It's beneficial on takeoff because headwind already factors into your airspeed before you even start rolling, which gives you more lift for the same groundspeed yes, enabling you to rotate sooner than you otherwise would.

https://www.businessinsider.com/3-aircraft-fly-new-york-to-l...

https://skybrary.aero/tutorials/stabilised-approach

The more egregious thing to me though is ignoring the GPWS callouts on approach because they were chasing the glideslope. If you can't maintain a stable approach, you need to go around, it's the first thing you learn.

You expect this behaviour from a first-timer in the sim, not a commercial cargo pilot.

Large high-bypass turbofan engines take several seconds to spool up from idle (as they would be on landing) to full thrust. The 4 seconds that the thrust levers spent in the full thrust position in this accident was not long enough.

There are no consumer CPUs that have 2048-bit-wide registers; even AVX10 tops out at 512 bits. Thus, mathematical operations on RSA keys are performed using arbitrary precision integer libraries like OpenSSL's own BN (BigNum) library, or GMP (the GNU Multiple Precision Arithmetic Library) as used by GNUTLS, in software.

For example, adding 1 to an arbitrary precision integer is not a CPU add or increment instruction, nor is multiplying 2 integers (or an integer and a constant factor) a CPU multiplication instruction.

Judges don't like their time being wasted, and they doubly don't like plaintiffs and defendants who don't even go to the effort of trying to follow decorum.

And, I'm just throwing this one out here; contempt of court is one of the vanishingly few civil offenses you can be held in custody for.

You're right, they are. If your data can't survive a single storage host vanishing from existence, you don't have a backup. If your data can't survive one predictable or regularly occurring catastrophic act of nature, you don't have a backup. If your data can't survive a piece of malware -- with all of the credentials you have -- erasing it, you don't have a backup.

EDIT: Also, if you don't regularly test that your backups actually work, you probably don't have a backup. Lots of companies learn that one the hard way.

In the following SMTP conversation:

  MAIL FROM: foo@example.net
  RCPT TO: victim@example.com
  DATA
  From: service@paypal.co.uk
  To: victim@example.com
  Subject: We are updating our Terms of Service
  [...]

The recipient sees service@paypal.co.uk (the From address on the inner message), because most ESPs do them the great disservice of not indicating that the sender identities are not aligned.

Adding a DMARC record to a domain requires that e-mail whose inner messages claim to be from that domain must have sender alignment to the envelope sender.

The above message would pass SPF (if the spammer owns example.net and has created SPF records for themselves) but would fail DMARC (paypal.co.uk's DMARC record exists, so alignment is required, and yet example.net != paypal.co.uk, so they are not aligned). In this case their DMARC policy says to reject the message, so (if the recipient is checking DMARC) it would either be rejected outright or it would land in Spam/Quarantine rather than Inbox.

The self-certification process (airworthiness certificates) is the manufacturer (rather than the regulator's inspectors) stating "this one specific aircraft with serial number _______ has been built according to the design covered by its type certificate". Nothing more.

In other words, an airworthiness certificate only specifies that a specific aircraft is airworthy /because/ it is built according to an airworthy design. Whether the design is safe or not has always only been up to the regulator to decide. In this case, the regulator dropped the ball and approved an unsafe design. If Boeing was not allowed to self-certify their own aircraft, the FAA would still have issued airworthiness certificates for them, including the two aircraft that would have gone on to kill hundreds of people, because they were built according to the design the FAA approved.

https://i.postimg.cc/LRd1KbPf/scrot-20260630-085733.png

Hazarding a guess I'd say it's using Thunderbolt (hence the specific port requirement) which allows you to tunnel PCIe over it.

Though it is odd that they wouldn't just go with the WiFi on the motherboard option.

An Intel WLAN card in an M.2 slot on the mainboard might work (given your givens; a vPro enabled chipset).