Not by definition; from the Vlad response linked above: "we do not call all sources for all queries, as we balance cost efficiency with result quality - a delicate optimization". But I could understand how one may want to eliminate any possibility!
No. The aim is to “increase the density of freight transportation in a particular area.” That would be maximum tonnage carried through an area over a period, eg a year. It’s possible more tonnes of independently moving wagons could move through an area over a year by being individually dispatched 24/7 in close proximity versus larger traditional freight trains that only run a few times a day.
Which would need completely different signaling systems, where sensors for sections are every few meters instead of like now having sections hundreds of meters or even kilometers long. That's investment of hundred of billions + maintenance.
In Europe we are integrating ETCS since 1996 and it is still not done.
Uncharitable interpretation of TFA. “independently moving wagons” are different from a series of linked wagons that all have to leave the terminus at the same time, travel together, and arrive together. This idea would allow independently moving wagons to be dispatched as required from multiple destinations, share the line with others in very close proximity, and break away seamlessly to their different destinations.
Their new Neutron has a fully reusable first stage, also out of carbon fiber. For Neutron, they have the largest automated fiber placement machine known to exist:
And? We still have yet to see whether full re-usability of the second stage is the best approach. The Neutron approach is really interesting, they can make the second stage incredibly light and cheap. Blue Origin claims the economics of a super-cheap disposable second stage, even for as one as large as theirs, is pretty much equal to a more expensive and heavier reusable second stage. (they're developing both in parallel to see where the chips land).
Your last paragraph is doing a LOT of heavy lifting. TLDR: the US figures should be WAY higher if you expand the definition of homelessness like those other countries do.
More research shows the U.S. rate looks lower largely because it uses a narrow, one-night "Point In Time" measure that excludes many precarious living situations other countries intentionally count. If you harmonise definitions, the U.S. does not outperform high-safety-net countries; on unsheltered homelessness in particular, it fares worse.
In UK official usage, being legally homeless often includes people the state is actively accommodating; it is not limited to street homelessness like the US PIT figure. In Australia, their figures include couch surfing (staying temporarily with other households and those in “severely crowded” dwellings). In Germany, apart from again having a more expansive definition of homelessness, their figures also include ~130k Ukrainian refugees.
Just one example: the US figures should at least include >1.2 million students experiencing homelessness.
also, despite being homeless people in germany can get financial support and healthcare, which was the original point about the fear of losing your job. and losing your job in germany does not make you homeless. you'd have to get evicted from your home (but not for failing to pay rent, as you would cover that with the financial support) so the group that is being talked about in the original paragraph that fears losing their job, and the group that is homeless in germany have nothing to do with each other, because the first group does not exist. most of tho homeless in germany never had a job to begin with.
