> Bridge maintenance is sorely needed across the whole country.
Not just that, but also to rethink how we reinforce them in major waterways or even minor but navigable waterways, if any heavy enough boat can just crash into a support column and take the whole thing down... albeit accidentally in that case.
Shipping incidents taking out major spans is a once in a quarter century kind of event in the US (at the very most). Smaller spans get taken out every decade or so. So it is a known problem.
Most modern bridges do take into account the possibility that there will be collisions. But it is also very hard to protect against a collision with an object that weighs 100k tons or more. By the time the boat is crashing into the bridge it’s too late. The solution is to design better systems around preventing things from getting to that point.
A good analogy is airport security. We are very bad at keeping weapons off planes. The TSA routinely fails to find knives and guns. The reason we haven’t had any more 9/11s isn’t because we made buildings airplane proof or because TSA doesn’t let box cutters through (they absolutely do). It’s because we learned to pre-empt coordinated well organized attacks using intelligence, and we hardened physical security at the cockpit door (I’m guessing mostly the latter).
>It’s because we learned to pre-empt coordinated well organized attacks using intelligence, and we hardened physical security at the cockpit door (I’m guessing mostly the latter).
You're forgetting the REAL reason airplanes are basically not hijacked anymore: Flight 93.
It used to be, if you threatened to blow up an airplane, the passengers would largely choose not to confront them, because the SOP of hijacking was to land somewhere and negotiate. Indeed this desire to not rock the boat actually turned one hijacking by drunk teens into a catastrophe when the hijackers were too stupid to understand that a plane couldn't just fly to Australia without picking up more fuel, Ethiopian Airlines Flight 961.
9/11 changed that risk calculus for passengers. Now everybody knows what hijackers COULD do, and are willing to endure some danger to prevent that, to the point we've kind of overcorrected and people are yelling at and harassing fellow passengers for non-issues.
I think I see an underlying point though. What other Internet protocol or service requires the user client to supply endless additional arbitrary metadata to even gain access to a resource, let alone receive information? Not even email is that cumbersome for the clientside. Although it is the way it is for better or worse.
At that point, nonacquiescence is the only remedy, for the FAA to simply ignore the ruling. The executive branch also has more guns than the judicial branch. I would love to think that anyone in any position of regulatory power involving public safety with any shred of sanity would simply ignore the recent ruling, continue business as usual, and have the backing by the sheer monopoly on the legitimate use of force that the executive branch always had since the civil war (where nonacquiescence was invoked, because what was SCOTUS going to do about it? Lincoln had many more guns), but everything I just said implies some really... uncertain times ahead.
I think it was the ballot box, the jury box, and then the ammo box? Not that I think something is going to give violently per se or I mean to scaremonger, but it's hard to feel confident about the country's future in my lifetime with everything that's unfolded so far.
Personal anecdote: that actually saved an important doctor appointment. "URGENT MESSAGE WHEN FLASHING". Well, lights were flashing, guess we could tune to it and hear what it has to say. Sure enough, it announced a traffic jam on our route a few miles ahead that Google Maps vastly underestimated (usually it's been good about that) and we were able to avoid it. Thanks TNDOT.
It was because a chemical truck crashed apparently, on our drive back home it was still there with specialized hazmat emergency vehicles around.
I THINK it is FM, narrow FM. My SDR receives some attenuated incomplete-sounding signal when switched to AM on 162.55 MHz even if I widen the bandwidth, and switching to narrow FM gets me the same clarity and volume as my actual weather radio provided I lower the gain a little.
Makes me think that TikTok and YT pranksters are accidentally producing psychological data on what makes people tick under scenarios of extreme deliberate annoyance. Although the quality (and importance) of that data is obviously highly variable and probably not very high, and depends on what the prank is.
As another layperson, I understand it as the physics equivalent of solving for x, but far less trivial. We figure it must exist because it's a missing puzzle piece in the mathematics that accurately predicts everything else. This is reinforced by observations of indirect effects that aren't accounted for in the current math.
That's the case for cable Internet, which I wager is a large plurality of Internet connections in the US. At least Charter for the past few years has been rolling out equipment along their cable network to support more uplink bandwidth for symmetrical service, called "high split" I think. I'm still waiting on my area to get the high split treatment.
Would be interesting to see how minimal they could make the overhead, since that's one of their goals. I wonder what the lower limit might be. That would have broad implications for basically everything else in userspace.
Ah, the dream of fully-featured, performant M:N threading. Spawn tasks left and right, optimize with a small declarative config, and sit back and relax. I'm very interested to see how close we can get.
Not just that, but also to rethink how we reinforce them in major waterways or even minor but navigable waterways, if any heavy enough boat can just crash into a support column and take the whole thing down... albeit accidentally in that case.