This I agree with.

Do problem r/religiousfruitcake

Ukraine could have used it more, instead we gave Ukraine a bunch of outdated/mothballed equipment. Stuff we’d typically destroy while it’s being replaced.

social/monetary/business

Forgot to list “criminal” for this case

Why do you troll like Trump tweets?

Wish you were here bests them both.

Hats off to Roy Harper!

Totally, only the ultra wealthy should be able to afford flying.

Those plebs crammed into economy are what’s really killing the planet. That’s why I’m glad I use paper straws so the CEO of Starbucks can fly 1000 miles a day on his private jet to work. RTO baby!

Like in the 60s, the IBM 3.5mb hard drive went for $35,000 a month. Now the 24,000,000mb drives are $370.

Phill Edwards has a great video talking about the changes in airlines, while focused on the US market, it has a wide impact to the entire industry.

As a matter of fact after looking into this a little more, it’s cheaper to fly now for several reasons. Not just economy of scale but also the technology.

(Note: All 1970 figures are adjusted for inflation to 2024 U.S. dollars using a CPI multiplier of approximately 8.04. We assume a 1970 jet fuel price of $0.11/gallon and a 2024 price of $2.50/gallon.)

Cost Analysis: 707 vs. 737 MAX 8 Aircraft & Capacity

• Purchase Price (Market Value):
  • 707-320B (1970): $8.0 Million
  • 707-320B (in 2024 USD): $64.32 Million
  • 737 MAX 8 (2024): $55 Million
  • Change (Real Terms): -14.5%
• Typical Seats (Mixed/Typical):
  • 707-320B (1970): 145
  • 707-320B (in 2024 USD): 145
  • 737 MAX 8 (2024): 166
  • Change (Real Terms): +14.5%
• Industry Load Factor (LF):
  • 707-320B (1970): 49.3%
  • 707-320B (in 2024 USD): 49.3%
  • 737 MAX 8 (2024): 85.0%
  • Change (Real Terms): +35.7 pts
• Avg. Passengers per Flight:
  • 707-320B (1970): 71.5
  • 707-320B (in 2024 USD): 71.5
  • 737 MAX 8 (2024): 141.1
  • Change (Real Terms): +97.3% Efficiency Metrics
• Engines:
  • 707-320B (1970): 4 (Low-bypass)
  • 707-320B (in 2024 USD): 4
  • 737 MAX 8 (2024): 2 (High-bypass)
  • Change (Real Terms): -50%
• Cockpit Crew:
  • 707-320B (1970): 3–4
  • 707-320B (in 2024 USD): 3–4
  • 737 MAX 8 (2024): 2
  • Change (Real Terms): -33% to -50%
• Fuel Burn (Gallons/Hour):
  • 707-320B (1970): 2,500
  • 707-320B (in 2024 USD): 2,500
  • 737 MAX 8 (2024): 580
  • Change (Real Terms): -76.8% Hourly Operating Costs (Est.)
• Fuel Cost:
  • 707-320B (1970): $275.00
  • 707-320B (in 2024 USD): $2,211
  • 737 MAX 8 (2024): $1,450
  • Change (Real Terms): -34.4%
• Crew Cost:
  • 707-320B (1970): $250.00
  • 707-320B (in 2024 USD): $2,010
  • 737 MAX 8 (2024): $850
  • Change (Real Terms): -57.7%
• Maintenance Cost:
  • 707-320B (1970): $150.00
  • 707-320B (in 2024 USD): $1,206
  • 737 MAX 8 (2024): $750
  • Change (Real Terms): -37.8%
• Total Hourly Op. Cost:
  • 707-320B (1970): $675.00
  • 707-320B (in 2024 USD): $5,427
  • 737 MAX 8 (2024): $3,050
  • Change (Real Terms): -43.8% Economics & Pricing
• Cost per Seat Hour:
  • 707-320B (1970): $4.66
  • 707-320B (in 2024 USD): $37.43
  • 737 MAX 8 (2024): $18.37
  • Change (Real Terms): -50.9%
• Cost per Passenger Hour:
  • 707-320B (1970): $9.44
  • 707-320B (in 2024 USD): $75.90
  • 737 MAX 8 (2024): $21.62
  • Change (Real Terms): -71.5%

(Note: Hourly Operating Costs focus on Fuel, Crew, and Maintenance for direct comparison of operational efficiency.)

This direct comparison between two similarly sized narrow-body aircraft reveals a profound improvement in aviation economics over the past 50 years.

1. Acquisition Costs and Capacity: Remarkably, the 737 MAX 8 is actually cheaper in real terms (-14.5%) than the Boeing 707 was in 1970. The 707 was expensive, state-of-the-art technology for its time. Manufacturing efficiencies and the massive scale of the 737 program have driven down the real acquisition cost of modern narrow-bodies, despite their increased complexity. Furthermore, the 737 MAX 8 carries about 14.5% more seats (166 vs. 145) due to modern, denser seating configurations.

2. The Fuel Efficiency Chasm: This is the most striking technological difference. The 707 utilized four early-generation, low-bypass engines that were incredibly thirsty, burning about 2,500 gallons per hour. The 737 MAX 8, utilizing two highly advanced, high-bypass CFM LEAP engines, burns only 580 gallons per hour. This represents a 76.8% reduction in fuel burn per hour.

3. Operating Costs Plummet: When comparing these two aircraft, the total hourly operating cost of the 737 MAX 8 is 43.8% lower in real terms than the 707.

• Fuel Costs: Despite the massive increase in the price of jet fuel (from $0.11 to $2.50), the efficiency gains are so profound that the real cost of fuel per hour is 34.4% lower today.
• Crew Costs: Real crew costs are down 57.7%. This is driven by the elimination of the Flight Engineer and Navigator roles required on the 707, standardizing the two-person cockpit.
• Maintenance Costs: Real maintenance costs are down 37.8%. A major driver here is the shift from four engines on the 707 to two engines on the 737 MAX 8, significantly reducing engine maintenance overhead and benefiting from improved reliability.

4. The Impact of Utilization: The technological improvements are magnified by changes in airline business practices following deregulation. The shift from planes flying half-empty (49.3% load factor) to nearly full (85.0% load factor) is crucial.

The combined effect of higher seating density and better load factors means the average 737 MAX 8 flight carries 141.1 passengers, nearly double the 71.5 passengers carried on the average 707 flight (+97.3%). Conclusion

When comparing the Boeing 707 directly to the modern 737 MAX 8, the advancements are extraordinary. The modern aircraft is cheaper to buy (in real terms), carries more seats, and costs nearly half as much to operate per hour.

By combining a 43.8% reduction in hourly costs with a 97.3% increase in passengers per flight, the inflation-adjusted cost to the airline to fly one passenger for one hour has decreased by a staggering 71.5% (from $75.90 to $21.62).

The injunction is against all national guard. Not just Oregon and California. The judge was clear about it.

More likely Trump will have this judge’s home blow up like he did to the South Carolina judge.

Andrej Babis wins again—but don’t be fooled by his “pro-Western” talk. This is a convicted embezzler who stole EU funds and has deep ties to the communist secret police (StB). His priority? Himself, not democracy or the Czech people.

He’s cozying up to far-right extremists like SPD and the Motorists, parties with Nazi-lite tendencies. This coalition looks like Hungary or Slovakia’s Kremlin-friendly puppets, not a strong NATO ally.

Claiming to support Ukraine but wanting to cut military aid is a betrayal. Russia’s war crimes won’t stop because Babis chooses convenience over courage. The Czech Republic should stand firm with Ukraine and NATO, not waver like some fence-sitter.

No more business as usual with oligarchs playing nationalist card. Europe’s security depends on pushing back hard against these populist, authoritarian backslides. Watch closely: words mean nothing without action.

Babis’s “pro-European” act is just a mask.

Some people say he does, young boys, he claimed something about health and masculinity benefits or some other shit was what was reported.

With a ball chain on it instead, make the moment last longer.

You think because he refused and got fired that’s going to stop them? They fire people until someone in place does what they demand.

This just means one less somewhat rational individual in the mix.

About 1km shy of saving us from this absurd timeline we’re in.

The meshtastic sadly makes implementation of a signal protocol almost impossible. I just wish we didn’t need to have static single PSKs for secure comms over it.

What Would Orange Jesus Do?

All of them, as long as they aren’t Epstein.

Very underrated response.

I’m not subscribed, the link to archive.ph I posted elsewhere on this thread provides it all.

From TFA

The renter 404 Media spoke to said the same “credential-harvesting model now dominates Georgia rentals.” They pointed to other companies such as PayScore, Nova Credit (whose leadership includes an Argyle co-founder), and Snappt which also uses Argyle

Sounds like Georgia is at least one. You need the attention span to read through an otherwise terrible article to get to that point though.