Didn’t realize users changed, my bad.

Just saying “watts staying underground” is a poor explanation. That’s an insignificant amount of energy compared to what the sun is delivering and what’s being trapped by CO2. “Carbon staying underground” is much more the priority.

Yeah, that explanation sounded off to me. CO2 and other greenhouse gases are the issue, not heat directly released from combustion. The sun is doing the overwhelming majority of heating. Carbon staying underground matters far more than watts staying underground.

Burning coal doesn’t significantly heat the planet directly. The CO2 released by this causes solar heating to be more effective by trapping the escaping infrared radiation. It’s the greenhouse gases that are the issue, not the energy released by combustion. “Watts staying underground” is a poor explanation. Burning coal makes watts from the sun more effective at heating the earth.

Might be an 18.1 or 18.2 feature

deleted by creator

Just use a thumb drive

I’m not pretending to understand how homomorphic encryption works or how it fits into this system, but here’s something from the article.

With some server optimization metadata and the help of Apple’s private nearest neighbor search (PNNS), the relevant Apple server shard receives a homomorphically-encrypted embedding from the device, and performs the aforementioned encrypted computations on that data to find a landmark match from a database and return the result to the client device without providing identifying information to Apple nor its OHTTP partner Cloudflare.

There’s a more technical write up here. It appears the final match is happening on device, not on the server.

The client decrypts the reply to its PNNS query, which may contain multiple candidate landmarks. A specialized, lightweight on-device reranking model then predicts the best candidate by using high-level multimodal feature descriptors, including visual similarity scores; locally stored geo-signals; popularity; and index coverage of landmarks (to debias candidate overweighting). When the model has identified the match, the photo’s local metadata is updated with the landmark label, and the user can easily find the photo when searching their device for the landmark’s name.

It’s not data harvesting if it works as claimed. The data is sent encrypted and not decrypted by the remote system performing the analysis.

From the link:

Put simply: You take a photo; your Mac or iThing locally outlines what it thinks is a landmark or place of interest in the snap; it homomorphically encrypts a representation of that portion of the image in a way that can be analyzed without being decrypted; it sends the encrypted data to a remote server to do that analysis, so that the landmark can be identified from a big database of places; and it receives the suggested location again in encrypted form that it alone can decipher.

If it all works as claimed, and there are no side-channels or other leaks, Apple can’t see what’s in your photos, neither the image data nor the looked-up label.

First girlfriend, real small town energy now that I’m looking back on it. Not interested in trying foods from various cultures, her idea of a vacation would be something like Disneyland or a resort, not going out to foreign cities and experiencing them. Definitely would not have worked out.

She ended up marrying my ex-best friend when I went off to college. Worked out better for both of us, honestly. No way I could have stayed in my hometown doing the same things more or less for the past 20 years.

“No red port left in the bottle”

Red lights are on the Port side which is Left for the nautically challenged.

I really don’t think it’s hydraulics - there are five pumps, two engine driven (including if it’s turned off and windmilling) and three electric (which can be battery driven) across three independent hydraulic circuits. The plane was also well controlled on approach which means they likely still had hydraulic flight surface control.

The APU doesn’t have a hydraulic system. There are three redundant electric pumps however, and these can run off the battery. Regardless, I don’t believe there was any issue with the hydraulics as the plane was well controlled on the final approach.

There’s no ram air turbine on a 737.

There’s a placard in the cockpit with flap speed limits.

Certainly wouldn’t have hurt, but I don’t think it would have done that much.

From skybrary:

Most installations to date have used a maximum 70 knots bed-entry speed.

…and thats with gear down. I believe the Jeju plane was doing something like 130+ kts off the end of the runway.

EMAS requires a certain pressure to break through the surface. It’s designed for gear down overruns, not belly landings. I don’t think it’d do much if it were installed in this case.

From skybrary.aero:

Additional assumptions for all designs are that:

• an aircraft is still attempting to stop as the runway is exited
• reverse thrust / reverse pitch is not being used as the runway is exited
• the surface area leading to the EMAS bed has poor braking characteristics
• there is minimal or no structural damage to the landing gear
• there is no aircraft braking or use of reverse thrust / reverse pitch once an aircraft enters the EMAS

That penultimate point is key. It’s not designed for a no gear landing, or even damaged gear landing. It adds friction by the gear sinking into the materials.

I’m inclined to believe hydraulics were functioning based on the stabilized approach. The recent Azeri plane crash is what it looks like when you have no hydraulics. Granted, different planes, 737 NG has manual control, but it’d be difficult. Aside from a little shimmy the approach was good, especially considering they whipped a 180 after that first landing attempt on runway 01. The plane seemed to be well in control.

Also of note, there doesn’t appear to be any rudder applied on the approach, so one engine out seems to not be the case. They also tracked straight down the centerline so no asymmetric thrust. This would imply they either had both engines or no engines. I’m hesitant to believe both engines were out due to the speed they had after scraping down the runway, with the nose in the air.

I’m wondering if they got task saturated after the bird strike and quick go around 180, didn’t hear the “too low, gear” warning, then got spooked from the scrape and attempted a go around like that PIA crash. The initial tail strike happened way earlier on the runway, they floated for a long time after that initial contact.

Altogether very strange. Definitely a lot of Swiss cheese holes aligning in a terrible way. Very curious to see what’s recovered from the FDR and CVR.

737 NG alt flaps work up to 230 knots, well above landing speed. Landing with hydraulics out is the primary function of the alt flaps system. It’s really slow, however, so flaps 15 is typically the most they use.

This crash is very strange to me. No flaps (even if hydraulics fail, there’s electrical backup), no gear (there’s gravity extension backup), landed way down the runway (9000’ should have been plenty, gear up landing has been done in shorter distances)… what happened?

My guess at the moment: bird strike made the pilots panic, they didn’t ensure the plane was in the correct configuration when attempting the second landing, and tried to put it down soft and ended up going long?

What do I know though, I’m not a pilot, just a fan of disasters and flight simulation. Guess I’ll have to see what blancolirio has to say.

Edit: Juan Browne, aka Blancolirio on YouTube finally posted a video on this, probably some of the best insight we’ll get at this early stage.