One third is next to impossible. Anecdotally, startup survival rate should be around 5-10%. However, that should still yield better results than distributing the money amongst SAP and Deutsche Telekom.
The point of the standard was to avoid power supplies becoming useless and going into the trash once the device they came with is no longer being used.
Yes, that's obvious considering the PR they used about the weight and number of chargers hitting landfill welhen advocating for the spec. But the inclusion of the Micro USB plug in the standard, as well as the name, suggested they wanted a single plug.
(I should add, I think a single plug, mandated by any kind of law - voulentary or not - is an overreach of government, as the best plug will change... Micro USB was the best (Standard) at the time. USB-C, despite its issues, is that today. Hence - I'd like a standard for chargers, but one that moves with reality..
I don't think the EU ever mandated any particular kind of plug, to my knowledge all they demanded was that the vendors find a common standard and use that and micro USB A was the compromise reached, which atm is being updated to USB C and expected to last a bit longer than µUSB-A.
Apple still hasn't been convinced. The only way to enforce things from happening in society, is by law and by following up on that law if it isn't being adhered. That you don't like specific laws is a given; we all have that problem. A burglar doesn't like anti burglar law. A squatter doesn't like anti squatting law. A heroin user doesn't like anti heroin law. And Apple doesn't like laws demanding them to use certain connectors for chargers.
I’m stumped as to why they would pick such a ridiculously low sampling rate. Crashes often play out in minutes, wouldn’t it make more sense to have sub-minute resolution? Or is sending a location ping more complicated than I think?
I'm completely spitballing because what few articles I looked at didn't really answer that question. I'd wager it comes down to money. If events like MH370 are extremely rare then how much money is worth spending on it? If an event like MH370 happened tomorrow and we knew where it crashed how likely is it to change the outcome?
I'm not trolling and I don't know the answer to that last one. But I'm assuming the general consensus is that it wouldn't change anything - a plane would be down and everyone would still be dead. So instead of mandating an expensive overhaul of everything that can feed more data constantly I assume they're probably trying to make some already in place tech fill the gap and it has limits. I am entirely speculating on that though. But when in doubt, something usually comes down to a cost-benefit analysis.
"But I'm assuming the general consensus is that it wouldn't change anything - a plane would be down and everyone would still be dead"
When you know the exact crash site, you can send help more accurate and therefore faster to save people, as airplanes can sometimes make a emergency water landing...
And in general I don't quite get it. GPS exists, so does Sattelite communication. And sure, for one private person it is quite expensive, but for an Airliner??
> "airplanes can sometimes make a emergency water landing..."
But in those events the planes have transponders/beacons that will tell you where they are. Remember with MH370 the pilot disabled it and then, to the best our knowledge, pointed the plane at the water.
Considering that every android phone (literally billions of units) sends a location update every 5-10 minutes directly to Google, and nobody cares about the cost, why would airplanes transmitting continuous location updates be too costly?
While true, if the airplanes already send 15 minutes updates, the infrastructure is already there. It seems logical simply increasing the ping frequency should not lead to a proportional increase in cost.
The goal is just to narrow down the search area after a crash. Even at 700 MPH you can only cover 175 miles in 15 minutes. That's a pretty tractable area to search for a blackbox ping. And that's if they have no other info about the crash.
100K square miles is a pretty big area to search. Actually more than that since a plane cruising at 30K feet could glide quite far if it maintained some airframe integrity.
This is the only missing modern airliner in memory. Black-boxes and the existing electronic traces of their communications have been enough to find pretty much every major commercial crash for the last 50 years.
In reality tracking commercial airliners in real time is less useful for improving safety than better black boxes that collect more data.
The article said that as well. Although, oddly, it says "when they're in trouble.."
>New aircraft must broadcast their locations every minute when they’re in trouble, but only from January 2021. A gradual tightening of requirements starts in November, when airlines must track planes every 15 minutes under regulations adopted by the United Nations’ International Civil Aviation Organization.
There's already in many areas a requirement for aeroplanes to provide ADS-C via Inmarsat satellite updates at 15 minute intervals so that makes it easy to regulate (just increased cost making it global) https://www.aviationtoday.com/2015/09/25/ads-c-makes-increas...
"Under the rules taking effect in 2021, a plane would switch to one-minute tracking automatically when systems detected it was in distress because of turbulence, mechanical difficulties or an unexplained change in course, such as during a hijacking or if the crew became unconscious.
Pilots couldn’t turn the system off after it activates automatically, ICAO said. The system would deactivate itself once the plane was flying safely again.
However, a pilot could turn off the system if it was manually activated.
The challenges tied to minute-by-minute tracking include adding computing power and internet bandwidth to process larger volumes of data. The tighter system also may require reserving more space on the flurry of satellites being launched to satisfy demands for constant internet connectivity."
You can't actually get that far in 15 minutes even at full speed, so 15 minutes is a high enough resolution to at least enable search parties to find the black box, which will hold much better data than can be transmitted anyway.
I know this is anecdotal, but I‘ve taken about 8 years and 10 attempts to successfly quit smoking. On half of those attempts, I made it past the 28-day mark, even past five months on one attempt before relapsing. Physical withdrawal is easy, staying on top of your mind is much harder. I’m at 2+ years now. I‘d say a year of not smoking is a meaningful predictor of not relapsing. 28 days shows you‘re making a serious effort.
I was thinking of dealers selling heroin in particular, since that feels like the appropriate thing to compare fentanyl-pushing MDs to, but in a broader sense, your point is if course correct.
Ironically, fentanyl is more dangerous than heroin and a large amount of heroin overdose have supposedly been because fentanyl was mixed in with the heroin unbeknownst to the user.
It's more dangerous in street drugs because it is potent at extremely low doses, so poorly mixed drugs can contain fatal doses very easily.
In a controlled setting, where the dose is precisely known, that is not an issue. I did some reading of fentanyl vs. morphine a while ago, and found that fentanyl is often preferred for acute pain due to faster onset, shorter duration (which may make controlling adverse reactions/overdoses easier), fewer side-effects and less histamine release. Specifically:
> When adverse event rates were counted across both the out-of-hospital and ED phases, morphine's and fentanyl's safety levels were extremely close, erasing even the suggestion of a trend toward safety in one drug or the other. Our data do not suggest that further work should be done to try to determine which drug is safer: The low absolute rates and small difference between the two drugs make it unlikely that this difference would become either clinically or statistically significant, even with a larger sample size.
I don't believe the notion that fentanyl is per se more dangerous, rather than being dangerous when misused/poorly handled, is supported.
Fentanyl is also far more addictive due to its rapid onset and short duration of effect. Not that they give that stuff to anybody other than cancer patients and those undergoing anesthesia. But in theory it’s more dangerous.
It’s more dangerous because you don’t know how much you’re getting on the streets. In a prescription, it’s a regulated medicine that is exactly the amount the label says.
I’m not defending the doctor but the point being made doesn’t apply.
there is, and generally has been, a very healthy level of self-criticism within the USA. based on polling numbers most people dont approve of the current administration, and the primary messages of both the democratic and republican parties are essentially "the leadership of our country is screwed up and we are a morally deteriorating society"
not to say that people in the USA aren't ignorant or arrogant, but there certainly is a lot of expressed disdain for the government / politicians
This is subjective and very anecdotal, so take with a heap of salt:
My 2016 Skylake MBP used to crash very regularly when waking it up from suspend (sometimes multiple times a day). When I first heard about this issue a week ago, I used XCode Instruments to disable Hypterthreading.
Also anecdotal but I am experiencing no crashes with HT off on my 2016 MBPr. Be sure to turn HT off after a sleep/wake cycle as it gets reset each time.
