CodeInvasion

The B23 has 60 minutes of endurance plus 10 minutes reserve. For each minute of flight it needs a minute to charge. Recommended flight time is about 40 minutes, which make sense to keep the battery at a healthy state of charge. However I'm confused by how they can market a 10 minute reserve time when the FAA requires 30 minutes reserve fuel for visual flight rules and 45 minutes reserve fuel for instrument conditions.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/91.151

It says cruise speed is 110 knots (120mph or 200km/h). Cruise is achieved at 80kW with 48kWh of energy available, so it can fly for 36 minutes total at "cruise" speed. If we subtract mandatory reserves, one could fly for 6 minutes.

For reference, most small airplanes have at least 4 hours of endurance. My airplane has 6 hours.

This "cross country" flight will take months as shown by their schedule. It's neat, but it's very much a prototype.

https://h55.ch/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Flyer_B23_Energic_EU.pdf

Jury members are typically highly capable of reasoning and understanding as they are carefully chosen from a large pool of candidates. They tend to be highly educated professionals (for many reasons, not just because lawyers choose them) who just also happen to not closely follow news, politics, or be chronically online. They likely know about some guy killed a healthcare CEO a few months ago, but there knowledge of the situation is only surface level and not influenced by media biases. This makes them best able to form rational conclusions as a result of the trial.

I did not know that. Thank you!

But apparently it is only after they are found guilty. So the death penalty is like a second trial.

https://www.justice.gov/usao/justice-101/sentencing

Unfortunately, punishments (except the death penalty) may not be considered when determining guilt in trials by jury.

While it will be tough to find people who don't know anything about this, the courts will be able to find an impartial jury, and one that likely doesn't follow the news or know of the potential punishment.

It will never be stated to the jury, and technically no jury member is allowed to mention it if they do know it.

The terrorism charges on the other hand will be extremely difficult to prove. And that might be what frees him.

Edit: This comment has been corrected by the person below. The death penalty decision comes as a secondary trial after a defendant has been found guilty. Source: https://www.justice.gov/usao/justice-101/sentencing

Sell it to whom, Ben?

While noble in intent, the protest itself was incredibly stupid and dangerous.

I am a pilot that flies into Hanscom Field and I remember the day of the protest. It was low ceilings, so no visibility. You don't see the runway until the last 400 feet and that 400 feet goes very quick once you pop out. The protesters chose to stand on the runway in these conditions at great peril to themselves, flight crew, and passengers.

People have been trying to get this airport shut down for years due to noise. It's very hard to convince people that homeowners (of properties worth multiple millions of dollars) who have been complaining about noise from the airport for 20 years suddenly care about the environment.

Hanscom already sees tons of jet traffic, with many landing, unloading passengers, and flying to another airport for storage (ferry flights). While there is bound to be some induced demands from hangar expansion, the runway utilization is already maxed out. There are long wait times for takeoff because of all the traffic. Aircraft are told to hold or circle to deconflict landings. Hangar expansion will reduce the number of wasteful ferry flights.

Not to mention that the area where the hangars are being built is currently a toxic waste hazard from the US Air Force. In fact, old Air Force hangars still exist on that side of the airport, but no one is allowed to go over there because of the toxic waste. This hangar expansion will clean up that toxic waste.

Ultimately most of what you have said is right.

I've worked in business acquisitions and management, and I have a minor in business from MIT Sloan; folks at the top don't need to understand the technical details, they just need to find the best people. When I run teams, I try to make sure I am dumbest person on that team. My purpose there is seeing the bigger picture and managing timelines, not getting into technical details despite my desires to.

Humorously, this whole thread is full of people upset that the CEO doesn't know about great circle paths, but that's not the reason the flight path isn't straight in this case. I'm also a pilot, and aircraft follow ATC directed high altitude routes that generally follow great circle paths over long distances, but tend to be jagged along the way. This is one of my flights from [Boston to DC(https://sh.itjust.works/pictrs/image/ab38ea61-4a85-44d1-a916-b1d8fd44084a.jpeg).

Where I can agree with the vitriol of every commenter, is that this CEO is being very dumb presenting the question to the internet and that along might be a sign they are not fit for the job.

I do wish I could find communities with more even-handed discussion. These ideological hell cages make me never want to comment which hurts Lemmy over all. There just doesn't seem to be nuanced discussion on the internet anymore.

Why are people upset over a $109,000 contract from the DoD. That’s literally less than a rounding error. The DoD puts interns in charge of more money than that.

$109,000 is not even enough to pay for 50% of a single contract employee’s time (the going rate is $250k-300k per head). This article is just outrage for the sake of outrage. Don’t embarrass yourself by even bringing this up in a conversation with someone.

I’m honestly more impressed the DoD found someone to write a contract for this low of a value. Hell, the total cost of the FOIA request was probably more after all the bureaucracy it went through.

Except not, because only piston aircraft use leaded fuel. Turboprops and Jet Turbines use Jet Fuel which does not use lead.

I believe it could and should be made harder, but it is already a high barrier to purchase an investment property. For a business loan on residential housing, an investor needs 25-30% down payment for the property. Also I think the longest terms are 15 years and not 30, but I could be wrong.

All the small time landlords acquired their homes through primary residence loans which allows for PMI and smaller down payments that only exist because they are subsidized by the government. A primary residence loans either requires an owner to lie to the government and bank which puts them at serious liability in the sense they could make the loan due immediately if found out, or the owners have lived in that home for at least one year.

Maybe I want to move back into it... And selling has a 10% cost after realtor fees and closing fees.

Based on the amount of vitriol I've personally received on this site for renting one property while I am temporarily relocated to attend school, the answer is yes.

For some reason everyone views being a landlord as easy money. But in reality returns on investment are worse than the stock market for being the landlord of a single family home.

Edit: Isn't it funny how the critics below didn't even ask questions about a specific situation where it does make sense to rent out an owned home? Instead of trying to understand why someone might make the choice they make, they sling insults and make wide sweeping assumptions to reinforce their skewed world view. Honestly it's this shit that's why Trump won. Leftists can't see the forest for the trees and are willing to engage in ever escalating purity tests that only alienate other sympathetic voters to leftist causes.

I worked hard to be able to own my own house. Saved money and took out a loan. I never received a penny from my parents or some inheritance from a family member that died. A greater return on investment can absolutely be made by investing in the SP500, returns on investment for single family homes will be worse. The SP500 can be expected to rise an average of 10% per year. A single family home on the other hand will increase by 4.3% per year. With interest rates being higher than that level appreciation, there is effectively no profit from the leverage that can be typically seen by borrowing money. Renting is typically 37% cheaper than buying on a month-to-month basis. Owners don't expect to Break-even on a home until after 5-10 years of ownership (depending on the city). Over 2/3 the cost of a mortgage go towards loan interest and taxes. Now what does a house get you then if there are all these downsides? Freedom. Freedom to decorate how you choose. To remodel, to build a deck, install Ethernet throughout the house, add an extension. But most of all, it gives long-term stability. After that 5 year period where a homeowner is taking a loss because of buying, they are finally ahead financially of a renter. This is why it doesn't make sense to sell a home due to short-term circumstances, because owning a home is inherently a long-term benefit. Especially when one loses 10% of the the value of a home selling it when it would take 3 years for the home to even grow to the point where that cost is covered by increases in home value, which is not even remotely guaranteed, as evidenced by home values only increasing 0.12% after falling by 5% the previous year.