It's almost like he's a fully fledged, complex human being and not an avatar of one side of a highly simplified model of political thought.
He's quite "left-wing" (from a US Overton Window) on most issues. MTG was relatively early speaking out for Palestine. That doesn't make her a leftist, either
I just got back from my first (short) trip to Montréal in nearly 10 years. It's the most human city in Canada, IMO. This would be a very human-empowering step, which is on brand, IMO. I hope it passes.
Montréal isn't perfect, and neither is PR, but both are better than many alternatives, IMO.
I was trying to see what orbits this site would be good for, and found the answer in Wikipedia, which then led to an older SpaceQ article describing it from back when they were considering the site
Seems viable, although niche. In the past, launching companies/nations would look for a small number of launch sites that would cover all the orbits they needed. I wonder if the future is many launch sites each specializing in a few particular orbits. I also wonder what the deltaV efficiency is compared to a more equatorial site.
Also, while I would prefer that this site were being developed by a Canadian company, if they're respectful to how we do things in Canada and the local community, as far as I'm concerned they're welcome. Not that my opinion matters in this decision. Good to see a Canadian supplier getting business, though.
I never beat Hollow Knight (yeah yeah, I know), so I'm working my way through that. I think I'm about half way? Obviously hard to tell.
Rock and Stone, brother.
Deep Rock Galactic's great game design has caused it to grow one of the most positive, supportive communities in online gaming, IMO. While problematic players do exist, they are the exception rather than the rule.
An example, hidden if you don't care
I remember in one map we had a new Engineer who didn't know they could use their platforms to block up holes vertically to prevent bugs from getting to us during swarms. This new player also wasn't responding to any comms.
One player started pinging where we needed the platforms to go. Then, another player joined in and started pinging an existing platform. Then all three of us were alternately pinging the Engineer, an existing platform, and where we wanted the new platform.
After some time, the Engineer figured it out and started putting up our protective ceiling.
Many "Rock and Stone"s erupted from the team.
Also, a small bonus, if you know you know
WE'RE RICH!
My understanding is that because of the type of protien that it encodes for, the immunity imparted by the vaccine decreases over time (because of complex immune system reasons). Never to 0%, but lower. The annual booster not only prepares you better for oncoming strains (in theory, when the vaccine research, development, and approval systems work as expected), but re-ups your immunity to existing strains.
The theory as I understand it is that because viruses like COVID-19 pass through populations in waves, your body is developing a very strong short-term immunity to neutralize any immediate "rebound" waves (imagine a wave bouncing off the side of a pool, yes, viruses move through populations like that). It then maintains a weaker, long-term response. By fooling your immune system into thinking you have COVID-19 right now, the vaccine bumps your body ino "short-term" response mode, so your best possible immune response is at the ready if the real thing shows up.
I am not an epidimeologist, but I read a lot of their work from 2020-2023. I might have details wrong, but if it's been >6mo since you've had a booster, you would probably benefit from getting another one.
TL;DR: Yes, you subsidize, because the amount each seat pays is proportional to their ticket price, but it's a small amount per flight. But you also need to think about what you consider "fair" in this instance.
Sorry, been offline for a few days. I'm curious, so let's check the math:
Their example is a flight from Atlanta to Orlando. The most common flight on that route is a Delta B757-2001. SeatGuru can provide us with the most common seating layout: 24 First class, 21 Comfort+, and 135 Economy.
The tax that the NYT Editorial Board is looking at is mostly likely the 7.5% Passenger Ticket Tax, which is about 1/3 of total fees on a two-leg itinerary2.
Looking at Delta's fares for about two months out on randomly chosen dates in October, I see economy fares of about $270, economy plus at about $350, and first at about $570 (I tried to take a median, but it's very approximate). Those fares are round-trip, so let's cut them in half for $135/175/285. At 7.5%, the tax comes out to ~$10.13/13.13/21.38 per seat. That tallies up to $2156.40 when we multiply out by the number of seats, pretty close to the $2300 value the video claims, so I'm comfortable saying my numbers are "right enough" for the example.
Depending on how one structures the ownership of their private jet, the equivalent tax for them is zero dollars (they are exempt).
There are then taxes that both flights would pay on a per flight basis or based on fuel consumed. A private jet would pay proportionally more of those than a commercial airliner (due to the lower % passenger weight of total weight), but those are a small part of the total fees, especially for the commercial flight. (I'm seeing about $300 per plane, so I think NYT was counting some of those fees but not all, as they said that the private jet would be paying about $60 in fees).
The problem with the whole "subsidizing" conversation is that it depends on what perspective you take. If you look at it on a person-by-person basis, then sure, each passenger on the commercial flight probably pays less than the passengers on the private jet (assuming 2 ppl or something).
But FAA resources aren't provisioned on a "per-passenger" basis, they're provisioned on a "per-flight" basis, with some modifiers based on:
Let's be generous and say that our B757-200 takes 4x the ATC resources that the private jet does (I would bet the real factor is closer to 1.5-2.5x). So for a total of 5 units of ATC resource, 4 are used by the commercial jet, and 1 is used by the private jet.
The commercial flight therefore pays $(2156.40+60)/4=$554.10 per ATC resource, and the private jet pays $60 per ATC resource. Equal distribution would be $(2156.40 + 60 + 60)/5=$455.28. So the private jet is receiving a "subsidy" of $455.28-60=$395.28 per flight.
If we divide that subsidy over all of the passengers on the flight by fare, then we get about $1.81/2.34/3.81 based on seat class. That isn't much of a subsidy per passenger, about 1.4% of your ticket price.
But let's think about the other side of the equation: Chartering a plane from Atlanta to Orlando costs about $12,5003. Taking on an extra $395.28 would be an additional 3.2% per flight, which is admittedly more than the 1.4% of the fare for the commercial passenger.
And hold on... we are talking about passenger transport when we're talking about both flights... so let's look at how efficiently those FAA resources are used. Keeping that 4x factor for a flight of the same distance, we have 4 FAA resources spread over a flight with a capacity of 180, let's assume 80% full for 144 passengers, using about 0.03 FAA resources/person. Now let's look at the private jet, which recall uses 1 FAA resource for the same flight plan. Let's be generous and assume 6 passengers. That's 0.17 FAA resources/person. The commercial jet is more than 5x more efficient in its use of FAA resources.
These are people who literally create complex corporate structures for their private jets just to avoid that 7.5% excise tax, AND they tend to have much more disposable income. I think they can pay the extra $400 for their inefficient use of FAA resources.
If I were making the rules (which is absurd because not only am I not an expert but I am also Canadian), I would make the FAA fees per-itinerary filed with the FAA and incorporate three factors:
The FAA has a whole section on their website about airport planning, so I would use that to figure out how to apportion these factors to best approximate the factors required for FAA resource allocation. I'm sure there are planners at the FAA that have this all broken down already.
So yes, unless you get a super-discount fare, you are subsidizing private jets assuming that the fair apportionment of costs is based on how FAA resource capacities are planned. It's not much per passenger, but it adds up across all of society, and is another way that the US economy moves wealth from the lower classes to the upper class.
While that's true, and so First Class and Business Class subsidize private jets more than Economy Class does, that doesn't change the fact that Economy also subsidizes private jets.
As a percentage of the total weight of a plane, passengers and their luggage constitute a much larger percentage of a commercial flight than a private one. So they are "more utilized" than a private jet, and can spread that cost over all their passengers.
Also, larger planes that fly longer distances cross more ATC zones, using up more ATC resources. They also take up more "room" in the sky, as e.g. ATC needs to leave more room for jet wash behind a heavy. So it makes sense from multiple perspectives that bigger planes pay more.
You also have to consider hobby pilots. Charging them the same amount as a 747 would be insane.
So it's a tradeoff: the Canadian system makes smaller planes pay more, proportionally, than a per-ticket model; but not so much more that it harms the smallest personal planes.
It's also just simpler. Personal plane? Private jet? Commercial passenger flight? Cargo plane? Same calculation for all of them.
(Yes, you could try to make it "only for flights with paid passengers", but then pilots of private jets would all of a sudden have a lot of very rich friends with whom they do a lot of personal flying. It's just so much easier if there's nothing subjective about it.)
"Let them eat cake" - Ghislane Maxwell, probably.
Hard agree.
I love this article on the topic: https://www.newsweek.com/trans-man-broken-men-1817169
Thoughts for non-toxic male role models:
Oh, I hope she doesn't run for President yet. It would be a waste of her talent. Not that I think she'd do a bad job (considering the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.) but I don't think the electorate in the US is ready for her yet, and I think she has a lot she can contribute legislatively. I hope she unseats Schumer though. That's not only within reach but very doable.