That creates knock-on effects throughout the healthcare system:

* Doctor time is worth $xxx/hour, so every second counts. We hire a bunch of support staff to make sure doctors aren't "wasting" time on paperwork, taking vitals or talking to patients. Now it costs more to run a practice.

* Doctor time is worth $xxx/hour, so we need to make sure that health insurance only pays for procedures that people truly need. That leads to insurance companies hiring a bunch of doctors and nurses to adjudicate claims (that's expensive, plus fewer doctors practice medicine). It also leads to denied care.

* Doctors have a lot of money, so if a procedure goes bad and you want to sue someone, they make a juicy target. Now you have higher malpractice insurance, so doctors bill even more.

* Doctors are afraid of being sued (see previous), so they often order more tests than necessary to prove they are providing adequate care. Those tests cost money.

The cause of high doctor salaries is an artificial shortage of doctors. Medical schools collude to limit the number of medical students who matriculate each year, which squeezes supply.

We could very easily fix the American healthcare system in about 10 years by simply allowing doctors and nurses trained in other developed countries to practice here, plus forcing medical schools to accept more students.

Regarding the latter, there is no shortage of qualified applicants:

1. Nearly everyone who starts medical school finishes. Matriculants are so statistically overqualified that hardly anyone washes out.

2. Medical schools have silly-stupid entrance requirements which have little to do with being a good doctor. Beyond GPA, you need many hours of volunteer work outside of class, extracurricular activities, and often research experience. These admissions requirements are imposed because there are simply too many qualified applicants for the number of slots and med schools need some "fair" way to cull the herd.

His software company, named Green Hills, supplies the RTOS for Mobileye, which formerly supplied driver-assistance hardware and software to Tesla (and continues to do so for other car companies). Mobileye is no longer a Tesla supplier because Tesla insourced their ADAS.

So he has a very real financial incentive to convince the world that Tesla's system is bad.

With a modern 4 GHz CPU, that means your budget is only 4000 clocks per interrupt. The context save alone can make it hard to hit 1MHz, and you really want to have your interrupt code pinned to the L1 cache because a few memory reads will blow your entire budget.

As nice as USB4 is, I’ve never heard anyone claim it has single-digit microsecond latency, to say nothing of sub-microsecond latency. The typically-quoted ~20 usec latency of USB4 limits it to around 50 kHz for an emulated ISA card.

If you restrict the domain to nighttime or exoatmospheric, a high-resolution wide-angle camera paired with an offline astrometry database has the makings of a strapdown astronav.

Widening the domain again, the natural motion of the vehicle is probably enough, when combined with inertial sensors to aid pixel-shift image stabilization, to achieve the same kind of processing gain as the older systems got with shutter-synchronous detection.

Literally 5 consecutive minutes of making 100s of wrong decisions snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

According to news reports, a magistrate judge at OSHA has been sandbagging an investigation into retaliatory firings by this airline (of pilots who reported unsafe practices with maintenance, CRM, training, scheduling, everything). I wonder if the NTSB will include that judge in the investigation. It seems like he or she has a lot to answer for.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/miami-plane-crash-21-air-safety...

In almost every state, you may post a bond in lieu of insurance, for an amount as low as $35,000!

You don’t even pay for the fraudulent credit card transactions in the first place! There’s no money for them to return!

I would guess the opposite. Many parts in a turbine engine are "lifetime limited" by number of engine starts. That is, you are required to tear down the engine and replace certain parts after a certain number of engine cycles.

That makes the economics of the turbine hybrid radically different if you need to start it every time you land vs. only the rare cases where you need to dip into fuel reserves.

For example, the PT6A (a common 500-1000hp turboprop) requires the turbine and compressor disks to be replaced every 16,000 cycles. That's about 5 years of commercial service at 4x round trips per day. But if you only start the engine once in every 10 flights, now those components (theoretically) last for 50 years of flying.

Yup. And to bring this point home:

"Only" doubling the battery capacity likely eats well over half of the payload capacity, in terms of mass. So your 38 seat plane is now a 19 seat (or fewer) plane.

But... given that turbine APUs already exist for ground power and are already engineered to be as light as practical, my naive guess would be that it's easier, simpler and faster to just use a COTS APU as a series hybrid rather than trying directly couple a turbine to the propeller.

On inspections and overhauls: I'd expect that not needing to start the turbine at all on a given flight massively helps the economics of the airplane. Turbines often have parts that must be replaced after a given number of (startup) cycles, and that's going to be especially important for a turbine that is only expected to run for a short time (if at all) at the end of a flight.

If you only start the turbine on, say, 5% of flights, that means you get 20x as many flights before overhaul/inspection. I could see that being incredibly attractive to airlines.

For private, yes. For airlines, the requirement boils down to basically enough fuel to "fly to the intended destination as scheduled, then loiter for XX minutes, then fly at normal speeds to a pre-designated alternate, land".

For short flights, that means the fuel loaded at departure can be more than twice what is actually needed to get from A to B...

Which is why the hybrid approach is fairly clever: You can use it for ~125 mile flights, and remain 100% electric on ~95% of flights. Whereas, without the reserve turbine the practical limit would be ~60 miles. On the ~5% of flights requiring more range, you're still mostly operating on electricity.

Bicycle frames are not fully symmetric left-right because you need things like a mount point for the derailleur hanger, and optionally affordances to keep the chain off the stays when the wheel is removed.

Those things have to be on the same side as the chain. Bikes designed for disc brakes additionally need a mount point for the brake caliper on the opposite side from the chain.

Additionally, rear wheels are not symmetric: the spokes on the chain side connect to the hub closer to the plane of the rim. That is, they are more perpendicular to the wheel’s rotational axis than spokes on the opposite side (which is why you should always mount a single pannier on the chain side). This asymmetry is to provide space for the gears.

So once the industry decided to put the chain on the ride, you can’t very well make a group set designed for a left chain if you want it to work on the vast majority of frames.

Another part of the problem is that a model not specifically fine-tuned to make a total loss determination won't know the relevant factors, nor how an insurance company's concept of a total loss differs from the public's.

And still another part of the problem is that most total loss claims aren't what you, dear reader, are imagining: They are very rarely "the car is a thin pancake after being crushed by a meteor".

The much, much more common scenario is: "50% of the body panels sustained at least paint damage, both headlight modules need replacement, and the front wheels look funny. Given that the vehicle has an MSRP of $FOO, $BAR miles, no prior collision history on carfax, and is a popular color, is it cheaper to repair or total the vehicle?"

Of course, the model can turn over the hard cases to a human adjuster... but then what are we doing here? It only takes 10 seconds for the human adjuster to handle the "crushed by a meteor" case also.

Source: Listening to my SIL rant about being asked to stop training bespoke total loss models and just send it by 1-shotting a commercial LLM.

Well, actually, no.

The EO changes the official name of the geographical feature as recognized by the US government.

All the large map providers ingest a data feed from the USG (and other governments for other localizations) which names various geographical and place entities. That data goes through a pipeline (basically a CI pipeline) to build the map artifact and tiles served to users.

Google just has a particularly good and low latency pipeline. Google got there in a couple days. Apple will get there in a week or two. The USGS will get there in god-knows-when. Mapquest has said they’re not going to update the name, which presumably means their pipeline is old and creaky.

The article itself even acknowledges that the USGS GNIS database has already been updated to reflect the change. Unless someone at Google manually edits the entity, it will be automatically renamed with no human input (although, for very large, highly visible entities the validation stage may block the build and flag it for manual review)

Why is this so difficult? We will try absolutely anything except to allow enough housing to be built, and then ask why there isn't enough housing. It's madness.

If there isn't enough housing, no amount of shenanigans can overcome that inconvenient fact, except to build more housing. That's it. That is the only thing which can alleviate a housing shortage.

James Pickard modified the Newcomen steam engine to deliver rotary motion using a crank (and patented it). So James Watt used the sun and planet for his steam engine to avoid infringing the patent.

The Picard patent specifies that the crank is fixed to the driveshaft, but it is free to rotate in the sun and planet setup