I’ve been hearing a lot about how unreliable the F-35s have been with it being hard to even get them off the ground half the time due to the maintenance needed on them.

The F-35 requires roughly the same amount of mmh / fh as the Gripen, exclusive of engine and air-frame. What’s been hampering the readiness rate of the F-35, which is below that of the Gripen, is the lack of maintenance depots. This was always going to happen because Lockheed planned from the beginning to sell the planes first and build the maintenance depots later. The F-35 sold so well that it outstripped the capacity to build the maintenance depots which created a lack of on-hand parts and technicians. This is turning around and readiness rates are improving as Lockheed slowly gets caught creating maintenance yards.

The Gripen has lower sales (that’s not a knock on it) which made it easier for Saab to keep up on the maintenance side. They also try to get maintenance depots setup simultaneous with deliveries. IMO they’ve done a better job of managing things.

Meh, the politicians can say whatever they want. The Market talks a lot louder.

Coal production in the United States is down 60% from it’s peak in 2008 (1172 vs 526). In that same time frame Wind Power is up from 55 Tw/h to 425Tw/h and Solar Power is up from 864Gw/h to 164,502Gw/h.

We still have a long ways to go but there’s been massive changes in the last 15 years.

You should also be changing with time to take advantage of such technological growth.

Whoo boy that’s funny, thanks for the chuckle. I’ve been technology professional so long that I literally predate NAT. To say that I’ve changed with the time would be an understatement.

TVs are admittedly geared towards single wide screen tasks like the obvious: media consumption.

Huh, media consumption. You mean like Lemmy or any other web media?

That’s what additional monitors can be used for; but the point is with a single wide monitor you don’t have to run a second monitor.

Here’s where we diverge and despite considering the issue for several hours now I’m still not sure if this is a generational issue or something else. Obviously I’m from the time before widescreen and it looks like to me like you’re trying to use a workaround (multiple windows on a single screen) to justify what is objectively a downgrade in display technology.

You are in essence saying “Yes I know the monitor doesn’t have enough vertical space but you are supposed to use the extra horizontal space to overcome that.” I am going to counter by saying that computer monitors shouldn’t be 16x9, that’s a TV / Movie format forced into the computer industry by display makers who wanted to leverage their investment in television panels to produce cheap computer monitors. In short you are forcing yourself to find ways to work around display tech that doesn’t fit the use case; the screen is wider than it needs to be while not being tall enough.

Amusingly I was discussing this with a peer about an hour ago and he brought up ultra wide monitors like the Samsung Odyssey QD-OLED G9 (5120x1440) and after looking at it we decided that a monitor with the same physical width (48") but double the physical height (20" vs 40") and double the horizontal resolution (2880) would be near perfect. With such a monitor there would be so much real estate that app windows would stay large enough to be readable while still being capable of displaying lots of data vertically.

You could mount one vertically, you could use different sized displays, you could stack them.

Ahhh, now we hit the rub. I do a lot of remote GUI work and what I’m dropping into expects widescreen and uses all of it. Downscaling that into an app window makes the problem worse because it leaves large areas unused horizontally and there’s still not enough vertical. I could flip a monitor to portrait but then it’s too narrow to be handled correctly because what was a lack of vertical resolution has now become a lack of horizontal resolution. This is another symptom of 16:19 being a bad aspect ratio for computer displays.

Be your own person.

This person is seriously considering a pair of frameless ultra widescreen displays in a vertical stack. Expensive AF but potentially oh so usable.

You do you with multiple app windows squished to fit into today’s displays. If it works for you then it works for you.

Enjoy your day.

https://archive.ph/6Xb9o

Saying “You’re using it wrong” is blaming the user for using the computer the way it was presented out of the box.

It’s also the way we’ve used computers for nearly fifty years and the way we interact with every other display in our lives. As examples almost no one uses less than the full wide of their TV, Smart Phone, or Tablet. There’s no reasons that computer displays should be any different and they weren’t until pretty recently.

If you’re using anything full screen, you’re doing it wrong

I’ll make sure to start watching YT videos in tiny little boxes like we did in the 90s and 2000s. 😜

I have 3 curved monitors in the home office. Left monitor is browser, center monitor is primary task, right monitor is comms or secondary task. I can’t track more than three things at a time anyway and I bought these big ol’ curved monitors for a reason.

This is how computer monitors have been used since I first touched an Apple II+ in 1980. It’s how you use every other display in your life. The problem isn’t with people using apps full screen.

Stop making a single browser window full screen and use the additional space on the side for something useful.

So stop using monitors the way I’ve been using them since 1982? Stop using them the way that literally every other screen I interact with functions?

A chat application, a notepad, a calculator, file browsing, a second browser window, documents, etc.

That’s what 2nd and 3rd monitors are for.

Or rotate the display to be tall instead of wide if you really want the extra vertical space.

That’s not so easy when you’re using multiple curved monitors with a stand or mount.

I get what you’re saying, I really do, but from my point of view it’s incorrect. It breaks the usage paradigm that’s been in place since these things were invented and there’s no other screens in our lives where we intentionally use less than the full width available for a single task.

But web devs seem universally to assume that if it’s a tall narrow screen, to show the mobile version.

Web Devs are also highly allergic to using the 25% of the screen on both the right and left so only the middle 50% is useful space. It’s god damned infuriating!

With that in mind; a wide monitor is useful for … web browsing

Are you serious? As I’m typing this comment Lemmy has just over 4" of totally unused space on the left of my monitor and 3 1’2" of unused space on the right!

Seriously, see for yourself!

Granted that’s not the fault of the monitor but not only does widescreen reduce the amount of viewable area top to bottom modern web hackery doesn’t even fucking use all of that extra space side to side!

I have about the same viewable area now as I did in 2000 with a 20" “square” monitor!

deleted by creator

I have my smoke / CO detectors, KIdde Z-Wave units, tied to my Home Assistant setup. HA will push a notifier to my phone if the smoke or CO alarm goes off and it’s able to track the battery life and let me know I need to change them before they start beeping.

“Bans ARs” but specifically exempts the Ruger Mini-14. 😂

Syncthing

That is a very cool project that I’d never heard of. Thanks for sharing!

I don’t like this at all.

There’s overlap because of Federal Elections. You can have one set of rules for State / County / City level elections and another set for Federal.

Tesla could have just dumped paperwork on a less busy area and said file all this shit.

I wondered about that myself but I’m not familiar with how Tesla dealerships operate, especially since it’s Canada.

If I was this Judge I’d be requesting a 24x7 security detail from the US Marshals.

Well No Shit. Why would anyone want to buy into the hot mess we’ve got going right now?

but the sales numbers reported by some of the dealerships in question are nothing short of miraculous.

Eh, maybe. I appreciate your skepticism but as a former Sales Guy the ending of the iZEV program would have made sales, including fleet sales, pretty damn easy.

Let say you’ve had a company considering buying 50 EVs for their fleet and suddenly its in the news that the rebate program is ending. You now have 250,000 reasons to call the Dealership and get those vehicles under contract (Sale or Lease).

It works the other way around too. The Sales Schmuck from the dealership goes through his book of recent visitors to the dealership and calls them up. “Hey, I just wanted to let you know that the iZEV program is going to close down. So if you want to save $5,000 you should get down to the dealership right away.” so the person who was interested runs down there and inks a deal.

Those scenarios aren’t just plausible I’ve personally done them. The ending of a rebate program worth thousands or even hundreds of thousands of dollars is a powerful closing tool.

Also the sales numbers only appear “miraculous” if you assume that the transactions all happened in those two days when they almost certainly didn’t. A couple hundred individuals buy cars in January meanwhile the phone is ringing off the hook with fleet sales and suddenly the paperwork is behind.

This looks and smells strongly of fraud.

Transport Canada has the paperwork, you can’t file a rebate claim without it, so its just a matter of time until the truth comes out. If Tesla tried to defraud the Canadian Government then I hope they get crucified for it.

So I’m cruising through the rules surrounding Canada’s iZEV program and contrary to all of the media coverage I can’t find any requirement that the vehicle be “delivered”… It’s even described on the official Transport Canada website as a “Point of Sale” program. Delivery at the time of sale doesn’t seem to be a requirement.

Further if you look at the process, which also references this as a “Point of Sale or Lease” program, and the e-forms the end purchaser IS involved with this and consents to Transport Canada contacting them about their purchase.

The number of vehicles does seem high but only in the context of individuals however the iZEV program allows for Fleet Sales and some entities could claim up to 50 vehicles. Now all of a sudden what would need to be 8,000 individual sales could theoretically be as low as 160.

After reviewing the process and the forms it seems believable that Tesla slammed a bunch of legitimate sales into the system at the last minute. It’s a LOT less believable that Tesla made up all of these sales as the documentation requirements mean they’d certainly be caught the minute anyone checked.