With every job replaced by AI the best people will be doing a better job than the AI and it'll be very frustrating to be replaced by people that can't tell the difference.
Nonsense, if you feel strongly about the subject comment in your main account. Otherwise this is just taken as "oh the guys are arguing through side accounts now".
Also this is not some russian mafia drug deal gone wrong, it's nerds disagreeing on the internet.
Seeing how Adafruit recently misrepresented the Arduino acquisition to FUD people this is not surprising to me. Around 15 years ago they had great vibes but the recent stuff is just money grabbing.
It varies very widely indeed. In some countries it isn't a scam because it gets burned like Denmark but other than that majority of recycling just means shipping it to a landfill in a poor country that they promise to recycle.
In Hungary it gets sorted out locally. We also recently implemented a bottle return system that (although it's annoying) produces clean stacks of PET, aluminium and glass, all of which are recyclable.
Even with PET, arguably the most recyclable plastic, most of it doesn't go bottle-to-bottle but rather bottle-to-textile. Because most PET "recycling" doesn't close the loop, so it's dubious to even call it recycling. That said, some bottle-to-bottle recycling of PET is done, and this has been getting better.
As long as the heat is used for something (electricity, building heating etc.) there is at least some reuse of parts of it. And if exhaust ist filtered pollution is also limited. Better than just putting it on a garbage dump and forgetting about it.
Almost all simulations I've done across 3 countries with 3 different payback models for selling back to grid (one of the three doesn’t allow selling back almost anything above your consumption), I could never make investing in Solar not being a gamble.
You really need to gamble on odds of replacing equipment being very low for it to make sense. And in practice most people I anecdotally know that run it, after 5-7 years have already done additional purchases. The payback time keeps getting pushed back to the point that when payback will happen your panel will be worthless in efficiency compared to new ones. At industrial / commercial scale it makes sense, but humans like to move houses, and do stuff in the houses and that messes with the payback plans at the individual level.
So either I was in the wrong countries or most people just gamble on the equipment lifetime, but for that I'd rather buy SPY calls, less drama.
Outside transfer switch and a 10-20kw portable generator is like $4-5k. It requires manual switching but it works for us in our hurricane-prone region. Helped with last years 1 in a 100 year winter storm in our southern region.
Battery/solar doesn’t make sense in my opinion. Too many years to break even like this parent comment said and by the time you break even at 10 years, your system either is too inefficient or needs replacing. At least with the portable generator, you can move it with you to a new home and use it for other things like camping or RVing.
Context: I’m in the Netherlands. With taxes, power is around 25cent/kWh for me. For reference: Amsterdam is around a latitude of 52N, which is north enough that it only hits Alaska, not the US mainland.
I installed 2800Wp solar for about €2800 ($3000, payback in: 4-5 years), and a 5kWh battery for €1200 ($1300) all in. The battery has an expected payback time of just over 5 years, and I have some backup power if I need it.
I’m pretty sure about the battery payback, because I have a few years of per second consumption data in clickhouse and (very conservatively) simulated the battery. A few years ago any business case on storage was completely impossible, and now suddenly we’re here.
I could totally see this happen for the US as prices improve further, even if it’s not feasible today.
Is it priceless? I literally wouldn't pay more than $200 to have electricity for a day while the whole neighborhood doesn't. Anything more and I'd prefer to just keep the money in my pocket to be honest.
In my country I've never had to deal with more than 15 minutes, twice in my life. In other countries its sometimes been a day but really I just go on with my life.
Whats funny about that -- is you assume thats the case - but a lot of solar isn't installed to be backup power. With Storage yes, but straight up solar -> no.
99% of systems are grid tie, so unless you’re spending another $7k for an ATS and associated infrastructure or you’re 100% off grid, your power still goes off.
"An ATS (Automatic Transfer Switch) for solar is a crucial device that seamlessly switches your home's power between the utility grid, your solar panels/battery bank...
And I should clarify that you technically can get away with a less expensive interlock system, but you're still paying a few thousand dollars to have your panel replaced (unless you feel comfortable doing that sort of electrical work yourself).
Making a system non-grid-tie is comparatively expensive, that's why grid tie is so common. People think you add solar + batteries and you're ready for doomsday - not quite.
im a systems engineer and cost analyst who has put together some modeling myself as well. as a personal investment on your house, i agree. The economic value of solar seems to be best applied as neighborhood or block purchases, like as part of a co-op or hoa. they would need dedicated infrastructure like a communal parking lot with solar overhead, or running them on the property line borders with an easement underneath for servicing, using property fencing as main support (with upgraded fencing)
basically, the way it really makes sense (to me) is to integrate it as part of a micro-grid system, possibly with generator backups and everything to also keep the lights on in the entire neighborhood if the main grid goes down.
its a higher upfront cost on paper, but way less variables with the roof and you are grouping multiple peoples needs together so the gamble goes down on repairs. the poles for ground-mounting can be used for 40 - 60 years, so you would get multiple panels out of them
This is also true of heating and cooling, and I've never understood why we (in the US) build relatively dense housing communities but don't implement things like this. Having a separate air conditioner for each home, especially in a condominium/townhouse complex, has never made sense to me as it's so inefficient compared to central heating/cooling.
It could be as simple as a different model. In one of those it was easy to make it feasible if you had no cap on how much to sell back, but it was limited to consumption plus like 10% or something like that. Since the property used very little energy but had a big roof we thought itd be a good thing to produce green energy while making a little money or even just breaking even, but to break even we'd have to use way more energy which was completely against the original objective. So its not like the technology isn't able to do it but the rules can make it very hard and a few years less of operation for some components make the math very difficult if you're conservative and want to ensure break even within some reasonable timeline
Airlines shouldn't have reclining seats, it's bad design. Blaming people for the bad design is stupid. I never recline and still blame it on the design. Stupid people exist, you should design for that.
Sorry for an empty response but this, 100% this. As a person who is WELL over 6' tall, the very idea that the person in front of me might recline is enough to give me significant anxiety throughout a flight. I once saw a design for seats where the base slides forward if you want to recline - the idea being, if you're going to recline you're going to do so into your own space, not the person behind you. I'd be a big advocate of that change in seat design...
If I put my knees together and sit up straight (back hard against my seat), my knees are hard against the seat in front. They can’t recline. It doesn’t even hurt, the seat just won’t move. Last flight someone turned around and complained then complained to the stewardess. I’m not sticking my legs into my neighbours space, am the time I extended into the aisle I fell asleep and got knee capped by a trolley.
‘Where would you like me to put my legs?’
I’m writing this from a plane seat, having paid for extra room and having been bumped by the airline. That’s nz$1000 gone and 17 hours of misery.
Qatar. Never again.
Aside: I also don’t recline without any empty seat or sleeping person behind.
I'm also over 6' and I don't understand the problem? The seats only recline a few degrees, it's not like they're laying on my lap! Even fully reclined there's plenty of space in front of my face, and leg room is barely impacted at all. (Like probably an inch max?)
Granted, I've only flown American and Delta, maybe other airlines are worse in this respect?
I'm 6'4" with a lot of my height in my legs. Sitting comfortably (not slouching, mind you), my knees already barely rub against the seat in front of me. As soon as that seat is reclined, my knees get crushed and I have to either sit up even straighter or twist to the side, neither of which are comfortable. Or, I have to pay to be in a higher fare class with more space.
Have you tried the exit row instead? Sure, you might have to agree to help others, but if you aren't willing to do that regardless of the row, then that just says a lot about you.
Yepp, I generally will try for the exit row or the first row in a section (sacrificing no under seat storage), but they tend to be the first seats booked. Since I'm usually traveling with multiple other people and we prefer sitting together, it makes it pretty difficult to reliably select those seats with extra leg room. I haven't seen any airlines that charge "+$25 for the extra leg room" on 12+ hour international flights, but if they exist I'd love to know which ones they are!
It's been awhile 2017ish, but I used to book flights for a team of photographers that traveled a lot. They all had their individual preferences for aisle/window, exit row. Maybe it was because they all had lots of butt-in-chair miles, but their upgrades were typically $25 for domestic US travel. Maybe I'm conflating that as the price for everyone when it was the price for their status only???
The physical requirements are an issue for a lot of people. E.g. a tall senior citizen, anyone flying with a small child, anyone with a visible disability (temporary or otherwise).
I know American at least has some rows with extra leg room that aren't the exit row. (Though obviously if you want more space you have to pay for it.) Not sure about others.
Yes, it's usually called "premium economy" or something like that. I was resistant for a long time, but eventually decided that being able to walk the next day without pain was worth the extra cost. That said, they tend to fill up quickly -- so not always an option.
Many airlines don't let you choose your seat without paying extra. But yeah, maybe if you're that tall that's just an unfortunate extra cost you have to bear.
At some point you have to do the math. Is +$25 for the extra leg room worth it for a 3 hour flight? 6 hour flight?
I flew from DFW to Sydney on a flight that was not fully booked. They made an announcement for a $150 upgrade to have an entire row to yourself. Once in the air, all of the armrests could be raised to allow you to lay flat. $150/17hours ~= $9/hour for a comfortable-ish sleep on a long haul flight. That's better math than the app subscription model threads have.
Those few degrees matter if your knees are already brushing the back of the seat in front of you. It matters how tall you are, how much of that is in your legs, how big your feet are (the more you need to bend your knees, the higher they will be), and it also varies depending on seat design and layout.
For others like me, one trick is to at most minimally use the under seat storage: small handbags only. No backpacks, briefcases, or anything else big enough to hold a laptop. Then, you can put your feet in that space. This lowers my knees by 1-2 inches depending on the plane, which really matters. It's the only thing that helps significantly, aside from paying for premium economy. Doesn't help with the claustrophobia, but there's not much to be done about that.
The other things I've tried (that don't reliably work) are leaning forward from the seat back (to pull my knees back) and slouching slightly (so that the inevitable recline compresses the seat back into my knees rather than bashing them). The former saves my knees, but sacrifices my back. The latter kind of helps during the flight, but walking will still hurt the next day.
> one trick is to at most minimally use the under seat storage [...] Then, you can put your feet in that space
Oh, interesting. I've always done that, it never really occurred to me that others might not. Even if you have a bigger bag you can always take it out during the flight to make space for your feet. That, plus crossing my legs allows me to have my legs flat against the chair (and therefore my knees well below the level where the person in front reclining would make much difference).
Well, it can be annoying to limit oneself to a smaller under-seat bag. Taking the bigger bag out during the flight uses up even more of the available space. I've generally got nowhere to put it except behind my legs (which cramps things a lot): on my lap doesn't work if I want to actually use anything in that bag.
It's easier to just pack my laptop (plus anything I might use during the flight) in my overhead bin carry-on. It's a real pain to actually get anything out of there, but a paperback book or ebook reader will fit in a coat pocket or small handbag -- and that's all I truly need on the plane. Plus, the airline won't be able to force you to check your overhead carry-on that way since the laptop has lithium batteries in it.
Why does leg length matter? Reclining doesn't impact leg room much since only the upper part of the seat is moving backwards any significant distance, and the space under the seat where my feet go is completely unaffected.
Are your legs so long you have to sit with your knees pressed against the back of the seat in front of you or something? If so I suppose that's understandable.
"Are your legs so long you have to sit with your knees pressed against the back of the seat in front of you or something? If so I suppose that's understandable."
Yes and also for people with long legs, seated in a typical airline seat, their knees will be significantly higher than the top of the seat cushion. So, they get caught up in the sweep of a reclining seatback ahead.
My legs are long enough there isn't room for them to press against the back of the seat. I'm either manspreading into the crevases between seats or in foetal position with my knees halfway up the seat in front of me. A person reclining is excruciating in the former, but in the latter position at least the person in front can't recline as there's no physical space for my body to become more compact. Flying is hell.
Yes, my knees often/always bump into the seat in front of me, even without it being reclined. If/when it is reclined it means my knees are pressed harder backwards.
When I can, I pay for extra leg room or get an aisle seat.
My opinion is strongly that seats should not be reclined. It is inconsiderate.
> I agree that sounds frustrating. Respectfully though, it sounds like you're a special case
It would be interesting to know the numbers on this. Height is not going to tell the answer though, you as people of the same height have wildly variably limb length.
I know half a dozen people who have the same issue and they vary from 1.9-2.1m tall.
I think once you get past the 95th percentile in any metric like that things start to get more difficult. I'm not even that tall and I sometimes have trouble finding pants that fit me. I imagine there are probably similar difficulties on the other end of the spectrum being below the 5th percentile.
I used to have so much trouble with pants (I need 30-34 in inches, 86.4cm long and about 76cm waist). No store had that size. I once got to the point where I considered leaning into my Scottish heritage and just wearing a kilt.
The internet has alleviated that for me, but if it hasn't for you -- look for pants with a large hem, and learn some basic sewing skills. It's occasionally possible to add an inch or more of length with the right pair.
Sure, my femurs are longer than most peoples, but they are with me on _every_ flight I take.
So it is kind of frustrating to me with people like in this thread explicitly saying "I do not care, I will recline my seat, it is not my problem if someone else suffers, they are just being entitled".
That's exactly how it usually happens in my experience. I think a lot of people are OK if everyones upright on short haul flights (here most budget airlines don't have a recline facility and it's not missed) but once someone reclines into your space you then recline to gain a little space back and the domino effect takes place even if you're not sleeping.
And then the person in the last row is screwed because they are in a seat that doesn't recline but the seat in front of them does, so they have to sit like a canned sardine for the entire flight(ask me how I know).
> Flights from sfo to Frankfurt bolt upright sound unpleasant
Same flight with someone's seat resting on your knees is downright painful.
> when my wife was pregnant
Imagine if she was a bit taller and someone reclined the seat all the way over her.
> The recline button is there for your use
You're right, like any shared resource, "space" is there for you to use. It doesn't mean you have to use it, you could try to be aware of your surroundings and assess whether your small comfort should come at the cost of someone else's extreme discomfort. And if you use the button others are also free, and probably correct, to call you a dick. Like a guy who empties the bowl of complimentary candy someone offers to all customers.
You shouldn't need physical blocks or laws to define your own common sense and decency.
I'm 185cm and I couldn't imagine having to endure a long haul flight without reclining.
I never get these discussions. It's only ever online that I see complaints. Almost everyone reclines on long flights. It's normal. It's expected. If it makes you uncomfortable that's a you problem, everyone else seems fine with it. If it makes you physically uncomfortable, pay for extra leg room. Don't make your problem the problem of another passenger.
> I never get these discussions. It's only ever online that I see complaints. everyone else seems fine with it
That's a skewed conclusion you're drawing. Are you really surprised that people aren't willing to risk escalating the situation on a plane, arguing with what's likely the very inconsiderate person in front of them? Most people have an aversion to conflict. It doesn't mean "they're fine with it". You probably don’t advertise in real life how much you lean back and not care who’s behind you out of fear that people will change your opinion of you. Real life is a harsh mistress.
I've bumped into people and they said "sorry", do you think they wanted me to bump into them, liked it, and actually believed it was their mistake? No, I just tower at close to 2m so they didn't want to escalate the situation.
P.S. I always look at who sits behind me, if they're "space constrained" or not, and almost always ask if I can recline. Sometimes I don't bother, clearly the person will suffer. Sometimes they said "I'd rather not, thank you". Many times they said "fine". I used to fly a lot and my experience was very clearly not that "everyone is fine". I was never fine even if I didn't start arguing. So how would you have known?
I've literally never been on a 5+ hour flight where anyone in the row in front of me didn't recline at some point.
I've discussed this with various people IRL. No one, including taller people than me, ever complained about people being inconsiderate for reclining. Every tall person complains about leg room.
The vast majority of people do not think it's inconsiderate to recline. They think it's normal and that the function is there for a reason.
I actually think it's inconsiderate to complain to the person in front if they want to recline. The only time that is acceptable is when meals are served.
Anecdotal, but I'm 193cm, take a few 12+ hour flights per year, and have no problem not reclining. For what it's worth, I feel like I've experienced people on my shorter, domestic flights reclining their seats more often than on my longer, international flights.
You're tall so you can't sit upright? :P Do you need to lean backwards when you work too? I think you are wrong and a lot of people are not fine with it. I don't need a closeup view of someone's bald spot while trying to eat shitty airplane food.
Mainly because they were introduced when the seats were set farther apart. Now companies squeeze more rows and keep the same seats.
But also because with any shared resource there's an expectation of decency involved. Some people just betray that expectation. They're the ones with the mentality that "they shouldn't have served alcohol if they didn't want me to get insufferably drunk", "they shouldn't have put the candy out if they didn't want me to take all of it", "why is the swing there in the park if not for my kids to use them continuously to the disappointment of other kids".
When your wife was pregnant someone probably let her go ahead in a queue, have her some priority for something, etc. That was a person with common sense and decency, not asking "why do queues exist", who doesn't do something only if there's a law about it.
I’m several inches over 6’ and if I don’t get a fire exit seat I’m highly likely to get seated behind someone who will call me “extremely rude” for wrangling uncomfortably and bumping their seat uncontrollably when they inevitably decide that extra 6 degrees of recline is worth more than my knee cartilage.
People generally didn’t even offer her a seat on the metro. And letting other people decide whether you should be permitted to use the functionality the airline has given you is dysfunctional people pleasing.
Your "dysfunctional people pleasing" is someone else's "not being a total dick". As I said, there's no law against it. It's all about character and education (or lack thereof). Some people even think they must brag about it because why else would they have a mouth and keyboard.
I still see ashtrays on older plans, trains, and boats. Sometimes older stuff is left there because it's not financially advantageous to replace it. You can use the recline button to your liking, but it can be inconsiderate to do it. Traveler discretion is advised.
A question you can always ask yourself is "should I do it just because I can do it?". It will stop you from being needlessly inconsiderate many times, and maybe even make you a better person.
It's the 21st century. Blowhards of the world united with the miracle of technology are moaning at any attempt of common sense regulation. This will become culture wars material right away.
I think the secret of Ryanair is that their goal is actually to make their turnarounds as fast and efficient as possible, not explicitly to make money by adding a fee for every little aspect of the service.
If anything can possibly slow down flight boarding, disembarking or cleanup, they'll first try to remove it completely, and only if people object too much will they reluctantly offer it with a fee.
Pocket on the seat back -> most people don't use on short flights -> get rid of them.
Luggage -> most people need this, but not everyone -> charge a fee.
Reclining seat -> most people don't use on short flights -> get rid of them.
They do sell drinks and duty free; that's an interesting one. I guess once the flight is airborne, the flight attendants aren't really doing anything else (from management's perspective) so they might as well sell stuff. Plus the trolley blocking the aisle stops passengers from moving around, which they probably see as a big advantage.
I think this even applies to the ridiculous penalty fees they charge for e.g. trying to check in at the airport rather than doing it beforehand on the app. It feels like they're just trying to rip you off, but I suspect they see it more as a "nudge" to make people check in online, because that streamlines their airport process.
I got a little bit less annoyed by them when I realised this. Sure, it's still uncomfortable and sometimes infuriating, but it's all with the aim of an efficient and reliable service, and they're way better than average at that.
> It feels like they're just trying to rip you off, but I suspect they see it more as a "nudge" to make people check in online, because that streamlines their airport process.
I believe the airline pays the airport for every check in and luggage handling transaction. They are just cutting costs.
Ryanair makes little to no money from passengers, nowadays it's mainly from selling airplanes.
They were still profitable during COVID without even carrying passengers at some point, only thanks to their flying school, which thanks to social dumping and the UE, allow them to charge 40k€ per wannabe pilot without even guaranteeing them a hire.
They booked 2000 737max, with their own special version during COVID+MCAS disaster, they paid it dirt cheap.
Then they operate them marginally, and now that the traffic has gone up again and the delay between buying and receiving a Max is about 8 years, they sell them back for a huge profit.
Do you have a link for that? It sounds interesting but a bit unlikely. It's hard to see how charging for pilot training, even at 40K a pop, would be a sustainable business.
The thing about buying planes is also interesting, but sounds like a sneaky business move rather than the actual foundation of the business.
I've always heard that nobody really makes money from passengers, which is why airlines are always going bankrupt, and I'm sure Ryanair's margins are super skinny. But even so, it does seem like moving passengers around is the core of their business, rather than it just being a front for something else.
Reclining seats are more expensive and heavier. The target customer for a low cost flight is cost sensitive and more resistant to "punishment". The expense would be hard to recuperate.
It's a collective action problem: it can't be solved by individuals like this. All you'll achieve is complicity in wage theft. A viable approach might be to prefer doing business with companies who promise their workers a good wage, but this requires that your local businesses actually make that commitment. To get that, you'll have to go outside the abstraction of the market, and actually talk to decisionmakers within the businesses. (This is sometimes called "activism".)
No, I disagree that other peoples ethical failures spread to you if you don't participate in the ethical failure. If you disagree on ethical grounds with something, just don't do it. To the extent that you could simply not frequent those places.
With the passage of time more and more things have been discovered through precision. Through identifying small errors in some measurement and pursuing that to find the cause.
It's not precision that's the problem, but understanding when something has been falsified. For instance the Lorentz transformations work as a perfectly fine ad-hoc solution to Michelson's discovery. All it did was make the aether a bit more esoteric in nature. Why do you then not simply shrug, accept it, and move on? Perhaps even toss some accolades towards Lorentz for 'solving' the puzzle? Michelson himself certainly felt there was no particularly relevant mystery outstanding.
For another parallel our understanding of the big bang was, and probably is, wrong. There are a lot of problems with the traditional view of the big bang with the horizon problem [1] being just one among many - areas in space that should not have had time to interact behave like they have. So this was 'solved' by an ad hoc solution - just make the expansion of the universe go into super-light speed for a fraction of a second at a specific moment, slow down, then start speeding up again (cosmic inflation [2]) - and it all works just fine. So you know what we did? Shrugged, accepted it, and even gave Guth et al a bunch of accolades for 'solving' the puzzle.
This is the problem - arguably the most important principle of science is falsifiability. But when is something falsified? Because in many situations, probably the overwhelming majority, you can instead just use one falsification to create a new hypothesis with that nuance integrated into it. And as science moves beyond singular formulas derived from clear principles or laws and onto broad encompassing models based on correlations from limited observations, this becomes more and more true.
But most people aren't that great at their jobs.
reply