The article did mention them as "registered", so I don't think this applies.
The article did mention them as "registered", so I don't think this applies.
"up to 1% of 2100 planes could be affected" followed by "based on our calculations, as many as 21 planes could be affected" made me chuckle.
It might be overstating some things, but I've heard quite a few hardware startups fail the past years due to parts shortage, rising parts costs, energy costs, etc.
On the large industry scale the machine is ticking away just fine, but I've experienced first hand how those factors have decimated any reserves small players have over the past few years. And large companies don't innovate nearly as much as small ones can - competitive advantages for the future are definitely lost here. While that may not be a problem today, that does mean Germany will be behind on innovation in 5 - 10 years.
"Setting up a base in Vietnam" for a US company sounds like slightly painful wording to me..
I wonder what would happen to the works were the museum to go bankrupt instead - then they would be sold for their "monetary value" as well, right? Then this seems more like protest for protest sake, as it's a last resort damage control measure that can hardly be avoided from the sound of it.
Does anyone have any context about the "assassination wanted" banner in the listing image? I find it quite shocking, and the article didn't make any mention of it that I saw.
That makes sense, thanks
They did, but they didn't see as sharp of an energy price increase as far as I know. Our energy bill has increased so much that we had to not only deal with project (and thus payment) delays due to the shortages, but also with projects suddenly not bringing in money but costing us. This had a compounding effect on many small businesses.
I'm wondering if it's tied to how status symbols differ per culture. Its been 20 years, but I don't remember status symbols mattering much to my environment when I was a teenager in the Netherlands. I wonder how that is now.
I would imagine OP meant in terms of CO2 emitted by those particular planes. I have no sources, but recall hearing that due to the relative inefficiency of the engines at taxi speeds, a large percentage of the fuel required for a flight is consumed driving to/from the runway. However, how much extra emissions were made highly depends on how they did stop the flights and/or announce their presence on the runway - if the planes never left the gates, the extra emissions would be close to 0 for instance.
According to Wikipedia it's not, so you're safe
🤫
I'm loving the puns quoted in the article haha
I find their statements a bit on the sweeping side.
That's just over 2 percent. "Widely accepted" in my book is a much larger percentage..