Whole-house centralized variable speed heat-pump with zones is actually the most efficient way to heat/cool your home. Also better at circulating air, filtering, dehumidifying, etc.
HVAC companies push multiple mini-splits these days because they're faster to install, and have better margins, even though they're technically not the best solution versus centralized air.
All things being equal, it takes a lot more energy to slice through the air at Mach 2 than at Mach 0.85. But all things are not equal: Concorde flew about twice as high as regular subsonic planes. At that altitude, the air is about half as dense, so it takes less energy to move it out of the way.
In the end what matters is the lift to drag ratio and the speed ratio. In cruise mode, a regular commercial jet has a L/D ratio of about 17, and Concorde of 7 [1], i.e. about 2.4 lower. So each minute it spends cruising, Concorde will burn 2.4 times more fuel than a subsonic jet of equal mass. But Concorde flies faster, so it spends less time to cover the same distance. How much less? About 2/0.85 = 2.35. In other words, to cover the same distance Concorde burns about the same amount of fuel as a subsonic jet, while in cruise mode. Concorde’s fuel economy was horrible at takeoff though due to a triple whammy: L/D ratio of only 4, need to use the (very inefficient) afterburners, and the tyranny of the rocket equation.
But if someone can solve these issues, there is nothing that prevents a supersonic to be as fuel efficient as a subsonic jet.
It is, and you're misunderstanding some of the basics of supersonic flight.
"As speeds approach the speed of sound, the additional phenomenon of wave drag appears. This is a powerful form of drag that begins at transonic speeds (around Mach 0.88). Around Mach 1, the peak coefficient of drag is four times that of subsonic drag. Above the transonic range, the coefficient drops drastically again, although remains 20% higher by Mach 2.5 than at subsonic speeds. Supersonic aircraft must have considerably more power than subsonic aircraft require to overcome this wave drag, and although cruising performance above transonic speed is more efficient, it is still less efficient than flying subsonically."[1]
Factoring in that supersonic airplanes are significantly heavier, have lower L/D, must spend more fuel getting to higher altitudes, still have to fly subsonic a considerable amount of the flight time/path, etc. means that it's a matter of physics.
A few lines down in your link you have this: "At about Mach 2, a typical wing design will cut its L/D ratio in half (e.g., Concorde managed a ratio of 7.14, whereas the subsonic Boeing 747 has an L/D ratio of 17)".
Sure, at trans-sonic speeds the coefficient of drag is horrible, but a supersonic commercial jet doesn't spend more than the minimum time necessary in that speed range.
What's more, improvements are possible even for the trans-sonic range. The planned Concorde B was projected to have dramatic fuel consumption improvement of 25% at Mach 1.2 [1]. This projection was made around 1980. In the 40 years since, computers have advanced a bit, so there's a chance the Boom guys know what they are talking about.
>A few lines down in your link you have this: "At about Mach 2, a typical wing design will cut its L/D ratio in half (e.g., Concorde managed a ratio of 7.14, whereas the subsonic Boeing 747 has an L/D ratio of 17)".
That is literally proving my point. Thanks for agreeing with me?
>Sure, at trans-sonic speeds the coefficient of drag is horrible, but a supersonic commercial jet doesn't spend more than the minimum time necessary in that speed range.
And the wave drag is still bad even at supersonic speeds. The planes still have to spend a significant amount of time subsonic (take off, approach, landing, etc.) even if it's minimalized, it's still a significant amount.
>What's more, improvements are possible even for the trans-sonic range. The planned Concorde B was projected to have dramatic fuel consumption improvement of 25% at Mach 1.2 [1].
Still worse than subsonic at that time. Since then, subsonic, high bypass engine design has made that gap even wider.
Letting him out definitely won't benefit society. The recidivism for "mentally insane" convicts is extremely high.
It feels good, but it's like letting a drunk driver get back behind the wheel after they show remorse. The chances that they get in another DWI (and hurt someone) is high.
It's also why we have sex offender registries. The recidivism is high.
I'd love to read the papers you've consumed that lead you to this consultation if you have them handy. A lot of what we see in Canada is in fact the exact opposite in the context of mental health, so I'm very curious to know where you formed this opinion from.
>I am continually surprised that “let’s shut down difficult conversations” seems to be the default reaction here. As if that makes the conversations go away, or solves the problem.
Isn't that exactly what leftist activist have been calling for though? "Shut down toxic, 'hatespeech'/'difficultspeech' infested subreddits/forums, it makes the problems go away!" Then they link studies that show it does remove "hatespeech" from these places. You can't have your cake and eat it
>All it does is remind marginalized people that you don’t really care about them.
Conservatives are one of the largest marginalized people in SV/West coast. Is it OK for conservative activist employees to spam Slack all day about how gun control is anti-woman because it removes their right to self-defence? Women are a marginalized people, they need to have the same access to self-defence that they get in other conservative states. Is shutting down this speech anti-women? Do you not care about women because you won't allow this?
>It’s a very “shut up and work, peon” kind of move. I think it highlights exactly what the C-level thinks of their workers: they aren’t worthy of engaging with as full people; just cogs in the machine.
I'd say the sooner workers understand this, the better it is for everyone. This is reality, anything else is just fantasy land. You're replaceable, and if the company could save a dollar a quarter by laying you off, they would.
>I think in exchange for giving an employer the best hours of my day and the best years of my life, I deserve to be more than just a cog in the machine.
Negotiate that in your contract at your next job. Else, you're only going to get what you and your employer agreed to.
I played the Devil's advocate here but I think most here will understand what I'm getting at. Everyone has a different idea/reality on what the "status quo" is, what "workplace activism" is, etc. Due to this, it's extremely hard to work on teams when everyone is demonizing everyone else. The greater US culture has devolved to this, and it's starting to reflect in the workplace.
> Isn't that exactly what leftist activist have been calling for though? "Shut down toxic, 'hatespeech'/'difficultspeech' infested subreddits/forums, it makes the problems go away!"
This is, I think, the mother of all false equivalencies. I don’t think it’s right or proper to equate discussions in a diversity channel with the monstrously hateful discourse that often occurs on nastier subreddits or 4chan and the like.
> Conservatives are one of the largest marginalized people in SV/West coast.
For a very stretched definition of “marginalized,” perhaps. Shopify is a Canadian company based (I believe) in Ottawa, so I don’t think this is really a useful thing to discuss. Shutting down these conversations is happening far outside the place where you allege conservatives to be marginalized.
> I'd say the sooner workers understand this, the better it is for everyone.
> You're replaceable, and if the company could save a dollar a quarter by laying you off, they would.
I think it’s dystopian to simply accept mistreatment. You deserve better; what incentive do you really have to settle? Unless you’re a CEO shitposting under a throwaway … you aren’t going to get what they have. Like you admit, they don’t care. Why roll over and accept a raw deal? The company is nothing without your labor.
> Negotiate that in your contract at your next job. Else, you're only going to get what you and your employer agreed to.
No employer would ever agree to that in a contract. In fact, most employers would never let you put anything in a contract, actually. That’s risky from their view. So this whole line of thinking is self-defeating: you and I both know it’s not a viable option. Why bother debating it? I mean, hell, Coinbase just said they won’t even negotiate salary anymore, the one thing you could actually negotiate for. It’s not an option, practically speaking; it’s just a way to shut down discussion.
>This is, I think, the mother of all false equivalencies.
I kind of set you up for this one.
> don’t think it’s right or proper to equate discussions in a diversity channel with the monstrously hateful discourse that often occurs on nastier subreddits or 4chan and the like.
The point I was trying to make is, one person's "hateful discourse" is another person's relatively benign politics. When "hatespeech" is anything right of Trotsky, math[1], acronyms[2], getting to work on time[3], objectiveness[3], etc., it's no longer just the nasty stuff that every agrees is disgusting and has no place at work. Now "hatespeech" and "white supremacy" can be practically anything.
>For a very stretched definition of “marginalized,” perhaps.
It's not a "stretched definition", it's literally the definition [4].
>Shopify is a Canadian company based (I believe) in Ottawa, so I don’t think this is really a useful thing to discuss. Shutting down these conversations is happening far outside the place where you allege conservatives to be marginalized.
I was under the assumption that the majority of the developers and such are out of the Bay Area, even though it's HQ is elsewhere. If most of the workers are in left-wing areas, then this holds.
>I think it’s dystopian to simply accept mistreatment.
Depends on if you believe it's mistreatment or not. If I view it as consensual and positive, who are you to say otherwise?
>You deserve better; what incentive do you really have to settle? Unless you’re a CEO shitposting under a throwaway … you aren’t going to get what they have. Like you admit, they don’t care. Why roll over and accept a raw deal?
I'm fine with not making as much as a founder, CEO, etc., I'm not a jealous classist. I live a life that 99.999% of humanity could only dream of living, make a solid income, great benefits, etc. I don't view it as a "raw deal".
>The company is nothing without your labor.
Your labor is nothing without the company. Again, we agreed to work where we work.
>No employer would ever agree to that in a contract. In fact, most employers would never let you put anything in a contract, actually. That’s risky from their view. So this whole line of thinking is self-defeating: you and I both know it’s not a viable option. Why bother debating it? I mean, hell, Coinbase just said they won’t even negotiate salary anymore, the one thing you could actually negotiate for. It’s not an option, practically speaking; it’s just a way to shut down discussion.
Then don't apply to that company, find another company that is more inline with your ideals/morals, or contract, or start your own company. Also, vote so that you get the benefits that you think you deserve by law. Just don't complain the way you have when not everyone sees eye-to-eye with you.
We mustn't forgot the Eastern value of going to an important business meeting in shorts while high on LSD!
Trying to pull the race card after you get fired for tripping on acid at an investor's meeting is the most Silicon Valley "young disruptor" high-on-the-smell-of-your-own farts CEO thing I've ever heard of.
HVAC companies push multiple mini-splits these days because they're faster to install, and have better margins, even though they're technically not the best solution versus centralized air.