make it more of a longer range, transcontinental jet than the 737. That makes it more expensive. If all you're using it for is regional air service (the existing mission of the 737), then it's too expensive for the job. The 737 is the Honda Civic of the skies; the 757 is more like a (insert more expensive car model here).
Designing longer landing gear might invalidate the common type rating, as the plane's entire fuselage and wings would be higher off the ground during take-off and landing, which might be non-trivial. Plus it would have different heights compared to previous 737s, which could cause problems with jetways, staircars, maintenance vehicles, luggage ramps, etc.
There's not many things they could've changed about the existing design without it being enough unlike the existing design to effectively count as a new aircraft (logistically if not certification-wise). They could move the engines, but they couldn't change the ground clearance.
The MAX-10 has longer landing gear by 10 inches and I'm assuming it shares the same type rating as the rest of the 737 line. So it is possible.
However the MAX-10 required a telescoping landing gear to achieve that so I'm assuming the real reason to not do so earlier was cost to design, cost to manufacture and weight.
I think the MAX 10 landing gear changes allow for a higher rotation angle (without tailstrike) on takeoff/landing, not actually increasing the engine-ground clearance.
Also the MAX 10 hasn’t been built or certified yet, I’m sure there will be a lot more scrutiny when that does happen.
We could go partial French Revolutionary, and have 36 10-day weeks at +3-1+3-3, plus an intercalary partial week at -5 or -6. Since we're not [all] French, the days of the week would be renamed as follows: Workday, Bluesday, Grindsday, Humpday, Schmerkday, Slogsday, Highday, Lazyday, Gamesday, and Chillsday. This would be referred to as the "Bactrian week", and the previous +5-2 week a "Dromedary week". The partial week shall be "Festivus Week".
For essential personnel, they cover all days of the week by working a rotating schedule of 9-day cycles (+3-1+3-2) plus one vacation week of 9 days off in a row, which adds to the previous 2-day weekend for a total of 11 consecutive days off. Festivus has staggered 3 on, 2 off, at double pay. Employees draw straws at 60% probability for working a leap day.
There's no need to rename the months. Years start on January 1st and follow Gregorian leap day rules.
I remember when reading "Napoleon: A Life" by Andrew Roberts, Napoleon wasn't a big fan of the base-10 metric system, but he figured it would be the best way to break with the hundreds of different measuring systems in place in France at the time, and enforce an empire-wide standard.
I much prefer base-12 or base-16 systems, especially when measuring and hanging drywall!
On the other hand, the British waited way to long (until 1971) to decimal-ize their currency. Before that the pound was made up of 240 pence.
reply