Traditional jets have a long inventory and regulation cycle but for example retrofitting a A320 to LNG appears to save 20%:

https://repository.tudelft.nl/record/uuid:63b89022-ac68-426d...

Which still puts it behind the 787 let alone the generation that comes next.. But you aren't going to succeed at making any new inventory without every possible efficiency improvement to drive sales and retirement of older inventory.

Who would invest in an ICE truck now not knowing what higher costs or restrictions it might have in a decade.. Most new car buyers are inherently irrational and not trying to make a profit from TCO relative to other car owners, but a truck..

Bad theory. People buying new cars do not expect them to last a decade. People who buy new cars in this era are consumers who treat them as fast fashion. They get traded in every few years with an ever-increasing markup.

> Most new car buyers are inherently irrational

Don't try to rationalize irrational behavior with magical long term thinking. Irrational people as a rule do not plan a decade in advance.

I think you've misinterpreted my comment. My point is that new car buyers don't really have to care about costs a decade out while Heavy Truck buyers do.

I interpreted this article to be talking about commercial trucks, like semis and box trucks. Are there good electric alternatives available?

Sure but modern cloud subscriptions have a lot of service layers you otherwise won't pay for so effectively you may be buying the hardware yearly that's a lot different than renting a media collection that would be assembled over a lifetime for the price of one new item a month.

HIV was a gift to the Christian right and now that medication has been so successful, things like HPV make up a larger part of what they have left. Helping parents misuse their small power in general but extreme power over their children also plays into the hands of people wanting the corruption of power over truth.

There is no change in the HPV recommendation.

You are not correct according to Reuters. "The new schedule also recommends U.S. children receive a single dose of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine, rather than a two-dose course. Recent studies have concluded that a single dose is not inferior to the longer course and noted the World Health Organization also backs a single dose schedule." https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/...

This clarification is missing from many others sources (such as the AP one I saw from a local news source): https://www.wral.com/news/ap/9b8df-us-drops-the-number-of-va... .

What you are describing is a somewhat routine adjustment and if it's non-inferior... sure. But it sure reads differently in different sources...

Interesting. In context that is not the claim what I am contradicting in the comment chain, despite that it is the literal reading of what I said.

The HPV single dose recommendation was probably coming regardless of who was in office.

The example wasn't even finding a right answer so I don't see where you got that..

Searching questions/answers on SO can surface correct paths on situations where the LLMs will keep giving you variants of a few wrong solutions, kind of like the toxic duplicate closers.. Ironically, if SO pruned the history to remove all failures to match its community standards then it would have the same problem.

"But losing SO means that we're getting an idiot friendly guy with a lot of credible but wrong answers in place of a grumpy and possibly toxic guy which, however, actually answered our questions."

> "actually answered our questions."

Read carefully.

Interpreting that claim as "SO users always, 100% of the time answer questions correctly" is uncharitable to the point of being unreasonable.

Most people would interpret the claim as concisely expressing that you get better accuracy from grumpy SO users than friendly LLMs.

For the record I was interpreting that as LLMs are useless (which may have been just as uncharitable), which I categorically deny. I would say they're about just as useful without wading through the mire that SO was.

>> Eventually I tried with something else, and found a question on stackoverflow, luckily with an answer. That was the game changer and eventually I was able to find the right doc

Read carefully and paraphrase to the generous side. The metaphor that follows that is obviously trying to give an example of what might be somehow lost.

This is a fair critique. I am often not generous enough with people.

Yes, it does answer you question, when the site lets it go through.

Note that "answers your question" does not mean "solving your problem". Sometimes the answer to a question is "this is infeasible because XYZ" and that's good feedback to get to help you re-evaluate a problem. Many LLMs still struggle with this and would rather give a wrong answer than a negative one.

That said, the "why don't you use X" response is practically a stereotype for a reason. So it's certainly not always useful feedback. If people could introspect and think "can 'because my job doesn't allow me to install Z' be a valid response to this", we'd be in a true Utopia.

You can't really put politics aside when the US was obviously dangling the return of the Monroe doctrine for Ukraine. Let's see what that "deal" looks like.

Great way to win a battle and lose a war.

It's a chance.. But which for-profit environments are not going to do whatever is necessary to try to win that role and how will the worst of them not have the most profitable model?

I talked to a CEO of one of these companies who claimed his accountants were pushing him to do the leasing only since a company was only supposed to be in one sector. A tech company that has a lot of real estate on the books wasn't going to have the same ups relative to book value, etc. Of course not having the same downs seems worth it if you aren't a day trader.

That's classic (bad) business school advice. Core competency. When I went every company was supposed to try and be like GE. Amazon in particular ignored many of the things I was taught. Take a college professors business advice with a grain of salt.