At least in the UK it's a legal requirement to use marked glassware when serving beer, cider and wine. (Or to use a marked measuring cylinder and pour that into the drinkware, which is sometimes done for wine.)
A third of a pint is 189.3ml, a large glass of wine 175ml. Two thirds of that (2/9 of a pint) is almost bang on a small glass of wine, 126.2ml vs. 125ml. Could work if they wanted
If only we could diff the BBC article (it currently says it was posted 21 mins ago which is younger than your comment…). It’s changed multiple times now without any kind of changelog or acknowledgement.
> Video footage on social media showed the aircraft, which is operated by Air Canada's regional partner Jazz aviation, coming to a rest with its nose upturned.
This just isn’t true. There’s no video of the plane coming to a rest with its nose upturned (which implies motion). The upturned nose happened only after passengers deplaned and the balance shifted.
> It had slowed to about 24mph when it collided with a vehicle from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which runs the airport.
This is the next part that will change. Just because some of the last broadcast data said 24mph doesn’t mean that’s the speed it was when it collided with the truck. The truck is on its side and those passengers are in hospital. The pilots are dead. The plane sustained enough structural damage to have the entire nose collapse. If the sentence is based on that broadcast data, SAY THAT instead of printing it as fact.
And with all the quotes from social media posts from key groups, link to them instead of just vaguely quoting.
EDIT:
As expected, they got rid of the above paragraph claiming the speed. It now says:
“The plane was arriving from Montreal and had landed, before colliding with the vehicle from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which runs the airport.”
Any of us can help log the changes by submitting revisions of the article to web.archive.org
With a fast-changing news story where vague/incomplete/conflicting details emerge in the first few hours it's not unreasonable for the first few revisions to be like that, and eventually gets fixed hours or a day later.
I think that’s what’s critical here. Post details and their sources to show that they are in flux. Don't write them as fact and then make secret edits.
My doctor's office phone manages "You are number two in the queue". Somewhere, maybe it was a previous doctor, added "and should expect to wait about 5 minutes".
Hmm. The thing is, EU directives aren't themselves law, or rather, in a sense they are but they're laws for the EU member states, telling them that they need to legislate to achieve this thing but without specifying how. The EU can write legislation which is binding on actual citizens, but it mostly writes directives, like this, which just tell the member states to do the legislating.
So, was this directive actually implemented by the UK before it left? Or did they go "Eh, we achieved the intended goal anyway, no action" ?
This way the EU doesn't have to worry about weird edge cases where the EU wants to control Foozling of Doodads but it turns out that in Poland ordinary people often Foozle their own Doodad at home and so their approach needs to consider individual citizens who want to Foozle a Doodad, but in Ireland that's crazy and you pay one of a few dozen Registered Doodad Foozlers to do it at scale, requiring a very different regulation to achieve the same goal.
Thanks. I too have no idea. I searched some FOIA sites but of course "lead" the element has the same spelling as "lead" the verb and noun, so e.g. in documents about fuel "Lead counsel" and "Lead role" aren't about the chemical additive. Maybe somebody asked but I didn't find it, and maybe nobody asked.
The permits are technically called "leaded petrol permits". Unlike "lead", I don't think "leaded" is commonly used with alternative meanings. Another useful search term is "tetraethyl" – the compound in leaded petrol is "tetraethyl lead" (also spelt "tetraethyllead" or "TEL") – while "tetraethyl" can occur in non-lead compounds, in practice the lead-based compound is mentioned much more frequently than other tetraethyl compounds such as tetraethylsilane.
If you read the regulations, they provide for the permits to be issued to members of the Federation of British Historic Vehicle Clubs, since some classic cars have difficulty running on unleaded petrol. https://www.fbhvc.co.uk/fuels says "the Federation lobbied successfully to secure an EU concession for the sale of leaded petrol in the UK, a concession which survives to this day, although current sales outlets are few in number, and the uptake of the product is quite small. In part, the difficulty of setting up a satisfactory distribution for leaded petrol for the use of historic vehicles, is proof of the general truth that a good distribution system for specialised fuels for historic road vehicles is not a viable commercial proposition". It sounds like there may still be a small handful of isolated places where you can legally purchase small quantities of leaded petrol in the UK for use with classic cars – more likely the clubhouse of a classic car club, or a mechanic who specialises in such vehicles, than an ordinary petrol station.
The regulations also exempt military vehicles, but I'd be surprised if there was any remaining use of leaded petrol in the UK military.
The regulations apply to land transport vehicles, not avgas. Leaded avgas is still legally used in the UK for general aviation, despite repeated attempts to move away from it.
> also exempt military vehicles, but I'd be surprised if there was any remaining use of leaded petrol in the UK military.
Modern tanks are diesels yeah. However the UK has a lot of enthusiasts who own (obsolete and of course also de-fanged) tanks. And I can totally believe some of the archaic designs used leaded petrol. On the other hand, even a brand new production tank is very thirsty so realistically if you aren't trying to do a "Brewster's Millions" you would not actually drive your tank very far.
I presented the US' position in the list with the surrounding European countries, both higher and lower, to show that it sits in the cluster. It can be at the edge of the cluster, that's fine. The other person was claiming a 2-10x difference and, more importantly, blaming it on the 'havoc' that occurs without the presumption of guilt. The countries I listed have that presumption, and yet have comparable rates.
reply