Those are colony insects that have a cooperative survival strategy. Japanese beetles don't do that as far as I'm aware.
Pledging to vote for someone despite the genocide means they have no incentive to stop the genocide. That is the more dangerous stance.
Ballots are secret. There is no way to prove how you voted once the ballot is sumbmitted. The optimal play is to make a lot of noise saying that your vote is contingent on an end to the genocide, even if that isn't how you actually vote on election day.
Pledging to vote for biden at this point is encouragement. Why would he do anything about palestine if he knows you're going to vote for him anyway?
I appreciate the recommendation, that sounds like a fun community!
No... That's why I want biden to step down.
If any democrats want my vote they have to replace biden.
Isn't a crash screen the last place you should your branding?
They want to advertise a $2 chicken box without actually selling chicken for $2.
What even is the point of this debate? They've both had a term in office. We know how both of them actually govern the actual country. What can this debate possibly convey that the past 8 years of governance hasn't?
I bought an old business monochrome laser printer ten years ago. Still hasn't needed a new toner cartridge.
The piano for when dodecaphony doesn't subvert tonality nearly enough.
Under because that way you can model it by making a cylinder and adding a plane to it, because the plane is attached to the back you don't have to do the extra work of making sure the textures line up.
You actually can run the engines in reverse. They have thrust reversers. There's very good reasons that they do not reverse the plane from the stand using the engines, but it is possible.
If they made you forget, why would they admit to it on a sign? Does that make any sense whatsoever?
Her plane is worse than most. Its one of the last trijets in production. Planes with a small number of large engines are more efficient than planes with many small engines, which is why modern planes are all twinjets with wide high-bypass engines.
Airlines care about fuel efficiency. A minor reduction in fuel burn results in increased profits, and they operate large fleets. A small increase in efficiency across an entire fleet is huge. If you own a private jet, you are spending huge amounts of money to have one, the cost of fuel would only be a minor concern.
The solution to private jets is regulation. Private jets don't need to exist. They don't need to be replaced by another kind of airplane. The solution is to replace all planes on overland routes with electrified rail. Let the rich buy private railcars for transport.
I'm not skeptical on the concept of small aircraft. I wanted to give context because very few people will picture bush planes and puddle jumpers from the mention of "commercial aviation."
PS: My calculations for fuel burn were based on comparing the range to the fuel capacity. Those are the numbers I have ready access. Planes are much less efficient when the tanks are full, and swift's plane has a longer range, so it's probably not quite as bad as my calculations indicate on comparable flights.
The carbon comes from the fuel. Burning a ton of jet fuel will release the same amount of carbon regardless of the plane that burns it.
Taylor Swift's plane is a Dassault Falcon 7X. It weighs around 17 tons and seats 12 to 16 passengers.
Her plane burns 60% less fuel than a 737 MAX 8. However, her plane holds 9% of the passengers of the MAX 8, so its far less efficient per passenger than typical commercial aircraft.
Private planes are not a huge contributor to carbon emissions in comparison to others. They're bad, obviously. But there are far more commercial airplanes, and they fly much more frequently than private jets.
Private jets get people's attention. One person being directly responsible for that much carbon is notable is unconscionable. But it's the scale of transportation overall that is the issue.
I got the number from wikipedia. Following the references, the number came from a BP datasheet about Jet A-1, where it is listed on a typical properties table, and the number is the net specific energy, which means it accounts for the inefficiency of the engines. Or at least that's my assumption.
All the weights listed were operating empty weight. The battery planes will be even smaller than the planes I listed for comparison.
Weights of planes vary in flight, so I picked the one that disadvantages the point I'm trying to make in the interest of fairness.
Trains don't need to store the energy at all. Pantographs are a mature technology. High speed renewable long haul transportation is a technologically solved problem for all overland routes, it just requires infrastructure investment.