Side note: landing on this particular website was a hilariously bad experience.
The scrollable content area on my (modern and average sized) mobile device represented less than one third of the viewport.
The remaining two thirds are taken up by ads. The bottom ad drawer (1/3) contained extremely low value irrelevant ads with blatantly false claims.
The top third was taken up by an ad seemingly from the site itself to try to get me to sign up for a free “preparedness binder”. I’m assuming that later leads to some type of marketing drip campaign.
For the icing on the cake, the central tiny (less than 1/3) area with scrollable content is an ad disguised as a poll!
One of the challenges of (even modern) scuba diving is that failure conditions are at odds with normal reflexes.
For example, if you run out of air your first reflex as a non-diver might be to hold your breath and swim to the surface. As pointed out in the article, that’s a terrible idea at depth and can severely injure or kill you (instead, divers are trained to breath out during an emergency swimming ascent).
There are a number of other ways to die while diving and recorded mortality data proves that out. Each dive, on average, has a broadly similar risk profile (5, in micromorts) to a single jump while skydiving (8) or running a marathon (7) [1].
There’s seemingly room for technology to help make diving a bit more safe. It will be interesting to see if that does happen in the future.
I agree that we’re practically in a recession and that our present recession was brought about from congress via the fed. However, that particular chain of events was set in motion in the 1970s with the public mandate set for the FOMC. It wasn’t a recent secretive reaction to tech companies.
Do you mind expanding on your statement that the current actions of the fed/congress are a reaction to technology companies?
I’ve had some luck with Remarkable. Remarkable has a reasonably good experience for getting a PDF to the device, working with it, and then getting it back to the source as a seemingly plain PDF.
I’d imagine it might be technically possible but not practical. The weight required for ballistic parachute systems is substantial. On small aircraft (such as Cirrus and Icon) it reduces the useful load, and thus range/payload, substantially. Range and payload are very important aspects of commercial passenger aircraft.
Further, commercial passenger aircraft are already very safe due to system redundancy not practical on smaller aircraft. Would a ballistic parachute system help with many accidents in this category? I would be willing to bet not. Ballistic parachute systems are not a magic bullet - they require substantial altitude/time to deploy (as much as 900 feet in a spin, for example). Many substantial aviation accidents happen during takeoff and landing below or near these altitudes.
Would you pay a multiple of your current airfare for an extremely small (practical) reduction in travel risk?