assuming there's a statistically significant increase in these kind of accidents: what's your theory on why this is happening? what has change since e.g. 5-10 years ago?
Well, first of all I don't actually think there is? It's clear that the 737 MAX is a particularly problematic design, but industry-wide incidents and accidents vs distance flown continue to fall, and have for decades; even _absolute_ numbers of deaths are falling, despite vastly more planes in the air.
As to the problems with Boeing in particular, they mostly look like cost-cutting and short-termism; the 737 MAX, for instance, is transparently an attempt to squeeze a few more years out of an ancient no-longer-fit-for-purpose design. And the decisions that lead to that were probably made more like _20_ years ago; Boeing should have started developing the 737 replacement quite a while ago. This would suggest that Boeing has poor leadership.
(You could also argue that some of it's the unfortunate reality of the markets; the markets _might_ punish Boeing for making necessary investments with very long pay-off times.)
My personal theory would be that the change in Boeing management is catching up to them. But like the anti-DEI folks, all I have to base that on is rough correlation. I certainly wouldn't try to make a case based on that alone.
I 100% believe that there is a sizeable contingent of people that pay (more) attention to these things than they usually would. I am a tiny bit of a plane nerd. Weird shit happens with planes regularly, and not just Boeing ones. These events are increasingly making it to HN, and when they do, they’re getting far more traction than they usually do.
There is undoubtedly something fishy going on at Boeing, but that doesn’t mean that more commonplace accidents aren’t being comparatively overpublicised, or that they aren’t getting more traction than usual because there are now far more people waiting with baited breath to jump on anything that portrays Boeing negatively.
All I’m really saying that Boeing hate is now undoubtedly trendy, and that communities like HN are filled with people that have bought into the software engineer God complex enough to think that they can just intuitively understand something as complex as aviation. I’d barely consider myself anything more than a layperson but these Boeing incident threads are increasingly filled with people spouting BS. Again, there is certainly something going wrong at Boeing, but we are well into the territory where there’s a real need to separate signal from noise.
this goes beyond getting some things wrong. It's conscious effort to be biased in a very specific way. When it struggles to put a white person in the generated images, or has trouble deciding whether Musk or Hitler were worse for humanity, you know it's been trained and guardrailed hard the wrong way
> Outpatient treatment with metformin reduced long COVID incidence by about 41%, with an absolute reduction of 4.1%, compared with placebo.
The 4.1% is just decimal, using the middle-dot typographical version of decimal point.
Both figures are applicable and have different meanings. It's just a coincidence that they have the same digits this time.
Rough summary: The 41% is comparing the effect of metformin vs placebo metformin, both administered following protocols. It means nearly half of people (meeting the study criteria - age range, etc.) who would have got long Covid (as reported at 300 days) wouldn't get it if they took metformin following the protocol within 3 days of their positive Covid PCR test.
The 4.1% says how many fewer people got long Covid after getting Covid (and meeting the study criteria - age range, PCR test timing etc), that was attributable to having the real metformin. It doesn't tell you that it moved the needle from 10.4% of people (who had Covid etc) getting long Covid down to 6.3% (both as reported at 300 days). But it does tell you the difference between those figures, which is how many people's lives (4.1% of those people who had Covid etc) would likely be improved by taking it and following the protocol.
> Díaz graduated with a licentiate degree in Law from the University of Santiago de Compostela (USC),[5][6] and later earned three post-graduate degrees. Upon concluding her studies, she commenced working as a paralegal for a law firm. Later, she registered as an attorney at law and opened her own law firm, which specialised in labour law.[5]
Fun fact: the process will be made artificially slow to last til you are 23 years old, which means voters making 18 this year would have to vote for them, again, in 4.
Not an engineering issue. Compute, and in the end, energy, has a cost. You weren't aware of it because, as someone mentioned, it was subsidized before. Now you are aware. You're free to contribute by paying, if content is worth to you, or walk away. There are alternatives, but you can't escape the fact that moving all those bits is not free.
