My take on NordVPN is that it's surely some kind of honeypot, to catch extremely illegal uses (pedos, drugs), or high value targets (journalists, politics ?). Not sure who's running it.
But if you're using it for mildly illegal things like having the Netflix catalogue from another place it's probably good enough.
Just don't install their app, configure it yourself, don't use it full time, and don't expect protection from anything other than low level law enforcement from your country. Expect your connection to be monitored when you're using it, as much as can be (so not breaking encryption, but all the rest for sure).
I have absolutely no evidence whatsoever other than the fact that it's been a high visibility service for very long, which makes me think it would have already been taken down a while ago if it was actually effective at protecting high value targets
I don't understand the difference in your two propositions, since money is fungible : whether the ratio is established globally or customer per customer, the end result would be the same, wouldn't it ?
Unless there are specific calculation rules ?
If I pay $10/month to Spotify and play 2 artists 20 times each over the month, then each artists should get $5. Ignore Spotify fees for this example.
What Spotify actually does is give these two artists some cents per play. Let’s say $0.01 per play, they each get $0.20 from my subscription and the rest of my $10 goes to Spotify.
I believe they actually see that 0.000001% of all plays went to your artist, so 0.000001% of all money goed to that artist.
This means if you listened to 1 song this month, they do receive way less than 10$. (Because number of streams does not fluctuate much you can probably give it a $ per stream)
Yes, but this argument isn't based on how people actually listen to music.
It's really unclear whether an artist-centric model would make any real difference to artists - under an artist-centric model the more an individual user streams the less the artists get per stream, so if you have a small number of fans who listen to you a LOT the artist-centric model means you get less money
Our early model you see here will use unleaded fuel rather than traditional low-lead fuel used in aviation today. The master plan is to use the scale we will create in this new market and invest it into green propulsion tech for our future aircraft. A lot is going to change in that space over the next 5 years so I'm very interested to see where things go, but I suspect hybrid-electric will be the move for the first generation of green aircraft.
Fact of the lead content, the wishes and the promises of your post have a place here.
However "Green" only sounds good in a marketing pitches. While it might resonate with potential customers who are already sold on the idea, it can come across as vague and insubstantial to those trying to understand your response.
It sounds misleading and deceptive for the individuals who are skeptical of the environmental impact.
fair criticism--I should be more specific than just "green".
our first model will still be a gasoline ICE airplane, but we are building a limited number of them to get our tech out there and get a new wave of people excited about GA. out future aircraft will be able to utilize our fly-by-wire/simplified controls to fly more aerodynamically efficient airframes that will use less energy, whatever that source is. We can do this because these airframes would be too unstable for a human to fly by hand, hence the need for fly-by-wire/simplified controls in the loop.
today, we don't have a good alternative to ICE for airplanes that also meets the mission profile of the vehicle. I personally think hybrid electric is at least the next step, with hydrogen (though that has it's own challenges) coming after.
How does further reducing lead in the fuel compare to all the other emissions' impact?
I would imagine that lead is dangerous for a long as it's being used, whereas CO2 has an annoyingly long half life that we need to actively remove in (currently) time- or energy-intensive processes, while it's reducing healthy years of life for millions of people —speaking of air pollution from combustion in general here, I don't have specific numbers for airplanes but as an airplane company you are surely better aware of this than me
Take a look at the more economical modern GA aircraft. A Cirrus SR22 can run at 10 gallons per hour, with a ground speed of 160+ mph.
Yes, it’s more total fuel consumption than a car (but in an hour covering 2x the distance, and allowing to travel more directly) but not at all close to turbine or turboprops. At the extremely cheap (accessible to more pilots) side for pressurized planes, fuel burn is going to be 40gph and it just goes up from there.
There are many variables, and winds work for or against—but by doing good flight planning you use the winds to your advantage.
There is also a lot of research on better aviation fuels (100ll :(((). I’m excited about that part of it, more so than the current electric planes (although electric self-launching gliders are pretty neat)
MOSIAC is going to make light sport aircraft more useful, which will also help in this area.
You can argue for its convenience/speed/fun, but fuel efficiency does not look good for GA aircraft. Even for your modern GA aircraft example, it literally comes to 16 mpg. This is as bad as worst of the trucks out there. While it's great if existing use cases of GA aircrafts would become more efficient, adding demand in this area (more hobbyists, more rich people shuttling use, encouraging people to live in very remote areas, etc.) and using it as transportation-mode will unlikely ever become environmentally reasonable.
All that is true, but it’s also getting better. And 16mpg over shorter routes (a 100nm flight vs 200 mile drive is not unusual) makes it harder to compare apples to oranges.
We don’t really have hybrid planes yet, which will likely help in the most inefficient parts of flying (climb).
My comment is to add more information to the discussion to consider many aspects, not to make claims that it’s a fuel-sensible method of travel. I am excited for innovation here, just like I am excited for the continued improvements in hybrid and electric cars.
Takeoff constitutes a negligible part of the total fuel consumption. Climb to altitude uses more, but you get that back when landing since you're then using your stored potential energy.
Small-aircraft GA is a vanishingly small fraction of total fossil fuel use, and it will be quite easy to replace that with some renewable fuel solution (compared with the huge amounts of fuel consumed by transport aircraft). For my part, I think it would be a shame to kill GA because of a temporary and relatively unimportant concern.
> Small-aircraft GA is a vanishingly small fraction of total fossil fuel use
OP wrote: "We want people who don’t think about airplanes as a mode of transportation to start flying"
They're meaning for this to become a larger fraction, besides that the relevant measure is pollution per benefit or per capita or something rather than absolute amount of pollution
So you're concluding that there is no benefit to general aviation because, presumably, you don't fly?
I think we should absolutely keep airplanes as a mode of transportation, because the alternative is that all small airports go away and then it won't matter when renewable fuels become a reality because there will be no longer be anywhere to land and take off. Those airports would not come back.
First off, you've got this backwards. One doesn't have an opinion because one flies or not; conversely, one flies or not because one concludes their situation does or does not warrant the pollution for a particular destination
But equally weird, why are you making this about me personally? If I say I don't fly, that's probably unusual where you're from so I'll be the environmentalist out-group whose opinion is too extreme and can be dismissed. If I do I'll be considered a hypocrite (like what you called someone in the other thread). I can tell you the answer is a middle ground but I don't think it helps anyone here to make this about me. I'd much rather make this about facts and science rather than opinions and feelings
> I think we should absolutely keep airplanes as a mode of transportation
I agree, but since nobody said anything to the contrary, that seems like a given
True. Next, don't forget that airplanes cover about 3x the distance as cars per hour. So, per mile they are on par with bad cars, and about 2x normal cars.
Look, this is peanuts compared to everyday consumption by the world.
> We should be aiming for the absolute minimisation of fossil fuels.
Should we? We could easily do that. Just stop cars and busses and trains and planes and heating and the production of medicine and everything else.
Oh, our life would be much worse.
As a matter of fact, we should not aim for "the absolute minimisation of fossil fuels". Not at all. It is dispiriting for me to learn that you believe such primitive nonsense.
Seriously, you need to learn the basics of economics and trade-offs and all that.
A Quick Look at FuelEconomy.gov shows many modern cars for sale with highway efficiency of 25mpg or less. Some (many?) people may judge it unconscionable, but it’s clearly acceptable to the broader market and current regulations.
These models seem to be big (Volkswagen Atlas, Subaru Ascent, Ford F150) or fast (Audi RS5, Porche 911, Kia Stinger). If you can get similar mpg from an airplane that carries four people and their luggage at 100+ mph ground speed on a more direct (shorter) route… that’s very compelling to me.
So, reducing car emissions by a just 1% would be way better for the environment than entirely removing all piston engine aviation.
There are about 15m cars sold in the US every year, but around 1500 piston engine planes. That's a factor of 10,000. There are some 210m cars in use in the USA, but around 150k piston engine planes. That's a factor of 1400 (reflecting the fact that planes have a much longer life than cars, further contributing to their lower environmental impact).
Every day, cars burn more fuel than light airplanes burn in a year.
This project is a minuscule rounding error in climate change drivers.
Some of the LSAs I've flown are not actually that bad pollution/climate wise. Slightly less green per mile than my mini cooper, way more green than basically any common American pickup truck.
Does this include the emissions portal-to-portal? Airports tend to be nowhere near destinations because people don’t like living near all the pollution airplanes spew.
Most of my trips in small planes are pretty point to point. The airports I've used have been between 1 and 5 miles from my house and most of my destinations were similarly close (I just checked one destination and it was 200 meters).
Not sure where you're from but airport density in the US is incredibly high thanks to WWII and Cold War leftover infrastructure (and a fairly robust GA culture up through the 80s). People just don't notice their little local airports unless they fly.
It feels to me like we're in agreement, so I'm not certain why you're saying my original sentence is nonsense.
> people would still not picked book as replacement
Yes, exactly.
> And book as your only resource have massive drop put rates. People generally give up very soon.
Yes, entirely correct.
That's what something like Duolingo promises to solve and these obstacles (independent of Duolingo) are why people won't pick up a book or do other forms of self-learning instead. They want a service like Duolingo, because it promises to make learning more approachable and accessible and provides mental tricks to keep you engaged regularly and long-term.
Which brings me around to my original argument: The article is framing it in this weirdly malicious way as if it isn't exactly what people wanted from a service like Duolingo. It's like turning a water boiler on and then getting upset that the water is hot. I thought that was the point?
In that case I misunderstood your original sentence. I knee jerked, projecting something that was not present in your writing into it. So I apologize.
For whatever it is worth, I know you did not wrote it, the "pick a textbook for language learning" meme is sort of my pet peeve. I kinda suspect that people saying it never learned foreign language.
That's okay, I'm glad we could clear it up. I won't pretend that I have any idea how one would best learn a language and I don't know if Duolingo is effective at all. I just understand why people want services like it.
> The practice of self-hosting web services became more feasible with the development of cloud computing and virtualization technologies, which enabled users to run their own servers on remote hardware or virtual machines. The first public cloud service, Amazon Web Services (AWS), was launched in 2006, offering Simple Storage Service (S3) and Elastic Compute Cloud (EC2) as its initial products.[3]
I hate when terms get diluted like this. "self hosted", to me, means you own the physical machine. This reminds of how "air-gapped server" now means a route configuration vs an actual gap of air, no physical connection, between two networks. It really confuses things.
If you want to understand why something happened, you'll need to look a lot deeper than that. Asking why the Houthis would cut a cable is accepting the assumption that they did.
You will note that I did not, in fact, ask about "the Houthis". I feel like your issue is not with my question. It is with a strawman that only you can perceive.
Could the Houthis sabotage these lines? They almost certainly would if they could.
... but they can't so they shan't? Lol, a bit light on reasoning.
"There is nothing I've seen in the Iranian orbat (Order of Battle) that could touch these cables, certainly not their submarines," says former Royal Navy Cdr Tom Sharpe. "Diving is an option but it's deep and busy so I think it would be pushing it," he says. Concurring with Rear Adm Gower, Cdr Sharpe says: "I think this is a bluff."
...
"In conclusion, the threat made recently by the Houthis on their Telegram channel would be hard to carry out.
It would be both technically challenging and politically risky for Iran, whose hand the West sees in all the Houthi attacks in the Red Sea."
