No, Canada would accept the plane as per 2.

> This plane would be perfectly safe to fly if it had no MCAS and required a new type rating.

GP didn't claim otherwise. GP claimed:

>> [...] so it needs some system to compensate for that.

And it does need that system - whether for safety is debatable, but it needs it for certification (not within the 737 family certification, but for certification full stop), because the FAA requires basically a linear control force curve.

>> weaker pilots may not be capable of trimming the aircraft. > This is true in all planes.

Source? I'd assume, in fact, that in most planes that is not the case - superhuman strength is not required to trim.

> This claim contradicts your first claim, as the authority indicates they will accept the plane without MCAS. So clearly, MCAS is not critical to safe the operation of the plane in the eyes of this authority.

No, it doesn't. There are three possibilities:

1. Without MACS, the plane is safe and certifiable, but not similar enough to be certified with the 737 family.

2. Without MACS, the plane is reasonably safe, but not certifiable under the specific FAA rule requiring linear control forces (though possibly under more lenient, eg Canadian rules).

3. Without MACS, the plane is not safe and not certifiable.

I think 2 is the case. 1 has been debunked, and you argue that 3 is false, too.

A ton of it, from having other drones capture the hostile ones with nets, to disrupting the hostile drones RF signals to force it into landing.

Been a bit of a fad a while ago when drones first became somewhat mainstream.

Did you just seriously use a VICE article as a source for technical information? Aside from that gaffe, even they don't mention any use for rare earth metals in solar panels. I challenge you to find some use that would make sense in your bog-standard crystalline silicon PV panel. I've never been able to find any.

> The 90% recyclable figure refers to the materials that can be used in low grade applications.

[1] says that "[the waste components] are crushed into granulates that can used to make new panels". Are new panels a "low grade application"?

> The remaining 10% are the rare earth minerals that actually make the panel work and need to be mined.

Excuse me, but what "rare earth minerals" are you talking about? There are none in solar panels, much less 10% of them. (That would be 2 kg per average panel, mind you!)

[1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-solar-recycling/europes-f...

You're not the only one missing this. It seems very common to miss, but I can point out what you're missing.

Your link number 1 is supposed to support nuclear being safer than renewables, and it simply doesn't do that.

There's a few links that regularly get shared, intending to make that point and they all don't actually make it.

The list of things that nuclear is safer than, is notably missing grid scale wind and solar. What a mysterious ommision from something that is trying to argue they are not safe.

Having read your link 2 and 3, I see they also don't support the point you are making (the first describes how to recycle turbine blades into concrete and is looking for more applications, the second says solar panels are 90% recyclable and just wants some government policies to ensure this happens), which makes me wonder if you're arguing in good faith here?

A/B testing showed that it increased the number of page hits ;)

I'm always so disappointed to read comments like this on HN. People who won't work for Facebook because they think it's actually an evil, unethical corporate machine. There's lots of reasons not to work there, but "they're unethical" does not ring true for me.

I used to work there, and I only very, very rarely saw behavior that I truly disagreed with. Leadership's decisions will look weird when viewed through a New York Times lens, but are sensible when you have the whole picture and can ask leadership questions directly.

You're giving up the opportunity to work with some of the best minds in the industry, working on actually novel engineering problems that only come up when you're at the sale of billions of users and trillions of datapoints. They're a great place to grow your career when you're just starting out, because you get a peek at how a global scale company is structured, and how the tech was built. There's no shortage of senior engineers who are incentivized to mentor those just starting out. There's literally hundreds of teams to choose from, and switching teams is easy.

The bottlenecks for raytracing are primarily in scene traversal/intersection testing--which does not benefit from a GPU-accelerated array structure.