Yeah, it's not a historical quirk, really. In talking to many Americans it seems like they don't really cover loyalists at all, or what happened after the Revolutionary War. Much of what became Canada was settled by former colonists from the what became the United States who remained loyal to the crown. My hometown was founded by loyalists from New York -- including the mayor of New York City -- after the Revolutionary War.
Essentially we are even closer than many people think in terms of history, but Canadian identity was seeded from the beginning with the idea of rejecting being "American". We are indeed your closest brothers and sisters because of history, but it's no quirk at all that we're separate -- it's the entire reason we stayed separate at all.
You can also see the reverse play out -- what would become Alberta was settled by large numbers of American colonists moving to Canada, and to this day you can see the cultural impact of that in the politics and world view from the region.
While I agree as a whole, there are parts that are easily captured even with some small false positive rate, like credit card numbers. I do think it's acceptable to do PII detection probabilistically for some classes of identifiers/quasi-identifiers, because you can't really do any better without crazy false positive rates, things like credit card numbers have enough structure that it's more work to do it entirely via an ML model with a higher chance of failure, versus just building a simple heuristic for it.
Add to that the fact that missing a credit card number is way higher stakes than missing something like a zip code, you can understand why something like this is just not acceptable in a product like this, with the resources Microsoft has at their disposal.
From what I understand, leaving the keel up would be reasonable enough if a boat was rigged as designed. Typically the boat would be ballasted differently if you have a retractable keel/centreboard. Sounds like converting the rig from a ketch to a sloop is probably the root of the design issues, combined with some troubling risks of down flooding from the various vents mounted close to the water line.
You should have positive righting moment with the keel up and sails rigged, otherwise it's totally unsafe. When you're sailing downwind you have the keel up for speed. If you get knocked down in this situation--a broach, for instance--the boat needs to be able to right itself otherwise you probably die. This boat sank when it got knocked down, and it doesn't seem the keel had anything to do with it.
Do you know that raising the keel when sailing downwind was standard procedure on ships like this, or are you extrapolating from experience on dinghies and small keelboats? There are many yachts where keels are retractable, but left down when sailing downwind (the Hobie 33 comes to mind).
It's pretty shocking that a boat with no sail area could get knocked over bad enough to sink that quickly. Something had to be seriously wrong with the design. I'm not particularly salty, but I've sailed in 25-30kts with the rail buried and not even had a second thought about the boat sinking. I've been knocked down with full sails up in 25kts, and had a broach while racing -- sailboats can be expected to spend at least brief amounts of time on their side, even if you're not out doing anything particularly dumb. I just can't fathom how a boat wouldn't be able to survive 2 minutes on its side and still be signed off by a builder.
It's a thing you can expect to happen, like falling while downhill skiing. Only the most extreme situations are like "if you fall, you die". If it's like that every time you go out, the prognosis is grim.
EDIT: I can actually count on one hand the number of times I've been in situations like that and while it's a hell of a lot of fun it's not something you bring your friends, family, children, etc along for..
I’ve only been sailing a few years, but I racked up about 500nm of racing this summer. I’ve only been in these situations a few times, but had a ton of confidence in the boat and the skipper. It’s honestly a ton of fun, and feels more dangerous than it is, since the boats are (supposed to be) designed to handle this. That said, I keep the family away from this sort of thing, and take them out on our family friendly coastal cruiser for more leisurely sails.
In order to enter e.g. the Newport-Bermuda race you need a minimum stability rating of 115. IIRC Bayesian's angle of vanishing stability was 75° keel up, and the vents started taking on dangerous amounts of water at 45°. That's not a boat I'd ever feel safe on! The skiing analogy would be like every single run is maximum consequence.
I’m going to assume I wasn’t part of their target audience, given what I’m about to say, but the whole thing looks like a bunch of amateurs with a ton of money.
First off you’re spot on with the name — what a terrible decision. Secondly because the name doesn’t tell you anything about who they are or what they do they needed to have advertising spots that got that across quickly. Except for some completely inexplicable reason they ran ads from a show about a mobile app, requiring you to watch for over a minute (!) before realizing the spot was for a show, not for some new app named Quibi. I literally saw their ads dozens and dozens of times before accidentally letting it run long enough to figure out what the hell it was. Did they recruit marketers from Microsoft or something? They’re the only other people I’ve seen capable of causing that degree of product confusion in marketing decisions.
Next, where the hell did the focus on short form content come from? If anything the trend has been for longer and longer form content as seen by the success of HBO, where a shorter medium (cinema) has moved into a longer form medium (television) in order to tell the stories they wanted to tell. Given the focus on celebrities I’m sure I wasn’t their target audience, but what mobile-first audience WAS the target anyway? Why wasn’t YouTube serving their needs? Why weren’t there production companies making and promoting this form on YouTube and other platforms already? The mind boggles. The whole thing reads like a bunch of amateurs with too much money.
Everyone is focusing on the aircraft, but the pilots are also super important here. They need to maintain a certain number of hours every 90 days, IIRC, in order to be flight ready. If not, they need to do a refresher in a simulator. As I’m sure everyone is familiar after the 737 max debacle, there is a shortage of simulators. This would mean it would take months or perhaps even a year to get all pilots recertified for commercial flight. That’s not a great situation to be in, and easily solved by keeping them flying.
The design predates broad availability of jetways at airports. The concept, in the 1960s, was that by being able to use stairs they'd be able to service many smaller airports. By the 1970s this was clearly the wrong choice -- smaller airports just installed jetways too. This was a design decision that didn't even last the decade, but was brought forward for the next 50 years because changes would mean a recertification. That is why the landing gear is short. There are essentially no operators who make use of the low height of the aircraft, and there hasn't been for longer than most of us have been alive.
I think one additional factor here is that storage isn't the only option. Once a larger amount of waste needs to be managed the attractiveness of fast breeder reactors starts to increase. These reactors can then extract more energy from this high level "waste" (really fuel for fast breeder reactors). These reactors would then reduce the volume of this waste by a factor of about 100. So in the end, those 400 car-sized containers of waste per 50 years becomes 4. One hundred years worth of energy for an entire country producing about a house's volume of waste, total.
That is still theoretical so for any reasonable waste model, we cannot factor that in. If it turns out to be the case, we might be able to channel a lot of the money set a side for waste management, into other things such as better energy options.
Even more than that, you pick up speed due to the nose down configuration. This means the forces on the control surfaces are so great that you can no longer manually trim via the trim wheels. This was, apparently, a well known handling characteristic of the 737, with original versions describing a "roller coaster" maneuver where you dive briefly to relieve the forces on the control surfaces and incrementally trim. Unfortunately, because of how MCAS was set up, it was inactive while flaps were set, but kicked in immediately upon flaps up, meaning that they essentially had no altitude to work with.
