I'd be a bit surprised if anyone even checked, it's easy to type int out of habit when a number is needed, or even if the dev did consider it the code building and running might be enough reassurance.

Isn't it kind of worse that it's not just a branding question?

After all the idea is to incentivise truly carbon neutral energy.

Obviously there's pragmatism and gas is better than coal but I think an independent body would say "burn gas if you must, but don't expect to get off freely with closing the nuclear plants".

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Wednesday ?

There is presumably some handling of 4:3 or "vertical videos" though, would be interesting to know what it is

It just letterboxes to the 16:10 rectangular part of the display.

I imagine to some extent men and women choose different words because they express different ideas? That can still be a for societal reasons if you like but at a "level lower" than language.

This kind of question reminds me of "if a lion could speak, we could not understand him"

It has been out for 15 years though?

Yeah, but it's only started to enter the public conscience in the last year. Do they're just starting to understand scale.

But also, I interviewed for DevOps there and they only hire leet coders, so I suspect they're missing some of the fundamentals needed for a stable system.

Huh... I heard about it many years ago despite being far from the target market. But google trends seem to support them becoming a lot more known recently.

If you start weeks at 0, you should do the same for days, 3 weeks = 27 days

I feel like the numbers sound so low they probably do more harm than good regardless.Even 3°C is well within normal variation from day to day, so unless you're already concerned about the secondary effects, vicious cycles etc, the number alone is reassuring if anything.

Announce it for the future, clearly some alternatives already exist, some more engines get certified, some don't and owners move to those that are.

Ultimately it's a question of money i.e. how badly people want it.

tl;dr ban GA outside of very wealthy

what? people with private planes are the ones running leaded currently. people who aren't very wealthy are flying on commercial planes that haven't used leaded gas for decades.

Wealthy individuals’ airplanes are already burning Jet-A in turbine engines.

Who’s piloting the airliners that the not very wealthy are flying on? Working pilots.

In what type of airplane did they train? Piston engine aircraft.

Now that they need to have 1500 hours experience before taking the yoke of a commercial airliner in the US, where will they get that time? Overwhelmingly in piston-engine aircraft. Typically as a flight instructor, which will go to near zero if you kill the ability of practical intermediate distance travel to be done by high-compression and/or turbocharged light aircraft.

(Alaska and Caribbean islands also has a lot of very much not rich people flying around in or getting necessary supplies delivered by 100 octane needing airplanes.)

Commercial operations using 100LL dwarf personal plane operations using 100LL. Cape Air burns way more avgas on a Tuesday in July than I burn in a year.

Back to “Very wealthy” individuals running turbines. If I could afford it, I would be too. It’s a better engine solution (almost) all around, except the operating costs are a low single-digit multiple higher and capital costs around 10x, which puts it out of reach of almost every individual. No one should cry for me here, but there’s a huge subset of 100LL-based operations that you probably approve of or judge essential and want to continue.

It doesn't need to work for politicians to successfully "be seen to do something".

But I see your point.