Seeker

Best eclipse joke I heard: The Sun was doing an impersonation of Justin Trudeau doing black-face!

Your first article is from 2017 - research stage, looking for partners. No takers and no project. Even with current energy prices it's s no-go. So, yeah, it works but isn't economical. Your second article actually refers to a couple of large commercial projects - no word on whether they are economic or virtual signaling. Your third article refers to the concept but, alas, no projects. My point stands - it's not an economically viable. BTW, I'm not arguing against doing research or looking for new ideas. I'm simply saying this particular project did not lead us where we want to be and I'd be surprised if it produced much value.

Yeah, don't know if I'd call it "bold". Centrally heating a number of buildings from a single main heating plant has been around since forever. If anything I'd call it "derivative". You are correct in that a modern system might be made better than this version but don't forget that everything else has improved too. Natural gas heating systems have gone from 75% efficiency to 95% or 98%. Insulation, heat recovery systems, argon filled windows - all improved. I'd be willing to bet that a modern gas furnace in a modern home would cost significantly less to build and run than any hot water system. If you really want efficiency you'd build homes with in-floor radiant heating electrically powered from the nearby modular nuclear plant. One more point - if the system was so bold and forward-looking how many similar projects have been built since? The article has this interesting statement: "at one point welcomed guests from around the world to show off the groundbreaking technology. The international visitors wanted to see first-hand how energy from the hot summer sun could be collected and stored and then released in a harsh Canadian winter to heat the community's houses." Great. So how many of those international visitors went back home and built similar systems? Zero, as far as I can tell. Why? Because it wasn't economical at all.

It's not just about maintenance. Take a look at the actual costs; $15 million for the initial installation and services 52 homes for 25 years. By my math that works out to $1000/month per home. The system certainly didn't save any money. The article states that the system provides for 90% of the heat with natural gas providing the rest so the true cost is even higher. Did it produce less greenhouse gas? Maybe, but you'd need to figure out how much was produced in the production and installation of the hugely complicated system. The article above says that the homes were significantly more insulated and airtight than standard home construction and they are 1500-1700 sq feet which is smaller than the average. With this in mind the heating cost should be significantly less than the average. So, the state-of-the-art system managed to heat 52 homes are greater cost than a regular heating system. But, it was a research project, right? So now it could be rebuilt to be more efficient and lower cost, right? I wouldn't bet on it.

I'm certainly no expert on this but my recollection is that when the anchor is dropped that you need 4 to 5 times the lateral distance to depth. Not only this but the anchor is not dropped while the ship is moving as you overrun it which causes all sorts of problems. Basically you need to know which way the current is flowing, position the ship so that it's facing up current, stop it and release the anchor. You can't just throw it out at any time - this would be the equivalent of a car getting in trouble and just grabbing and setting the emer brake and saying "Well, it will come to a stop eventually".

I don't know the answer but I found this: https://www.webmd.com/brain/are-smelling-salts-safe

The signs are obvious. For those buying tickets - consider carefully.

When I get my BBQ propane tank filled at Costco it cost about $12. When I get my tank filled at a local gas station it costs about $20. When I swap tanks at the Sobey's it costs about $30. When you swap batteries not only do you need to pay for the energy in the battery but also the facility to perform the swap, the upkeep, maintenance and replacement for a pool of batteries. And, don't forget - the profit for the company providing the service. I would guess that the total cost would be 400% higher than charging at home. Battery swapping might be possible but in the video it mentions that it's mostly taxis that have gotten onboard. Like most places I would assume the taxi fleet has settled in on one type of vehicle therefore only one type of battery to swap. Can you imagine trying to start such a business where there are 40 different types of batteries? Of course I've never even heard of a vehicle in NA that is setup for this.

Even better - hold the executives criminally responsible.

That was my question as well. Airbus got the whole thing for free - how in the world can it be losing money?

Any list that includes Pearson in a "Best" category - for anything - is obviously flawed (or being bought off) and should be ignored.

I love these kinds of statements. I realize what you are saying is; there is no significant aircraft system affected by the loss of this panel. This is correct. The problem of course is that the fact this panel departed shows the company failed to detect some underlying problem - much worse, potentially, than the panel that blew off if it means other things might also have undetected problems.

I have zero confidence in anything a passenger would have to say. They misunderstand, embellish, seek fame, modify their re-telling to try to set up for compensation, etc, etc. With that being said it's possible that the pilot may have given a hastily crafted explanation in the heat of the moment hoping to cover for some error. Probably didn't expect it to go any further than the one dude he told. These days I pretty much assume that anything I do is being recorded so I either stick to the truth or say nothing at all.

If you had the tray on your lap and the seat was moved contact/pushing the CC would be more likely but you'd have to be really zoned out not to notice it happening. Maybe the pilot was a big fat dude, maybe he was sitting sideways in the seat, maybe it's a story to cover something else happening? Personally, I find it to be a big relief that it's a simple human error rather than some deep complicated software problem. Boeing will issue an alert telling crews to be careful with the seat buttons, the operators will tell the crews to be careful with the seat buttons, the issue will get added to the list of points to be taught during line indoc. Done.

Not only is it covered but the switch is recessed. It's 2-position rocker switch that moves the seat fore and aft (and a little outboard when at the rearmost travel). The switch is spring-loaded to the off position and the seat moves slowly. Seems like a plausible explanation but both the pilot and FA would have to be completely oblivious to the movement of the seat for it to get to the state where the controls were affected.

NSFW, wives or grandkids (but really funny!).

I watched it. Obviously fake! Seen better production values in a Hollywood "B" movie!

I did this exact calculation 10 years to decide whether it was worth buying a diesel car (VW golf). They cost significantly more to buy but were cheaper to run. In the end I determined that I drove nowhere near enough to offset the initial cost. I'm quite pleased with myself because I had calculated, back-of-an-envelop, that a person would need to drive 100kms/day for work to make an EV worthwhile - got it very close to what the article says.

Those look like good fun. How old are the grandkids?

I like dogs but don't have one. I always thought it would be good to train your dog to walk on your right side to have it outside the "interaction zone" with others you might pass. Is this a thing? On a related note dogs in Europe are completely different from dogs in North America. In Europe dogs completely ignore anyone other than their owners - walking down a trail and meet someone with a dog - the dog will not approach or interact with anyone at all. Walking along and meet someone sitting on a bench with a dog - the dog completely ignores you. It's weird. Good, but seems strange. The reason, apparently, is that other people completely ignore the dogs and therefore there is no reason or payoff for the dog to interact with anyone - not going to get petted , etc.

Radpower?

There's only one thing that bikes do that regularly annoys me - passing me without ringing their bell. They are so quiet that it's startling when they go past without making their presence known. I always ring my bell when approaching someone walking or riding from behind and I do it from far enough away that they have time to move over. I must say however that people walking dogs are a bigger annoyance to me whether I'm walking or riding than people on bikes.

I agree with restricting these bikes from sidewalks but that's the current rule for bikes anyways, isn't it? As for restricting them from bike lanes - got to disagree with that. These bikes are limited to 30 mph which is not out of line with any other bikes and they are slow to accelerate - they mix in with other bikes quite nicely. If you put them out in the regular traffic lanes they would be a hazard to vehicles and to the riders.

I stopped by the Pedego shop in Calgary and spent some time with the owner - seems like he would be a decent guy to deal with. I've ridden a few different bikes now and the advice I would give is that you have to really spend some time on thinking about how you will use the bike. Cargo/utility, cruiser, e-mountain, small tire, big tire, skinny tire, wide tire, suspension, hardtail - they can all be found in the e-bike market but will give vastly different riding experiences. Buy a utility bike and try to ride it off-road and you will be unhappy. Buy an e-mountain bike and try to use it to bring home a case of beer and you will be unhappy. An e-mountain bike being ridden off-road is fantastic and a utility bike carries a case of beer like it was born to it (which it was). its