I ran into the same issue with my play group. I told them that I will only learn 3 new games a year.
Since I added the rule about a decade ago, we've never once hit the 3 game limit. Just having the rule made them rethink if it was worth learning a new game or playing one we had a lot fun with already.
I suspect we'll address this by just going back to older ranking algorithms for search. We'll go back to the primary signal of good content being links from trusted sources.
People gaming the content based algorithms will eventually cause their own downfall.
> As pointed out by another commenter the NBER has never failed to declare a recession after two consecutive quarters of GDP reduction.
That isn't 100% accurate. There is 1 example from 1947 where we had two consecutive quarters of negative GDP, but positive jobs, positive industrial production and positive consumer spending and NBER doesn't consider it a recession.
2001 was the opposite. It was called a recession without consecutive 2 quarters of negative GDP growth. [1]
Great question! Not that I'm aware of (EDIT:
sseagull provided a good example in 1947). To be fair, I can't think of any time where we've seen 2 quarters of negative GDP growth while maintaining "full" employment and wage growth. This is an unusual recession if it is a recession.
I'd say listen to the economists that are actually apart of the group and form your own opinion. I didn't get that impression personally. Although I'm sure there is some impact.
Both of those are up to the consensus of the group of economists. They regularly talk about it with each other and compare with historical data mostly. Keep in mind economics is a social science, not exact science.
It would strike me more as "feeling it out", but they are not in a rush to announce it is or is not a recession until they have a better feel. Everyone seems to be rushing to call it a recession as early as possible. The economist I heard talking had a "wait and see" attitude on the podcast which was refreshing to hear.
In the USA, "officially" a group of 8 economists at the National Bureau of Economic Research decides when a recession starts. I suspect other countries have their own definitions.
"The NBER's definition emphasizes that a recession involves a significant decline in economic activity that is spread across the economy and lasts more than a few months. In our interpretation of this definition, we treat the three criteria—depth, diffusion, and duration—as somewhat interchangeable. That is, while each criterion needs to be met individually to some degree, extreme conditions revealed by one criterion may partially offset weaker indications from another. For example, in the case of the February 2020 peak in economic activity, the committee concluded that the subsequent drop in activity had been so great and so widely diffused throughout the economy that, even if it proved to be quite brief, the downturn should be classified as a recession." [1]
Planet Money (podcast on NPR) did an episode [2] a little while ago about it that I recommend listening to. They talk with one of the 8 economists. It was honestly refreshing hearing the economist talk about it, I got the impression that it was a more neutral take on the circumstances rather than pushing a narrative.
"Many of the F-16's past problems are mirror images of the issues we see in the F-35. According to the article, the Air Force expected the F-16's research and development costs rose by some $7 billion to reach $13.8 billion by 1986.... The fly-by-wire mechanism of the F-16, in which an aerodynamically unstable but highly maneuverable aircraft was tamed by computers to keep it flying, was an expensive problem that was eventually solved. Like the F-35, the F-16 had problems with its engine and also had to be modified to placate U.S. allies who wanted a fighter capable of air-to-ground missions, a real multi-role fighter. " [1]
Almost all of them have similar stories from what I've seen. To be fair, most of these were developed before I was born so I certainly could be missing some context from that time period.
While there are certainly issues, the issues are more with the procurement process than the actual aircraft.
Virtually every single aircraft program has been flogged by the press for being too expensive and less capable than the aircraft it replaced. This included the F-111, the C-5, the F-14, the F-15, the B-1, the F-16, the A-10, the F-18, the C-17, the B-2, the V-22, the F-22, and now the F-35. Overall the track record for these aircraft turned out to be outstanding, far exceeding the capabilities of their predecessors.
The actual track record for the F35 has been very positive. Most the reports I've seen from pilots are generally very positive [1].
Other countries continue to buy it over other platforms [2].
Most the major complaints are around costs compared to the aircraft that are being replaced, but this isn't a fair comparison.
As for the cost to fly the F-35, a unit measure the Air Force terms “cost per flying hour,” today the F-35 costs around $35,000 per flying hour. Comparative aircraft in this class are generally in the mid $20,000s, a target the F-35 is slated to hit by 2025. However, it must also be remembered, as the F-35 pilot’s above comment highlights, far fewer F-35s can accomplish far more with fewer aircraft than legacy aircraft types. It does not require a math major to understand this yields far lower real-world total costs to achieve a particular mission result. [3]
1. Taking a shot in the dark - Maybe check your ethernet cables? Not all ethernet cables are the same. If it's a cheap / old ethernet cable then it might not be rated for the same kinds of speed as your wifi. There is a chart on this page labeled "Ethernet Cable Performance Summary" with some stats for different ethernet cables.
2. Yes, although in my experience this is very minor. On my network - good wifi has a 3ms latency and good ethernet has a .3ms latency. While that is a 10x improvement, in the scheme of things I don't notice 3ms of latency. I live in a high rise condo with lots of interference in a major city and can't say it's caused me any issues.
"Gregory Travis, a veteran software engineer and experienced, instrument-rated pilot who has flown aircraft simulators as large as the Boeing 757"
I know a few veteran software engineers that are instrument-rated and frankly I'm not sure I would listen to any of them over the FAA or aeronautical engineers. Probably good for some perspective, but not exactly a great source for determining if an airplane is "aerodynamically flawed by design".
Just curious, what would it take for you to get on a 737-Max?
European and American regulators have gone over it with a fine tooth comb at this point and allow it to fly. There is always gonna be people that will say the plane shouldn't fly. Arguably the amount of attention this plane has gotten will probably make it one of the safest in the industry going forward.
Different aerodynamics probably had a little impact but it's mostly just a much better power to weight ratio. It helps that you didn't launch a raspberry pi and battery :)
The article talks about the airline focusing on shorter routes and cutting the longer routes that they were losing money on. Even if the airline doesn't go through bankruptcy the long haul routes at the same price will probably no longer be around.
"However, with the scheduled flights gradually resuming, the airline is restructuring its fleet and focusing on short- and medium-range destinations. Europe’s fourth-largest low-cost carrier will likely completely discontinue the long-haul flights that sank the company into debt."
