allnamestaken1968

allnamestaken1968 t1_j6lkud8 wrote

Important to know the difference between herpes simplex (cold sores) and hsv-2, genital herpes. You can get hsv 2 from oral sex with somebody who has hsv 1 only when the sores are visible (simplifying here, exceptions seem to apply recently). Otherwise it’s really hard to get the Herpes everybody knows about (genital, 10-15% of population) from hsv1 (cold sores, about 2/3 of the population with the virus, many show no symptoms)

Some good meds for hsv 1 are available, mostly creams that make the sores go away quicker.

Good article: https://www.cdc.gov/std/herpes/stdfact-herpes-detailed.htm#:~:text=How%20common%20is%20genital%20herpes,States%20in%20a%20single%20year.&text=Nationwide%2C%2011.9%20%25%20of%20persons%20aged,%25%20when%20adjusted%20for%20age).

43

allnamestaken1968 t1_j6klsrw wrote

So far, we don’t have battery packs that have the energy density, max output, fast charging, and longevity that would allow for anything in passenger flight. It just doesn’t exist. “Replacing batteries every few cycles” sounds horribly expensive. You would also have a range approved based on battery life. You need distance+circling+ going to other airport plus at one go around. It just isn’t going to happen with any battery tech we know of, and it’s unlikely for hydrogen planes with more than about 20 people for about 200 miles

3

allnamestaken1968 t1_j58j8gq wrote

The timelines are such BS. Even for freight for commercial flight, the certification takes a long time, and they do t have anything close to anything that would work commercially for 300 miles plus taxi plus circle plus deviation plus safety - and they can’t get around that requirement for anything “commercial”. Funny enough the infrastructure could be there if you do point to point and slowly build it out. If you deviate you are a bit screwed obviously - tankers here we come

As for 50 seats by 2027 - nope. For passenger, you need redundancy approved and certified in systems that dont exist yet - like fuel cells that can provide the needed power or even the electric motors. Also likely not possible with existing airframes- so forget that.

6

allnamestaken1968 t1_j2a6e4k wrote

That’s not what I meant. Sorry. Obviously that would work - but in the end, it’s a market for labor. I am for minimum wage $25 plus inflation - but that wouldn’t change this as nobody at Apple makes that little (well, maybe some janitors, but not enough to change this picture). Companies will be profit/cash flow maximizing under the rules allowed. A cash machine like Apple will always generate more cash than they can reasonably invest in new businesses

1

allnamestaken1968 t1_j29nf2i wrote

This is however not how business works. I am pretty sure Apple Pay’s pretty well. As for r&d, they spent a shitload already. And you don’t want to start another series of conglomerates like we had in the 70s and 80s, when utilities owned malls and rental car companies. That’s not good for anybody. Lastly, you would also have to stop special dividends, which is not not going to happen. Basically buybacks are a good way to return to cash to shareholders to reinvest in other companies.

1