I’ve only seen it done for suburban tract development, never retrofitted to an existing large city. Do you have examples that aren’t a suburban tract? Just curious how it was implemented as the expenses are usually quoted to be astronomical
Because layoffs are, rightfully, in the spotlight as distasteful, cruel, and usually not based in financial reality right now. They get severe negative press, because they're severe negative actions (while companies rake in record profits - I'm mostly not talking about little seed-A-B-round startups going under here). And so companies are trying to find creative ways to avoid that negative press, IMO.
There is a big factor out there that is 'masking a rise in incidence of CAT from accident stats'. It's Aerospace Engineers and the aviation engineering and safety community.
--
Most CAT events (seen so far) are survivable by current aircraft designs, so you can have an increase in CAT without a spike in crashes and other accidents.
Sure, but that's not a fundamental thing, it's just a unit that's convenient to trade.
It's like wondering whether gold is worth more than Microsoft by comparing an ounce of gold to a share of Microsoft. Or to an ounce of Microsoft share certificates!
The only sensible way to make the comparison is by total market cap. And I seriously doubt that rhino horns are worth more than 15 trillion USD.
> The only sensible way to make the comparison is by total market cap
From the perspective of smugglers and their stuff, that's about the worst possible comparison.
So much so that yours is literally the first time ever that I've heard anyone even suggest market cap for a smuggled substance; looking at the definition of that term, I don't think that term is, or even could be by analogy, meaningful in this context.
It's always money per mass, £$€ per imperial or metric, never anything else.
My guess is by weight. (It also may be by volume, that I guess is very important to transport illegal things, but it's too abstrtact. [1])
Comparison by weight is useful to give an idea of the price. It's just like measuring distances in football fields. Don't worry too much about that. Also, a cargo ship full of gold [2] is probably very valuable, but a magical cargo ship full of rhino horns will probably collapse the market and be worthless.
Here is a list of most expensive materials per weight https://brightside.me/articles/the-17-most-expensive-materia... it includes saffron and antimater that have a very short shelf life, a few radioactive things that are expensive only beacuse they are difficult to produce [3]. If I had to stock huge quantities, I'd be very conservative and store gold and platinium.
[1] Gold has a huge value per volume ratio. Toilete paper not.
[2] Assuming it doesn't sink.
[3] Aluminium used to be very expensive, until someone invented a method to make metalic aluminium easily.
You seem to be down voted by level 0 thinkers. No doubt they will down vote me now too.
You are completely correct. While the statement is factually correct regarding the cost of rhino horn, it is completely meaningless information.
We may as well throw in the cost per gram of a heart transplant while we're at it.
I will say that annual demand is probably the more meaningful figure to work with, and it would be even more useful to express that in terms of "how many more years of this level of demand will lead to the extinction of rhinos."
Arnold Barnett, a statistician at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who has studied airline safety, tells NPR that from 2018 to 2022, the chances of a passenger being killed on a flight anywhere in the world was 1 in 13.4 million. Between 1968 to 1977, the chance was 1 in 350,000.
"Worldwide flying is extremely safe, but in the United States, it's extraordinarily so," Barnett said.
In the U.S., there has not been a fatal plane crash involving a major American airline since February 2009, though there have been a handful of fatalities since then.
Brickhouse, who has studied aviation safety for over 25 years, often tells people that the biggest risk of any air journey tends to be driving to the airport.
More than 40,000 people are killed on U.S. roads each year.
"Aviation remains the safest mode of transportation," he says.
Forget how many people are killed, because when you get to that point, then things have already gotten really bad. Look at the leading indicators first: how many near-misses and other incidents (like mechanical failures) have happened in the US over the last 25 years, and is the trend up or down?
The incident with the 737 door falling off is a good example here: this would have been a fatal incident if this had been a full flight. Thankfully, the seat next to the door was empty that day, so no one got seriously hurt, but it could have been much worse.
It's hard to tell for sure without a reliable source of unbiased data rather than various news stories, but it sure seems that the frequency of incidents (in the US) is rising lately, not falling, and that's not good, it's like the canary in the coal mine. Things need to be fixed before planes start falling out of the sky with spectacularly fatal results because too many deep systemic problems have come together to destroy the safety record that existed before. Instead, too many people want to rest on past successes, saying "look! It's so safe compared to driving!" and do nothing.
Crackheads jumping in front of buses has nothing to do with whether motor vehicle travel is safe. An intellectually honest comparison would be to compare the incidence of fatalities while being driven around in a recent model sedan by a professional driver
