had a couple of CT myself. Usually it's minutes of active scanning. But all the preparations/calibrations/whatever is done - you stay in machine at least half an hour+. They cut it down to 5.
Are you sure you aren’t mixing up CT and MRI? Our scheduled diagnostic CT slots are at every 15 minutes, of which probably 10 minutes are getting the patient on-off the table and positioned and 2 minutes are cleaning the room.
I do CT guided procedures every day. It’s seconds for data acquisition for any scanner made in the last 15 years. Even our ancient scanners from the early 2000s are this fast.
As a radiologist in a tertiary care centre operating CT scanners from four different manufacturers of various generations and age (0-20 years) I can assure you that there is no current CT protocol that requires minutes of active scanning time.
Even if you are using bolus tracking and a multiphase acquisition your actual scanning time will be far less than a minute.
We know in our centre the average patient time on the scanner is 10 minutes and we book patients every 15 minutes.
If a C- chest CT is taking 30+ minutes, something isn’t right. A standard workflow might have them every 30 minutes to allows extra bookings to be plugged in where needed, without ruining the rest of the day.
Or at least that’s the workflow in the places I’ve worked.
It's a little depressing how long it takes to complete projects like this, but encouraging that they're even trying. So... I guess I feel neutral about this on the balance. Anyone wanna take bets on how delayed and how much over budget they'll be?
"There was a terrible storm in 2012 that damaged the tunnel; repairs beginning in 2019 will shut down L Train service for a year and a half, etc. What strikes me as remarkable is that none of these accounts contains any half-serious attempt to explain to the curious reader such as myself why in the name of all that is good and holy it is taking all these years to get from Hurricane Sandy to Hurricane Sandy repairs.
Assuming those repairs are done on schedule nearly nine years will have passed between Sandy and the completion of storm repairs. That’s twice as long as it took the United States to defeat the Axis powers, twice as long as the Civil War, longer than the time that elapsed between John Kennedy’s “We choose to go to the moon” speech and landing Americans on the moon."
> That’s twice as long as it took the United States to defeat the Axis powers, twice as long as the Civil War, longer than the time that elapsed between John Kennedy’s “We choose to go to the moon” speech and landing Americans on the moon."
Implying the United States defeated the axis powers on their own is a bit rich – don't you think?
Disregarding the revisionism of your comment, this seems to be a common argument in discussions like this and I wonder why? Isn't it fairly obvious that those ambitious undertakings were either due to significant political will or being forced by danger of death, whereas repairing a subway most probably carries none of that weight? So those responsible must fight tooth and nail to convince the powers that be of the necessity of the work, probably end up being underfunded anyhow, and of course all this requires the responsible (political) parties care enough in the first place.
It seems like a pretty unreasonable argument to me, but maybe I'm missing the point.
I don't think the point was to imply that the US beat the axis powers on their own, but rather to put the timeline in perspective.
Notwithstanding that, you are missing the point. The failure to rebuild the tunnel is at its heart a failure of leadership. We have the technology, we have the money, what we lack are political leaders with will and vision.
In the examples you brought up, FDR led a nation dragging their heels into a war most people were happy to stay out of. He showed leadership and no small amount of political skill to get the United States into a war most wanted to avoid (which makes the 'beat-the-axis-singlehandedly' trope even more ironic.) Similarly with Lincoln and the Civil War. Many people were content to live with the status quo of slavery. And so with Kennedy and the moon landing -- the Cold War was not an existential threat, and the leadership of Kennedy generated the will.
To get a subway tunnel repaired doesn't need a once in a century or once in a generation leader, but it does take some will and vision and political savvy. The venal mealy-mouthed bums we're currently stuck with are simply not up to the task.
The Washington Post article hints at some of the differences between their repair and more permanent work:
> Alaska DOT spokeswoman Shannon McCarthy was quick to emphasize that this was emergency repair work and not a regular transportation project.
> The latter requires permitting, survey operations, geotechnical work and a host of other prerequisites — and those finished roadways are designed to last, say, 20 years, she said.
> “All of those things take a lot of time,” McCarthy told The Washington Post. “This is not that kind of project. This is a project to restore essential travel.”
> While the repaired road is safe for drivers, it will require additional work after the spring arrives, she added.
>It's a little depressing how long it takes to complete projects like this
What if this is because those kinds of projects aren't a great solution and yet we're constantly trying to hamfist them in because it 'feels' right. If it was easy and cheap we would have switched long time ago.
Solar and wind are expensive, and they stress the infrastructure because of their inherent intermittency. Battery deployments are also expensive to deploy and to maintain (Li batteries will degrade, but then so will wind turbines and solar panels) and no battery project can bridge the gap in the daily and seasonal fluctuations of power output from solar and wind.
You end up needing to burn fossil fuels to compensate. You'll burn either natural gas, or coal, or some sort of bio-fuel or garbage or ... whatever else, but you'll burn something.
Hydro, geothermal and nuclear are pretty much the only proven power generation sources that can provide city-scale power without fossil fuels - and we're pretty much out of rivers to dam and geysers to develop. And since nobody likes nuclear anymore we're left with no actual solution to carbon emissions. But hey, Green New Deal is a great way to feel like you're doing something!!
>Anyone wanna take bets on how delayed and how much over budget they'll be?
Sure. I'll take that bet. It will be a disaster. I also don't believe that they will ever deploy 920 MW of battery storage - which would be by far the biggest battery deployment in the world. And if they do, it won't be worth it.
> Sure. I'll take that bet. It will be a disaster.
I understand the "bet" here is figurative, but it's pretty sad to bet on the misery of others. We should have realistic expectations for how this project is likely to work out, but we shouldn't give into cynicism before the project has even gotten started.
You'll probably end up proven right, but in this instance, I hope you're wrong. You should hope you're wrong too.
To me, the most surprising factoid in this article is that Estonia offers 86 weeks of maternity leave! That's so much! And with such a low cost of living... goodbye, Bay Area.
So true. It's also interesting to me that many companies have switched from "Unlimited" PTO to "Flexible" PTO...
I had a co-worker recently who started counting up the time they'd taken off in the last year, realized it was much less than the industry average, and took off for Australia. Seemed like a very reasonable response to me.
Such a great idea. Glad to hear GitHub itself is working on this problem, but OctoLinker fills a gap for sure. Just need Scala support now for it to be really useful...
As a few people have pointed out, this feels a lot like an attempt at solving one environmental problem (proliferation of waste plastic) by exacerbating another environmental problem (burning more fossil fuels). But if it took off, it could potentially serve as something of an intermediary step between our fossil fuel economy and a renewables-based economy. After all, the switch from horses to automobiles took 50 years. (https://thetyee.ca/News/2013/03/06/Horse-Dung-Big-Shift/, https://www.mnn.com/green-tech/transportation/blogs/horses-h...) A similar shift to renewables could easily take as long or longer.
Exactly. From a carbon/global warming sense, this is actually worse.
Plastic is carbon that never went into the atmosphere. It's actually nicely stored away, wildlife effects aside. Once you burn it, it's like you were burning oil.
Oil in the ground is also carbon that wasn't in the air.
If the amount of jetfuel consumed stays the same, the amount of CO2 going into the air stays about the same. Could slightly increase or decrease depending on the processes' efficiency compared to the marginal oil producers' efficiency.
Fuel made from recycled plastic will displace fuel made directly from petroleum. So it will make the first problem (disposing of used plastic) better while not making the second problem (carbon dioxide emissions) any worse.
Obviously this isn't useful if we manage to eliminate fossil fuels altogether, but we're a long way from that.
