At least 7

You can count numbers but they use < in maths. QED.

Computer code is very complicated, so when humans write code we write in a way we can understand. We name functions and variables with names that make sense, and we put comments in the code so we can understand how it works.

Compliers don’t care about any of those things. Variable names are turned into numbers, and comments are ignored.

You can convert machine code back to source code, it will be missing all those human readable labels and explanations. You can recreate them, but its a major process. Reverse engineering is done sometimes, but there’s a reason is not common.

There’s also the issue of licensing. An important part of free and/or open source software is that you have permission to modify the source code. You probably don’t have a license to use the code if its closed source. There are ways to do this legally but it adds extra hurdles and inconvenience to an already major process.

BLM and the forest service are pretty okay.

Domestic buyers can be just as much of a risk as foreign buyers. We should abolish land ownership for national security reasons.

Russia now has a social credit system just like china and also the united states

Yes… That’s why I mentioned it.

The court’s ruling prevents the president from being personally charged criminally for official acts during the presidency. The ruling doesn’t give the executive branch unlimited powers. The ruling doesn’t put the executive branch above the authority of the courts. The ruling doesn’t force federal employees to blindly follow any order given by the president. Courts and congress can stop the executive branch. The checks and balances still exist.

The president can’t be charged for any crimes they commit when on duty, just like cops and CEOs. They charge the organization with the crime to shield the individual who actually did the crime. This is american justice. Turns out many people are above the law.

The threat of eventual prosecution is not the only thing preventing widespread political assassinations.

About a third of americans agree with you. This country has pitiful turnout.

It says (parody) in the name.

This is twitter, because elon lacks reading comprehension, so the rules require parody to be clearly marked.

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?

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.

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.