Leaderboard

Well, I clicked on Brent's link and read the article. The FIRST thing was that there was a pop-up whining and crying that Google is 'attacking' them. Calling them liars for having articles full of... Lies. And trying to get them shut down... For lying. And I find the comparison rather disingenuous. The brake dust and tire particles are much higher than tailpipe emissions from ICE cars. But how do they compare to the ICE's brake dust and tire particles? A typical example of the Alt-right comparing apples to bunny rabbits. And they call the "Main Stream Media" fake. I also found the bitching about range estimates to be laughable. They claimed that EVs have about 60% of the promoted range, because it's 'best practice' to keep the battery between 20% and 80% state of charge (which is true). However, it's ALSO 'best practice' to keep your gas tank in an ICE car above 1/4 tank. Many modern cars have the fuel pump in the tank, the fuel surrounding the pump keeps it cool. Running the tank low on a regular basis will let the pump run hotter and it will fail sooner. While it's best for the battery of an EV to keep it in the 'safe area', there's no reason not to charge to 100%, or run it down close to zero, as long as you don't do it all the time. Edit to add: They also repeat the lie that the power generation for the electricity pollutes just as much as the tailpipe of an ICE car. While coal generated power isn't 'super clean', it still creates less pollutants than what comes out the back of an ICE car. By a huuuuuge margin. Also ignores the fact that coal makes up less than 20% of power generation. Personally, my local power utility generates from hydro. They have a natural gas 'peaker' that comes on when the demand is higher than the river can provide, but I charge off peak, so my car is damned near 'zero emissions'. For real.

I've got a lot of concerns about Trump pulling off a win in November....first and foremost is the concern that there's a sizable chunk of the population that's stoked about the prospect of giving that maniac another 4 years. The fact that Trump's MAGA-fying the RNC, installing the craziest of the crazies to run the show and almost certainly planning to use it as a piggy-bank for legal fees all work to providing a glimmer of hope.

Here's what I have, data from about 30 years back when I was new to the sport and a bit obsessed with collecting data and understanding the sport. 1. Two pages from I guess the Italian skydiving magazine in 1992 listing the early tandem fatalities in order. (Apparently there was also one on a European Galaxy rig sometime in that era, that isn't in those stats.) First tandem fatality is shown as the one with one snap not done up, TI spent entire jump trying to hook it up, without deploying anything (even the drogue). 2. An html file from UPT listing tandem fatalities and causes in order (but with no dates). From 2008, back when they listed that on their web site. 3. Scribbled pencil notes of mine from the early 1990s, where I listed a bit of the evolution of tandems (eg the date when Strong & Booth got their FAA exemptions to allow tandems), plus all the early fatalities and dates. I think most of the data on dates comes from an article in Parachutist,July 1989. (Which I can't find at the moment.) That list puts that first tandem fatality -- with the snap not done up -- as Oct 19, 1986. Back in those days people were wondering what the heck was going on with Vector tandems, as in the first dozen fatal accidents, there were 10 on Vectors, and 1 on a Galaxy, before there was 1 was a Strong Dual Hawk. There sure were a lot of different causes of accidents -- Stupid stuff we're not allowed to do with tandems now, main bags that much more easily came out of the container early, plus a lot more casual training and attitudes towards tandems. Which brought in the idea that 'it isn't just another skydive'. It also took a while to come up with the first tandem CYPRES, and eventually the idea of making one mandatory for tandems. (Wish I had the dates for those.) RWS tandem fatality list as of Feb08.htm

We need you. I think Chris used the metaphor of "we all stand on the shoulders of giants". Ultimately all of us will help bring this case to a conclusion. In this regard there is no question you are a contributor. No one doubts you are not invested or that you do not bring both unique insights and perspectives to the group. This DNA and Stylometry stuff is not for everyone, but you seem to have a very good grasp on the technicals. I speak for myself in saying that I think there will be a deficiency here in the groups understanding if you were to pull away completely. Take a few months off, but always know that whether your candidate is or is not Cooper ultimately your contributions will help in some measure to resolve this case.

And the first car tailpipes released a whole lot more particle pollution than horse tailpipes. But we hung in there and things got better.

Both tyre wear particles and tailpipe emissions are bad, but if I had to choose between them, I'd choose tyre particles. Tailpipe emissions have more smaller particles - PM2.5 and below, while tyre wear causes larger particles. PM2.5 is linked more definitively to negative health impacts, and death. And you HAPPILY announce any increases in coal use - they're one of the biggest emitters of mercury in the air. It's also funny how you pretend you care about pollution when plastic bag waste increases, you're almost jumping for joy.

"Good bye to people I've trusted I've got to go out and make my own way I might get rich, you know, I might get busted..."

This is a fun question and it requires a little bit of thought...

Leaving the Vortex. Might be back someday. I still believe WJS is Cooper. Need two mods for Reddit, neutral people. If you think you should be one, you probably shouldn’t. IM me. Good luck all.

What are you doing posting here?!?!? You should be running out to sell your wife's SUV and buy a Civic, now that you're aware of the dangers of heavy vehicles!