You see the helo coming from the left on the screen while the airliner appears to be descending. The helo must have gotten in the way (as opposed to catching up from behind). The airliner's lights are unmistakable, so how did the helo pilot not notice them? The airliner's pilots might not have had a chance to notice the helo. Since the helo was crossing an active runway approach the fault has to be with them.
Landing lights are very focused. They're only noticeable if they're pointed towards you (but then they're very bright). They were visible to the camera but perhaps not to the heli.
Of course the plane would have anti-collision lights as well though, those are omnidirectional.
My only thought is that it's a regional jet, so it's smaller than a "normal" commercial flight. At night, if you expect it to be a big jet and it looks small, you presume it's just further away. I think they saw it, saw it small and presumed they had enough time to make it in front of it.
Anyone that can explain what the people on X mean when they comment that it was "intentional"? I'm probably out of the loop but this feels super out of place to me.
These are only a small amount directly from the replies to the tweet you shared, you can find many more if you keep scrolling.
In the end there is no way the courts could force the Executive to deficit spend. I'm not sure I want to find out which way that will go right now -and I make no predictions whatsoever-, but it has got to be the case that in extremis the Executive can simply cut spending until the deficit is reduced to zero. Imagine that the deficit was 100% and inflation were raging at Argentine levels like 100% a year: an American Milei (which Trump is not far from being) would absolutely get away with cutting spending to the bone and telling the Congress and the courts to go pound sand.
My advice is to not push too hard on this at this time. The only real check on Trump's power right now will be the House impeaching, and that can only happen if House Republicans get angry with him, and it should be clear that cutting spending is making them angry before the courts start goading Trump into doing something that might trigger impeachment. I don't think people realize that the right-ward movement in the electorate is accelerating since the election, and doing things that further accelerate that before the midterms isn't going to help Trump's opponents in either party.
By that theory, if the President can choose not to spend money budgeted and authorized by Congress, they have an effective veto power over any legislation. Don't like trains? Defund Amtrak. Don't like highways? Defund DOT. Peace lover? Zero out the DoD.
This is why the Supreme Court is here - to adjudicate what is legal and to reconcile different responsibilities and theories. Regardless of what is "best for the country", the law says one thing and the President is doing something else.
First of all see the "impoundment power" and the Impoundment Control Act. It's not clear what the Constitution says on this matter, nor have the courts pronounced themselves on this. In the 90s the SCOTUS said that Congress could not give the President an explicit line item veto power, but impoundment is not the same thing.
Second, in extremis, it has got to be the case that the President can refuse to spend allocated moneys. The President must never be able to spend unallocated funds, but Congress can't make money appear out of nowhere. In extremis the dollar could stop being the world's reserve currency, and in extremis the U.S. could end up in a situation like Argentina's. Obviously there has to be a limit. I'm not saying we're there. But I am saying that the courts should thing ten times before saying that the President cannot impound spending.
Besides, consider all the constitutional provisions that we no longer adhere to. For example the Constitution says that Congress must set the value of the currency, but Congress does no such thing. For another the Constitution says that all debt issuance must be approved by Congress, but Congress merely sets a ceiling for debt issuance rather than approving each issuance. Some things -not many- the Constitution got wrong in ways that nobody even bothered to amend nor ever will.
In extremis, if it's the President that decides which parts of Congress to implement, then they have broken the separation of powers. Either the Supreme Court should explicitly rule that the President can weigh e.g. macroeconomic impacts when choosing not to implement laws Congress passed, or Congress should act to avoid those economic consequences.
Aside from today's specific issue, I'm very concerned about the decades-long trend of power being ceded by Congress to the Executive and Judicial branches. This is would be another big jerk in that direction.
"Current law thus often catches the executive branch in a vise: Presidents can neither spend money without an appropriation nor refuse to spend funds once Congress has provided them. From both directions, Congress has reinforced its “power of the purse”—its authority to control the use of federal money." - https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/a-primer-on-the-impound...
No, the extreme example here is about DEFICIT spending. If Congress passed a balanced budget then the President could not decide not to spend some of it.
Reality has a stronger vise than the ICA or the SCOTUS.
The question here seems to be whether the president can temporarily not spend money. Congress has the ultimate power of spending. When the spending is grants, does the executive have the ability to change where the money goes? In other words once the tap is open, it can’t ever close?
> My advice is to not push too hard on this at this time. The only real check on Trump's power right now will be the House impeaching, and that can only happen if House Republicans get angry with him, and it should be clear that cutting spending is making them angry before the courts start goading Trump into doing something that might trigger impeachment. I don't think people realize that the right-ward movement in the electorate is accelerating since the election, and doing things that further accelerate that before the midterms isn't going to help Trump's opponents in either party.
There isn't going to be another election in this country.
No, it's the whole point of Boom. They won't be able to keep the sonic boom a secret. They whole company's future hangs on making that sonic boom minor enough that supersonic flights will be allowed with few restrictions. Therefore asking what the boom was is perfectly fair.
Now, Boom might say (have they? I'm not following them) that the XB-1 is a demonstrator that they can do supersonic flight, and that the sonic boom reduction work will follow on. In that case asking what today's boom was is not that interesting.
The chase planes also went supersonic, so they would have contributed to the sonic boom, which might complicate that analysis (well, there would be at most 3 pairs of sonic booms, and it should be possible to tell which ones correspond to which planes).
With planes being long enough away from the demonstrator, and speed of sound relatively low (about 330 m/s), the booms of all three planes should be separate enough, e.g. a good 100 ms away from one another, even if all three went supersonic and were dragging their respective shock waves.
The distance between the planes appeared to be around 30-50 m at the supersonic transition time, as much as I can estimate the size of the planes. A sound recording made under the flight path should allow to measure how many dB was the demonstrator's boom.
It was already baked into the cake because the previous administration spent something like 13% of GDP in its last year in order to win the election that they went on to lose. 13% of GDP's worth of malinvestment will increase poverty in due time, and that time was Milei's first year in government. In 2001 the Peronists left the next non-Peronist government a ticking time bomb, the next government (De La Rúa's)completely fumbled and had to end early, returning power to the Peronists. In 2023-2024 the Peronist plan was to repeat that experience. Unlike De La Rúa though, Milei seems to know what he's doing and so has been able to head off the putsch. It would be hard to push Milei out of power when his popularity right now is higher than his election winning percentage.
Also do keep in mind that in 2012 the Peronist government "intervened" the government's statistics department, and since then government stats were somewhere between unreliable and total fiction. Presumably that has changed now. Thus the poverty level before the election could have been understated, just as the inflation numbers then were.
Since the end of 2015 with Macri and then with A. Fernandez the statistic department is normalized and the numbers were quite good. (It's too optimistic to claim 100% accurate, but I don't remember mayor problems since 2015.)
Inheriting from a class creates dispatch problems, and there's instance variables/fields/whatever to deal with. Never mind multiple inheritance, as that gets hairy real fast. With interfaces there is no hierarchy, and all there is is a type and a data, and you either pass them around together, you monomorphize to avoid the need to pass two pointers instead of one, or you have the data point to its type in a generic way. With class hierarchies you have to have operations to cast data up and down the hierarchy, meaning trade one dispatch table for another.
If you have a sufficiently statically typed language then the is-a concern goes away -- certainly in the example you gave, since the compiler/linker knows to look for a `GetNotifier()` that returns a `Notifier`. Now, you might still want to know whether the notifier you got satisfies other traits than just those of `Notifier`, but you do that by using a type that has those traits rather than `Notifier`, and now you have little need for `instanceof` or similar operators. (You still might want to know what kind of thing you got because you might care about semantics that are not expressed in the interface. For example you might care to know whether a logger is "fast" as in local or "slow" as in remote, as that might cause you to log less verbosely to avoid drops or blocking or whatever. But the need for this `instanceof` goes down dramatically if you have interfaces and traits.)
You see the helo coming from the left on the screen while the airliner appears to be descending. The helo must have gotten in the way (as opposed to catching up from behind). The airliner's lights are unmistakable, so how did the helo pilot not notice them? The airliner's pilots might not have had a chance to notice the helo. Since the helo was crossing an active runway approach the fault has to be with them.
reply