FuglyDuck

It’s Mississippi. It was a lynching, and like every lynching in the past, they’ve said “oh it must have been a suicide, we’ve got no evidence!”

Chances are, the people investigating them are friends with, or in fact are, the people that did it,

The whole reason the fascists are at the door is because the asshole holding it closed was holding the gates and let them.

Because his “less bad” rich friends told him to. Because the people that’ll actually fight back are “scary”

Landings under autorotation (especially unplanned landings under autorotation) are still frequently considered “controlled crashes”, even if everyone walks away.

In any case the one common element to “flying car” is that it’s a hybrid land-air vehicles. The currently most common form are multi-rotors; because multirotors are cheap. (Which is also the reason you see them in quads and other drones.)

No matter the design, they all suffer from hybridization. Things that are good at flying are bad on roads, and things that are good on roads are bad at flying.

Flying cars are, inherently, more dangerous than that.

Helicopters have loads of systems and design features that minimize the risks- and just to clarify, they're less likely to be involved in an incident than GA aircraft to begin with. they're absolute shit at gliding, so a loss of lift results in- at best- a controlled crash- where a plane has time. They're also more likely to be in the situation where they do not have the altitude or airspeed to glide even if they weren't dogshit at it, which combine to make them more dangerous to be in an incident with, but still not necessarily "unsafe".

Flying cars would be significantly worse than helicopters, as they have the same glide profile, presumably the same propensity for low-and-slow flight regimes; and probably an inability to autorotate as well (depends on the design. most of the ideas I've seen lately are some form of multirotor.)

Though that comment had nothing to do with their inherent lack of safety. It has everything to do with hybridizing land and air vehicles like that never actually works out well. They're going to be significantly more expensive than either specialized counterpart, less efficient, and less useful. This is why we've never seen them come off with commercial success before, and why we're likely to never see them work, ever. The mechanical nature of something that can both drive on a highway and fly is insanely complex.

And even with all that, they're also going to be significantly less safe than helicopters are today, probably spending far more time in the low-and-slow regime which makes incidents dramatically more unsafe, and given the usual argument of "reduces traffic" almost certainly going to be flown in areas with significant human presence (making them more likely to crash into someone.)

Low and slow is the most dangerous kind of flying you can do.

Flying cars are also inevitably less efficient and heavier than a dedicated counterpart, meaning the flight envelope is small, and your aircraft is less responsive.

(lower power to weight ratio, less efficient use of the lower,)

Also, any real pilot would be able to explain why flying cars are a bad idea… so they’re probably not all that experienced.

Many scientists don’t respect Christian’s.

I mean, seriously. Does anyone actually respect, for example, RFK jr? Like. anti science and very obviously stupid.

Why shouldn’t he be disrespected? That goes for any Christian who is antivax, etc.

Or any camera, really.

That’s just burnt toast with cheese.

Loopholes, amirite?

This is actually somewhat untrue.

Jesus wasn’t negating the Ten Commandments, he was simplifying them.

But then, also, it’s important to know that he so insisted that everything in the Law of Moses and the Prophets are still in effect and would be until everything is “accomplished”

He was, for example, perfectly okay with people turning foreigners into slaves.

He can't be long for this world. So I'll pay the proper respect.

(Also, I'll likely open an asparagus food truck outside wherever his body starts corrupting. You know. For everyone who whats their piss to be extra stanky.)

I bet walks are fun. All the old friends and new friends stopping to say hi… cuz you got that Rizzo.

That smile deserves more than a few good scritches!

stoneware is relatively environmentally benign as litter. It's just clay that's been fired (and maybe glazed, mind. but no need for that.) What makes it different from earthenware is that the type of clay used can be fired to a higher temperature, letting it fuse and turn glassy (without said glaze). terracotta pots, for example, are earthenware. something like that.

If you wanted to get even more particular, I'm sure we could sinter some artificial shale or other sedimentary rock into a synthetic stone. "synthetic" here means artificially constructed, the materials could be little different than "natural" ones already in the environment. There's probably clay deposits near by to justify that, too. (maybe not on the island, which was historically a slate quarry.) "

the reason they don't dope in the Olympics or any professional sport is because it's dangerous to the body. if everyone used a rock designed to be identical, it wouldn't be cheating, in the same way that good nutrition isn't cheating in the Olympics.