Jump to content

Ghost of LL

Burnt Ends
  • Posts

    5794
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by Ghost of LL

  1. Ghost of LL

    Burgers

    I can now confirm that the burger at Bill's Oyster (3rd & Colorado) is very, very good.
  2. My local grocery store is the Westlake HEB. So there's no fucking way I'm getting my groceries curbside--I'd miss all the hot Westlake mom ass parading around inside.
  3. That's not true at all. It's definitely the case in the Senate. And it's also the case in the House. Wyoming has one member of the House for its 580,000 people. A congressional district in Texas has, on average, 790,000 people. The fact that individual small-state voters' voters count for more across the entire federal government has been a feature of the Constitution since the beginning.
  4. Honestly, probably Gavin Newsom. Maybe Andy Beshear. I would like to say Gretchen Whitmer. She's nice. I really like her. But then I remember the inherent misogyny of the American electorate, and I think "nah."
  5. Ok--I guess I'll bite. Fuck . . . I know I'm going to regret this. Dammit. Who is Toria Nuland?
  6. So infer that this means that the allegations have at least some truth to them, right?
  7. Following a military strategy to the exclusion of political considerations doesn't work out, either. See, e.g., Germany 1918.
  8. I promise to do better--i.e., more muledick--in the future.
  9. Minnesota is pretty safe so long as the Cities continue growing and the rest of the state continues shrinking.
  10. You know--at the risk of going full CRT, this is the correct answer.
  11. Ok--we need to flesh this bit of language out right now. And I love you, @horn4life, but you and everyone else who espouses the "we're a republic, not a democracy" line of shit needs to go and slap the elementary-school teacher who taught them that. Because "democracy" and "republic" literally mean the same thing; the only difference is whether you prefer Ancient Greek or Latin to name your form of government. "Democracy" comes from the ancient Greek: "Demos"=people and "kratos"=rule. So literally "rule by the people." "Republic" comes from Latin: "Res"=the thing and "publica"=the people. So literally "the affair of the people." The dichotomy that people think they're ascribing between "democracy" and "republicanism" is actually between "direct democracy" and "representative democracy." In a direct democracy (e.g., ancient Athens), all of the voters get together in the town square and vote on individual pieces of legislation. In a representative democracy (e.g., the UK), the people vote for representatives, who then vote on legislation. The Roman Republic had aspects of both representative and direct democracy. The Senate was a representative body. And constitutionally, matters of treasury and foreign affairs were handled exclusively by the Senate (until the Gracchi upset that constitutional order, but that's a discussion for another thread). But then there was the Assembly (which were actually three different Assemblies, but that's not important right now), which were convened in the Forum and in which every citizen voted on individual propositions. So even the Roman Republic--from which the term "republic" derives--was not a purely representative democracy. So please, please, please, for the love of God, Zeus, Jupiter, and for good measure Odin and Horus, please stop drawing a false distinction between a "democracy" and a "republic." We live in both a democracy and a Republic. For now.
  12. No, because AA was never a huge 737 customer. AA was primarily an MD-80 Family operator. Only when the MD-80s came to be retired did AA start to buy the 737 in large numbers. But even then, AA was never exclusive to Boeing in the way Southwest was. Owing largely to its various mergers, AA has operated the A320 for as long as it has operated the 737. And that's important for Boeing when it has to go to the banks to get financing for the development of a new aircraft model. Whether AA is going to buy the new model (rather than switch to Airbus) is pretty speculative. But Southwest--that's a different story. Southwest is going to give you the firmest of firm orders pretty damned quickly so long as the new model shares the 737 certification. But if it's not a 737? If that new model is a 7X7? That Southwest business looks a lot more speculative. Southwest may place orders for a 7X7, but we all know that orders can get canceled. And that makes the debt Boeing has to take on to develop the 7X7 a lot more expensive. And that makes the 7X7 less economically viable and a lot less economically attractive than just figuring out how to put the CFM LEAP engine on that low-ass 737 wing.
  13. I honestly can't pin that blame on Boeing. That is what its customers demanded. And by "customers," I really mean "Southwest Airlines." Southwest is the largest 737 customer, and it's not even particularly close. Southwest has ordered nearly 900 of the 737-Max; the next largest airline order is United for 666 (not making that up). Southwest alone accounts for about 15% of the 737's order book. So here's the thing: Boeing does what Southwest wants. And Southwest wants the 737. There are some significant cost benefits associated with flying one aircraft type. We can argue whether those benefits outweigh the costs for an airline of Southwest's current size and system complexity; I would argue that its one-type fixation has outlived its usefulness. But regardless, flying both the 737 and some other aircraft type (whether it be the A320 or a new 7X7) would come with some significant costs. There's the obvious cost in spare parts and maintenance, but the real cost is in labor. Union contracts would have to be completely overhauled. New mechanics would have to be hired (or mechanics qualified on both airframes would have to be paid more). And it would impair flight-crew flexibility for dispatch purposes. Oh, and here's the real fun thing--Southwest's flight-dispatch software isn't set up to allow for that. That's not to say that it couldn't be changed. It is to say that such a change would add cost. So Southwest wants the 737. And so Boeing is very keen to keep the 737 certified. But that's a real challenge. Because engine design has evolved a bit over the past 60 years. The original 737 was powered by the Pratt & Whitney JT8D engine. It's a low-bypass, two-spool design on a four-stage turbine, all of which leads to a very long, slim engine design. So the great thing about this design is that it allows for a very short landing gear. And that's nice, because it's super simple. The main landing gear retracts right up into the fuselage without any extension or rotation. In 1983, Boeing developed the 737-300 series, which was powered by the CFM-56 engine. This was a much higher-bypass design than the JT8D, leading to a fatter, but shorter engine. Boeing was able to deal with this by mounting it slightly forward of the wing. And that allowed Boeing to retain the main landing gear. But to come up with the next generation--the MAX--Boeing was going to need to plan for a newer, larger engine. It is powered by the CFM LEAP, which is significantly more fuel-efficient. The trouble with it is, though, that it is wider than the CFM-56. So Boeing here had a problem. The CFM LEAP is too big to fit under the 737 wing with the landing gear. And you can't just slap on a new main landing gear, because that completely fucks up the design of the fuselage and the wing spar. It could come up with a brand new aircraft, which is what it did with the 787. There's no way to keep the 737 certification with a complete redesign of the mid-fuselage and wing spar. And that's going to piss off Southwest. But more importantly, it's going to create an opening for Airbus. "Hey, Southwest--since you're going to have to have two different aircraft types anyway, why not buy the A320?". So Boeing needed to do whatever it could to keep the 737 family going. To do that. it moved the engine even further forward of the wing to allow part of the engine to actually be above the leading edge of the wing. Compare the picture of the 737-800 above with the MAX: Now this is really a cool design. It wildly shifts the center of gravity forward, which is just fine because of the modern avionics (assuming you get the computer programming right). I mean, look--there are some things I like a lot more about the A320 family, particularly from the passenger perspective. But the 737 is still a pretty good design. And when considering what the engineers have had to do to satisfy the business considerations, it's pretty damned impressive. But bottom line here--let's not put those business considerations on McDonnell Douglas or the accountants. It doesn't take an MBA to tell you that you need to do what you can to keep your largest customer tied to you, particularly when that customer is 15% of your order book. This is entirely about Southwest, the limitations inherent in its model, and its refusal to invest on the front-end to get a better plane on the back end. This isn't a fuck-up conceived in Chicago or even Seattle; it started on Love Field Drive.
  14. Yeah, but with the filibuster, he is controlling what passes.
  15. Say what you will about Donald Trump, but I think the true record-holder for the largest gap between office held and ability to hold such office is Mike Johnson. That guy is (maybe) qualified to be a clueless backbencher who does exactly what the party whip tells him to do. He has absolutely no business being within a hundred miles of the speakership--a fact he confirms every day.
  16. The part where Det. Murtaugh shoots an unarmed man, but is never prosecuted and cannot be sued for civil damages because he has--and here's the great irony of the movie--qualified immunity? I mean, yeah. That was great. It works on so many levels.
  17. He made shit music that was enjoyed primarily by garbage people.
  18. As a matter of public policy, I broadly agree. But right now, the American Republic faces an existential crisis from Trump and the GQP. Seeing off that threat is Priority 1. So if putting a few middle-class citizens of Communist China into a detention camp in Mexico to cool their heels for 6-12 months is the necessary price of saving American democracy, then I'm pretty fucking willing to pay it.
  19. I don't know, man--the video is posted directly above your query. Why don't you just watch it? I think @bolverk gives a pretty good synopsis. From my own perspective, I'll say this: I'm pretty sympathetic to people seeking refuge from places like Honduras and Guatemala. Those are failed narco-states, and they're failed narco-states in large part because of American (in)action and demand for drugs. For a lot of people, staying here is a literal death sentence. I'm a lot less sympathetic to middle-class Chinese people who are coming here because the Chinese economy is in the shitter. The United States played a minimal role in China's poor economic decision-making; we bear no responsibility for their real-estate bubble popping. And even in that situation, being middle class in China just isn't that fucking bad. So if the Biden Administration has to put in place some restrictive policies to bolster its reelection chances, I'm a lot more agreeable to that happening at the expense of middle-class Chinese people than on the backs of desperate Central Americans. I mean, bottom line: if it takes putting some Chinese people in a detention center in Mexico for a few months to wait on a CBP appointment in order to save American democracy, then I'm on board with that.
  20. A real interesting issue was talked about on 60 Minutes last night. It was a really good episode, by the way--come for the Jerome Powell interview; stay for the border story. Anyway--in the first half of 2023 (the most recent period for which we have statistics), a majority of migrants crossing the Southern border came from "historical atypical countries." Basically, that is everyone who is not from Latin America. And as detailed in the 60 Minutes piece, a growing percentage of those are from China. They're middle-class economic migrants who hop a flight to Mexico and walk across the border with their roll-aboard luggage in tow.
  21. Kind of light on the details, aren't they? And that kind of implies that the news isn't great.
  22. It's not the worst movie I've ever seen. But it's the one that makes me the angriest. You had Bryan Cranston and Catherine O'Hara and Sam Rockwell in a cast, and this is the shit you turned out? I mean, fucking seriously? Its only redeeming quality was that it wasn't badly acted. The decent acting just revealed how awful everything else was. I sweatergawd, I was ready to leave after the first scene. Actually, in the middle of the first scene. The CGI was so distractingly bad, and the plot really made no sense (so there's a lounge full of beautiful people all drinking and partying at 7:00 AM in Santorini, and literally every one of them is a spy/hitman/hitwoman?). And honestly, that was probably the high point. Goddamn, it was so bad.
  23. There was also a lot of fuckery with polling locations. So much so that Jamie Harrison-you know, the chairman of the fucking DNC—showed up to the wrong place for an event because the polling place had been moved several miles away. And in a non-event primary, that kind of fuckery is going to have a real impact on turnout. I mean, if I show up to my polling place and it’s been lived five miles away, am I really going to try to try it down on a Saturday to cast a purely symbolic vote?
×
×
  • Create New...