This seems... unsafe? I get that it isn't your fault if someone rear ends you, but the best advice I've ever hear on the roads was "be predictable." Stopping abruptly seems like a sure-fire way to cause an accident.
I don't know if it is any more, but as I understand it, the white dashed lines in the road would become solid a certain distance away from the light. That distance was roughly calibrated to being the distance it would take for the average vehicle doing the speed limit to come to a stop safely.
I was taught that if the light turned yellow and you were beyond the solid lines, you should come to a stop, but if you were inside the solid lines, you should proceed as if it were green[1]. This worked for a long time. Decades, before moving to a new area. I noticed that the newer area had stop light cameras, but I also quickly noticed that the lines didn't sync up to the lights. Perhaps there had been no effort to make them. Perhaps that was an older convention no longer followed. I don't know. But I miss having a reference for which way to handle coin-tosses without having to first become intimately familiar with the light's timing.
[1] - unless of course someone in front of you were trying to stop
The fuel emergency would have been literally a result of the ATC staff. Instead of this back and forth, the answer should have been - we cannot take you on ILS in the next X time, consider diverting.
Giving the sense of "we'll take you in within X minutes" to the pilot is disingenuous at best. ATCs job is literally safety.
That’s not how it works though. Before the pilots ever leave their starting airport they load up enough extra fuel to fly to their alternate airport and land there safely. Then they add on the “final reserve” fuel, which is enough fuel to fly for at least another half hour or 45 minutes (depending on airline and region). Together that fuel is called the “minimum fuel”. When an airplane gets down to minimum fuel it must declare that it has reached minimum fuel and is diverting to its alternate. They can only declare an emergency if they are down to the final reserve, and by that time they are expected to have already landed at their alternate. Unless their was a mechanical problem or a fuel leak, failing to divert before reaching minimum fuel would be an error by the pilots, not the ATC. Declaring an emergency just to skip ahead in line, when they still have not even reached minimum fuel yet, would not help the pilot’s career.
You are correct. Technically a fuel emergency should also be declared if the pilots expect to land with less than reserve fuel, not just when they are starting to consume the reserve.
If you get to that point and you haven't diverted you're losing your job AFAIK. "I just followed instructions and ended up in an emergency" won't fly. ATC isn't flying the plane.
Safety certifications add to cost. We recently took an EVSE through certification and although we passed on the first try it was still expensive and to pass on the first try we did extensive testing and documentation before submission.
Well there is also software... I really liked go-eCharger HOME+ 11kW, because it has 3-phase "European connector" and I can go almost anywhere in europe take it with me and charge there... I usually take it with me when I go to my parents so I don't have to stop on way at fast charger... Anyway.. I paid 650EUR, well above price of parts cost...
But mobile app and firmware keep getting updated and it keeps getting features like "charge from solar" better scheduler, also supports multiple chargers to limit total amps...
At first, relatively low volume and lack of competition (this has improved), and testing for compliance with all the various standards. It's often not enough to just have a product examined/tested, some standards require periodic "surveillance" of manufacturing.
I see $200 evse’s on amazon nowadays. Only 32 amps tho. As to why they are so expensive one has to keep in mind these are inherently dangerous so they do not buy the cheapest parts, they have to go through a longish federal approval process and the companies probably have higher insurance costs.
> As to why they are so expensive one has to keep in mind these are inherently dangerous so they do not buy the cheapest parts, they have to go through a longish federal approval process and the companies probably have higher insurance costs.
We hope. I don't trust anything being sold on Amazon or any other such website known for scams, knockoffs, and otherwise shite products being passed for legit. I'm less concerned about the price of the components vs the quality of the components. You can have cheap quality but a high price just to fool people that expensive is good.
I'm not an EE, but I work with them. As it stands right now, governments don't directly approve consumer products, except perhaps in some rare cases. When my employer gets a new product certified, we take it to a private firm.
As with the misnomers about the "charger" terminology, I could appreciate a layperson getting this confused.
Most people aren't going to DIY something like this. Also, most people think that the price of a product should only be based on the price of its components, and possibly willing to accept a mark up on labor. However, the companies making a thing, whatever that thing might be, also has to make money to be able to pay the people that work for the company, the utility bills, and the rent. There's also the fact that the companies making a thing don't get the retail price you pay. They sell it at the wholesale rate to the vendors, so there's even less margin than the retail price suggest for the makers.
In engineering university, I learned the “retail needs to be 5x the BoM* cost” rule of thumb. For a very high value or very high units product, maybe you could shave that to 4x or slightly less, but there are a lot of hands between the designed part and the retail consumer and none of them want to work for free.
* BoM - Bill of Materials (“what stuff goes into this thing?”)
4x was also the minimum retail price I've been taught as well. The wholesale rate has also been anywhere from 50% - 75% of the retail price depending on the negotiations with the retailer. This is ignoring soulless companies like Walmarts/Amazons/etc where you'll never make those numbers. Something people don't always consider that when they buy something from the retailer directly, they typically make more money from that sale than if you bought the same thing from Walmart. Buying something from somewhere like Etsy vs their direct site also takes a healthy chunk.
That’s what I find so infuriating about many first-party sites.
I’ll often find something on Amazon and if it seems like it’s from a small business, I’ll check to see if I can buy it direct. (Arguably, this behavior is unethical on my part against Amazon, but whatever.)
I very rarely (like <10% of the time) find the first-party site to have an offer that even matches Amazon’s.
Look, I tried. I came to you and gave you a shot, but if you want to charge the same item price and also tack on $15 of shipping, I’ve received your message (“please buy it from Amazon; we don’t want to sell it to you direct…”) loud and clear.
I’m usually willing to wait a few extra days, pay the same price, and have worse returns possibility in order for you to double or triple your variable transaction profit, but you’ve got to be competitive.
Sounds like the manufacturer just wants to ship palettes of the product to amazon and not deal directly with individual customers and are happy to have amazon make their markup for the service they provide.
Yeah, sites willing to accept the full retail price and not discount the shipping to match a larger vendor's site, then of course they're firing their footgun with both barrels. There's a reason places will offer free shipping with minimum purchase prices that ensures there's enough profit made to cover the cost of the shipping.
The hassle of inventory/shipping logistics is something people with no experience easily do not consider.
>I’ll often find something on Amazon and if it seems like it’s from a small business, I’ll check to see if I can buy it direct. (Arguably, this behavior is unethical on my part against Amazon, but whatever.)
According to whom? The people who think going to the bathroom during a TV commercial break is "stealing"?
I don’t think comparison shopping is unethical; it’s what makes a market work.
I do think “thank you for letting me know this product exists and meets my need, but if all else is equal to me, I’ll buy it somewhere else where you don’t benefit from the effort to help me address my need” is not the standard that I hold myself to generally.
Further, I think many would object if I found a product through a small business directly and bought it for the identical terms via Amazon rather than direct.
You have to find out about the product somewhere, whether it's from a small business, or from Amazon. After that point, then you comparison-shop. So how's the market supposed to work if you're only ethically able to buy it from the first place you saw it? Or do you think you're only allowed to comparison-shop for things you buy repeatedly (like milk and eggs) or things you learn about through advertising?
My personal belief system is "it's fine to buy it from the place that's cheapest/most convenient/otherwise best, but in the case of ties, you should buy it from the place that was most helpful".
A lot of people would "shop" at brick-n-mortar stores with a mobile comparing prices online. They would look at the physical item right then and there, but purchase from online. At least, that was the early days of online when people were still actually getting off their couches.
I think price comparison is totally valid, even across channels. But if the online price is the same as brick/mortar, it seems only fair to buy it from the brick/mortar store if they provided you some knowledge/service that the online places did not.
in the early days of online shopping, online didn't charge taxes && gave free shipping. so if you didn't need it right then, it could be at least 8.25% cheaper where I live
I was with them until I read that they voluntarily floated out without a motor and had to safety equipment. There's just no excuse for this. You can get nasty old (but viable) class-2 PFDs for free almost anywhere.
What happens when they run into another boat? Or the river currents throw them into the rocks and an expensive rescue operation needs to be mounted?
Wait, is this not going to have the usual "pair of wires you short to turn it on" feature of every furnace made so far? That's the ultimate control for when all the cloud features disappear and would be a deal-breaker for me.
I have really mixed feelings about this. Not a fan of typical government jobs, but the FAQ reads so much more like a startup. Is it true? What does the compensation look like (broadly)?
Per provided link https://www.usds.gov/apply:
"Salaries in government change every year. For 2023, you may be paid up to $183,500 depending on where you are located in the United States."
The federal government pays pretty well for scientists and engineers.
I've got a few friends at JPL and they are paid around that.
I was a researcher under UC Regents many years ago, run by the state of California. That pay, however, was terrible. When I left for private industry I asked for double what I had been making and they considered me a bargain.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the pay can also be considerably higher if you work at a federally funded research lab but are not a direct federal employee. Employee of an implementing contractor company. Such as various positions at Hanford, Idaho National Lab, Los Alamos, Brookhaven, Argonne, Sandia, Livermore, etc.
Enough people protest predatory lights in this fashion, either it will get fixed or the local police will start shooting people who honk.
I wonder how many people it would take to mark the route through one of these lights as blocked before mapping services route around them.