It is a requirement [1] to land with 45 minutes of fuel remaining, if the pilots go under that, it is considered an incident. As soon as estimated landing fuel goes under the limit, the flight needs to declare an emergency (as was done in this case).
> Some manufacturers claimed that the presence of the headphone jack made it difficult to keep their phones waterproof; but there’s a whole range of good-quality phones from around 2019-2020 that are waterproof to a reasonable degree, without sacrificing the jack.
> The first manufacturer to make a point of dropping the headphone jack (I believe) was not Apple – as is commonly believed – but Oppo, and back in 2014. Their reason for doing so was at least a credible technical one: they said it made their phones about half a millimetre thinner. Maybe that was a selling point, maybe it wasn’t. But Apple couldn’t fall back even on this claim, because people found ways to fit a 3.5mm jack socket into the iPhones that lacked one, and even posted videos on Youtube showing how they did it. It wasn’t easy, but it was clearly possible. If Apple genuinely thought that omitting the jack would leave more room for other features, they didn’t actually provide any.
> Some manufacturers claimed that the presence of the headphone jack made it difficult to keep their phones waterproof; but there’s a whole range of good-quality phones from around 2019-2020 that are waterproof to a reasonable degree, without sacrificing the jack.
> Some manufacturers claimed that the presence of the headphone jack made it difficult to keep their phones waterproof; but there’s a whole range of good-quality phones from around 2019-2020 that are waterproof to a reasonable degree, without sacrificing the jack.
I'd say the bigger question is whether or not the projection used at the time of design was one that would show the straight line. The Mercator projection was first invented in 1569 [1]
This has to be the core of it. If the underlying question is "was this alignment intentional" then you could start by asking whether there are extant maps with better cathedral alignment than Mercator.
These places are old. Skellig Michael goes back past 823AD, Mont-Saint-Michel is about the same sort of age, and the Sanctuary of Monte Sant'Angelo goes back to 490AD(ish). San Michele Arcangelo is on top of a pre-Christian pagan temple. Stella Maris is on an Old Testament Biblical site. None of them is less than a thousand years old.
The bar for finding a map that happens to align, and then explaining how it was made, is not a low one.
There is a projection that might fit, though: Plate Carrée is definitely old enough, and a brief visual sanity check doesn't make it look totally off.
Why do we need to assume widespread maps for this? Or even maps of the entire globe? A regional map showing barely more than a rectangle with this as its diagonal would be sufficient to get the point across to the average layperson.
Virtually everything in church design is meant to communicate truths of the faith to illiterate laypeople. That's part of why pictures feature so prominently. They're telling stories to people who can't read. The sense of space, and the drawing of the attention upward, they're also communicating to people on purpose.
If the argument is that the sites were not intentionally built in a line, that it just happened this way, that there just happen to be seven prominent hills with churches built on them that refer to St. Michael (or 6 and Mt. Carmel, which is associated with him in another way), I guess that's a different conversation, but I thought the idea here was that these were lined up somehow on purpose, at least for the latter built ones, and were intentionally built to be "in a line" by some meaning of the term.
The line is long enough for the curvature of the earth, and the subsequent distortion in the map projection, to be relevant. Notice that they're closer to a straight line on Mercator than to the geodesic: that means if you were to use purely local referencing to align the sites, they wouldn't end up where they are. You only get them to line up when you distort the natural geography with a projection of some sort, so if you want to make an argument that they were intentionally built on a line, you also have to account for the systematic deviation from the geodesic. And that prompts the question of whether that's remotely feasible given what we know of the history of cartography.
What I'd want to know is how old the story of St Michael's Sword actually is. Not the churches, but what's the earliest reference to them being in a line. My bet is that it's well after Mercator, and probably safely after the 18th century, when chunks of Europe got geodetic surveys done.
These have 150 confirmed kills [1], and another 239 suspected kills [2]. They also weigh a lot, so a lot of excessive fuel is burnt because of them every day. They also sometimes break, causing delayed and cancelled flights.
The problem on 9/11 wasn't the crashing of the plane, people accept risk in transport -- the deadliest means of transport in the US in 2001 was an automobile -- 10 times deadlier than being a passenger on a plane. The problem was the using the plane as a weapon.
car - 4600 billion pax miles, 42,000 deaths, 1 per 100 million miles
plane - 500 billion pax miles, 246 deaths of airline travellers on 9/11, 265 from Queens, about 1 per 1 billion miles
Basically I concur what searedsteak wrote. Would add that stock grant in the company is in number of shares and is paid out over 4 years. So, I really like low stock prices when they vest (taxable event), while capital gains is 0 for non professional investors. So, unless you intended to sell stock right out there’s no difference and only gain. I never sell shares of my company.
Switzerland doesn’t have capital gains tax except for professional stock traders. So there wouldn’t be any tax on the gain after vesting. But yeah it’s a gamble on the stock price that’s for sure.
[1]: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-F... is the US rule, EASA has a similar rule.