So after talking to the FCC, a US company decides to cancel a contract with a Canadian company in favour of the billionaire-owned US one? Quelle surprise…

You know, maybe free market capitalism isn’t so bad. TOO BAD WE’LL NEVER KNOW.

Oh hot damn! With Game Changer over I’ve been looking for something new. Time to go watch while putting the recycling to the curb.

OH NO! He’ll have to move to NY but the Dropout studios are in LA! Do I have to watch NBC now? /s

j/k congrats Jeremy! If Dropout becomes an SNL feeder system the way Second City was (is?), the world will be okay.

I just got back from my first (short) trip to Montréal in nearly 10 years. It’s the most human city in Canada, IMO. This would be a very human-empowering step, which is on brand, IMO. I hope it passes.

Montréal isn’t perfect, and neither is PR, but both are better than many alternatives, IMO.

I was trying to see what orbits this site would be good for, and found the answer in Wikipedia, which then led to an older SpaceQ article describing it from back when they were considering the site

Seems viable, although niche. In the past, launching companies/nations would look for a small number of launch sites that would cover all the orbits they needed. I wonder if the future is many launch sites each specializing in a few particular orbits. I also wonder what the deltaV efficiency is compared to a more equatorial site.

Also, while I would prefer that this site were being developed by a Canadian company, if they’re respectful to how we do things in Canada and the local community, as far as I’m concerned they’re welcome. Not that my opinion matters in this decision. Good to see a Canadian supplier getting business, though.

I never beat Hollow Knight (yeah yeah, I know), so I’m working my way through that. I think I’m about half way? Obviously hard to tell.

Rock and Stone, brother.

Deep Rock Galactic’s great game design has caused it to grow one of the most positive, supportive communities in online gaming, IMO. While problematic players do exist, they are the exception rather than the rule.

My understanding is that because of the type of protien that it encodes for, the immunity imparted by the vaccine decreases over time (because of complex immune system reasons). Never to 0%, but lower. The annual booster not only prepares you better for oncoming strains (in theory, when the vaccine research, development, and approval systems work as expected), but re-ups your immunity to existing strains.

The theory as I understand it is that because viruses like COVID-19 pass through populations in waves, your body is developing a very strong short-term immunity to neutralize any immediate “rebound” waves (imagine a wave bouncing off the side of a pool, yes, viruses move through populations like that). It then maintains a weaker, long-term response. By fooling your immune system into thinking you have COVID-19 right now, the vaccine bumps your body ino “short-term” response mode, so your best possible immune response is at the ready if the real thing shows up.

I am not an epidimeologist, but I read a lot of their work from 2020-2023. I might have details wrong, but if it’s been >6mo since you’ve had a booster, you would probably benefit from getting another one.

TL;DR: Yes, you subsidize, because the amount each seat pays is proportional to their ticket price, but it’s a small amount per flight. But you also need to think about what you consider “fair” in this instance.

Sorry, been offline for a few days. I’m curious, so let’s check the math:

Their example is a flight from Atlanta to Orlando. The most common flight on that route is a Delta B757-2001. SeatGuru can provide us with the most common seating layout: 24 First class, 21 Comfort+, and 135 Economy.

The tax that the NYT Editorial Board is looking at is mostly likely the 7.5% Passenger Ticket Tax, which is about 1/3 of total fees on a two-leg itinerary2.

Looking at Delta’s fares for about two months out on randomly chosen dates in October, I see economy fares of about $270, economy plus at about $350, and first at about $570 (I tried to take a median, but it’s very approximate). Those fares are round-trip, so let’s cut them in half for $135/175/285. At 7.5%, the tax comes out to ~$10.13/13.13/21.38 per seat. That tallies up to $2156.40 when we multiply out by the number of seats, pretty close to the $2300 value the video claims, so I’m comfortable saying my numbers are “right enough” for the example.

Depending on how one structures the ownership of their private jet, the equivalent tax for them is zero dollars (they are exempt).

There are then taxes that both flights would pay on a per flight basis or based on fuel consumed. A private jet would pay proportionally more of those than a commercial airliner (due to the lower % passenger weight of total weight), but those are a small part of the total fees, especially for the commercial flight. (I’m seeing about $300 per plane, so I think NYT was counting some of those fees but not all, as they said that the private jet would be paying about $60 in fees).

The problem with the whole “subsidizing” conversation is that it depends on what perspective you take. If you look at it on a person-by-person basis, then sure, each passenger on the commercial flight probably pays less than the passengers on the private jet (assuming 2 ppl or something).

But FAA resources aren’t provisioned on a “per-passenger” basis, they’re provisioned on a “per-flight” basis, with some modifiers based on:

1. Origin and destination airspaces: busier ATC spaces require more resources, and the gain for an additional resource is not linear because of handoffs;
2. Size of plane: bigger planes do take up “more room” in the sky, and therefore tax the ATC more than smaller planes, plus they compete for larger runways, where smaller planes can use smaller runways at airports that have them;
3. Distance flown: Planes that fly farther use more ATC resources en-route.

Let’s be generous and say that our B757-200 takes 4x the ATC resources that the private jet does (I would bet the real factor is closer to 1.5-2.5x). So for a total of 5 units of ATC resource, 4 are used by the commercial jet, and 1 is used by the private jet.

The commercial flight therefore pays $(2156.40+60)/4=$554.10 per ATC resource, and the private jet pays $60 per ATC resource. Equal distribution would be $(2156.40 + 60 + 60)/5=$455.28. So the private jet is receiving a “subsidy” of $455.28-60=$395.28 per flight.

If we divide that subsidy over all of the passengers on the flight by fare, then we get about $1.81/2.34/3.81 based on seat class. That isn’t much of a subsidy per passenger, about 1.4% of your ticket price.

But let’s think about the other side of the equation: Chartering a plane from Atlanta to Orlando costs about $12,5003. Taking on an extra $395.28 would be an additional 3.2% per flight, which is admittedly more than the 1.4% of the fare for the commercial passenger.

And hold on… we are talking about passenger transport when we’re talking about both flights… so let’s look at how efficiently those FAA resources are used. Keeping that 4x factor for a flight of the same distance, we have 4 FAA resources spread over a flight with a capacity of 180, let’s assume 80% full for 144 passengers, using about 0.03 FAA resources/person. Now let’s look at the private jet, which recall uses 1 FAA resource for the same flight plan. Let’s be generous and assume 6 passengers. That’s 0.17 FAA resources/person. The commercial jet is more than 5x more efficient in its use of FAA resources.

These are people who literally create complex corporate structures for their private jets just to avoid that 7.5% excise tax, AND they tend to have much more disposable income. I think they can pay the extra $400 for their inefficient use of FAA resources.

If I were making the rules (which is absurd because not only am I not an expert but I am also Canadian), I would make the FAA fees per-itinerary filed with the FAA and incorporate three factors:

1. Category of departing and landing airports4
2. Takeoff weight of aircraft
3. Itinerary flight path length

The FAA has a whole section on their website about airport planning, so I would use that to figure out how to apportion these factors to best approximate the factors required for FAA resource allocation. I’m sure there are planners at the FAA that have this all broken down already.

So yes, unless you get a super-discount fare, you are subsidizing private jets assuming that the fair apportionment of costs is based on how FAA resource capacities are planned. It’s not much per passenger, but it adds up across all of society, and is another way that the US economy moves wealth from the lower classes to the upper class.

While that’s true, and so First Class and Business Class subsidize private jets more than Economy Class does, that doesn’t change the fact that Economy also subsidizes private jets.

As a percentage of the total weight of a plane, passengers and their luggage constitute a much larger percentage of a commercial flight than a private one. So they are “more utilized” than a private jet, and can spread that cost over all their passengers.

Also, larger planes that fly longer distances cross more ATC zones, using up more ATC resources. They also take up more “room” in the sky, as e.g. ATC needs to leave more room for jet wash behind a heavy. So it makes sense from multiple perspectives that bigger planes pay more.

You also have to consider hobby pilots. Charging them the same amount as a 747 would be insane.

So it’s a tradeoff: the Canadian system makes smaller planes pay more, proportionally, than a per-ticket model; but not so much more that it harms the smallest personal planes.

It’s also just simpler. Personal plane? Private jet? Commercial passenger flight? Cargo plane? Same calculation for all of them.

(Yes, you could try to make it “only for flights with paid passengers”, but then pilots of private jets would all of a sudden have a lot of very rich friends with whom they do a lot of personal flying. It’s just so much easier if there’s nothing subjective about it.)

“Let them eat cake” - Ghislane Maxwell, probably.

You’re good. :)

People are hurt right now, and hurt mammals respond defensively (universally AFAIK). Without pretending to understand what’s going on in your life right now, I want to let you know that I see you. I’m sure your anger is justified.

And if you think I’m preaching from some pulpit, I’m not. I am using writing this reply to avoid engaging in a situation that has a good chance of triggering some of my own recent trauma. I’m also not someone who uses the word “trauma” in the recent pop-psych sense. I mean it in a clinical sense.

Even though I disagree with some of what you’re saying and believe it is counter-productive to the end goals that I think we share (assumption based on your comments), I don’t think you’re a monster. You deserve the space to be angry and to express that, as does everyone.

If you’re willing, I’m interested to learn how I could better express my position succinctly without crossing into the rhetoric that you have read as close to fascism. That’s not who I am trying to be and I would like to learn how to do that better. No obligation. I already appreciate your willingness to engage in good faith.

(working on response to other comment, but it’s more nuanced)

We don’t have to forgive, but mocking (at first) doesn’t help IMO…

Yeah, but we’re on round 3 for people listening to trump’s campaigns.

Brainwashing is effective. Capital control of mass-media is effective. I would prefer we focused our attention there rather than on the victims of that propaganda.

Honestly, it’s gone so badly the last 3 rounds

But if someone genuinely sees the light after the third round, and their first interaction as they’re coming to this realization is to be told that the tragedy that has befallen their family is their own fault… not a great feeling.

There’s going to be a round 4, 5, 6, etc. of this shit in the US. There will be other versions of this in other countries, too. The more ppl we successfully deprogram after each round of fascist betrayal, the fewer ppl will be vulnerable to the propaganda the next time. It’s a never ending job because we keep making new people and the fascists will always be doing propaganda.

I really think we ought to have a basic “in touch with reality test”

I’m frustrated with the incompetence of many people, too. It would be awesome if we could construct some kind of system that would ensure people are well informed before voting.

I fear any such system wouldn’t pass the “would I let the fascists do this” test. There is no system involving a test that we can create that they couldn’t co-opt to e.g. make a test requiring Christian Nationalist answers. Societal systems need to be made robust against corruption and constantly defended against the same. We can’t rely on good people always being in charge, but if we build our systems well, we can get good people in charge more often and weather the storm when we don’t.

Fully agree with you, and touché on the glib use of the quote. I wasn’t trying to invoke the full depth of Nietzsche. I’m merely cautioning against crossing the line between condemning disgusting actions and labeling the people themselves as disgusting. I’m appealing to humility and humanity: a recognition that we aren’t inherently “better” than the worst of them. In order to be different from them, we have to act differently.

We don’t have to agree, we don’t have to sympathize, but failing to see their humanity no matter how unconscionable their actions blurs the line between us and them, and that’s a line I prefer to keep as clear as possible.

I am curious what you see in my comment that is “libshit”, though. I don’t personally see how the invocation of human rights and dignity is liberalism by any reading.

Hard agree.

I love this article on the topic: https://www.newsweek.com/trans-man-broken-men-1817169

Thoughts for non-toxic male role models:

• Bernie Sanders
• Zohran Mamdani (looks good so far)
• Jean-Luc Picard
• Tong from Raya and the Last Dragon (watched this with my daughter recently)
• Mr. Rogers
• Aragorn

I recognise that no one here was antagonizing this person, but this genre of Schadenfreude is getting quite popular. While it is satisfying, it isn’t effective at achieving the goal of change. (I’m assuming that we agree that change is a more important goal than satisfaction).

If you only antagonize the worst of the worst and your filter for that is perfect my comment wasn’t directed at you.

I also agree that if you can establish that they are unrepentant/shameless, then the tactics you refer to (social othering, etc.) are more likely to be effective.

I think your final paragraph makes my point, though. Even in the relative electoral college “landslide” of the 2024 election, a small percentage of votes in the right states would have changed the outcome of the presidential election. If we target that small fraction of regretful voters and welcome them to the side of justice (without absolving them of their prior transgression, but also without mockery), that can tip the scales.

I am trying to encourage you and others here to keep the eyes on the prize: change. We do that by winning hearts and minds. We can’t win hearts and minds when we ostracize as our FIRST move.

(Once you find out that they’re shameless, no argument from me)

Careful here… while I agree with your anger, you’re using the same language used to dehumanize vulnerable populations. Everyone, including horrible people like Steven Miller, deserve basic human dignity. They deserve fairness, due process, and every human right. But unrepentant fascists don’t deserve our attention, our sympathy, forgiveness, or reprieve from justice (repentant ones are more complex and not addressed here).

To treat them as less than human is to risk becoming like them. When you fight monsters, you must take extra care to avoid becoming a monster yourself, after all.

Not everyone has the luxury of the free time and effort to pay enough attention, and those people vote. I’m not suggesting absolving them of their individual responsibility. They contributed and they have to reckon with that. I’m suggesting that we recognise the role that the system they exist in plays, too. And that they’re human which means they have all the failings that come along with that.

Do we hold Oppenheimer responsible for all the deaths the Manhatten Project caused? I argue we shouldn’t, but he still had to personally reckon with the moral weight of it.

Two things can both be true: someone can have been part of the cause of injustice and join the fight for justice. We can both hold them accountable; and encourage their growth, offer them grace, and welcome them to the right side of history. We don’t have to forgive, but mocking (at first) doesn’t help IMO.

(As I’ve said elsewhere, no reservations about mocking the unrepentant)

FDR, Churchill, and Stalin made it work…