unicorn

Am I alone in thinking it's a bit silly when the audience claps as the conductor enters the orchestra pit, or when the curtains rise at the start of a play, musical, or opera? I certainly clap after a piece is played, or after a well-sung aria, and so on. But should just showing up for work merit applause? Occasionally, I will applaud as the curtains are raised, when I see an impressive set. But then I'm applauding the set designer(s)/production crew, whose work is on display, rather than the actors or singers, who haven't started working yet.

Hey, I just realized that the man in the center was the man at the party I threw last month whose tattoos I was discussing in another string. He has more tattoos now (including some in foreign scripts). I'm throwing another party in 3 weeks, and I hope to see him there. He did seem to be having fun at my first summer party.

Apparently it was the Captain, not the co-pilot who switched off the fuel. I guess that goes into explaining the 10-second delay. https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/air-india-cockpit-recording-suggests-captain-cut-fuel-engines-before-crash-2025-07-18/ "A cockpit recording of dialogue between the two pilots of the Air India flight that crashed last month supports the view that the captain cut the flow of fuel to the plane's engines, said a source briefed on U.S. officials' early assessment of evidence. The first officer was at the controls of the Boeing 787, and asked the captain why he moved the fuel switches into a position that starved the engines of fuel and requested that he restore the fuel flow, the source told Reuters on condition of anonymity because the matter remains under investigation...". It's hard to imagine anyone could be such an asshole, but it looks as though that's what happened.

I guess that one can always make a fortune telling people things they want to hear. So many people will welcome the message even if all common sense points to chicanery. Just look at those who'll buy sugar lotions to put on their scalp because they want to believe it works, science be damned. 🙄 Of course, one could say the same about religion in general...

What I don't understand is: to where do the people who send money to these charlatans think the money is going? Do people who describe themselves as Christians honestly not know that the apostles repeatedly quoted Jesus as saying “Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”? (Matthew 19:24, Mark 10:25, Luke 18:25), or Luke 6:24 "But woe to you who are rich, for you have already received your comfort." Luke 16:13 "No servant can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.”

You could have said "Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps." 😉But, seriously, epidemiology is not even designed to show associations, much less causation. Epidemiology can only serve as a starting point for ideas of "real" research. The next steps are case-control studies, in which populations are followed and controlled for known factors. Those studies still can only show associations, not causation. To show causation, one has to randomize a given population and give some the intervention (such as jellyfish extract), and the other a placebo, then follow them over time. Ultimately, causation is accepted when multiple RCT (randomized controlled trials) are pooled together in a meta-analysis.

No, according to the report the 10 seconds included the time the one pilot asked the other why he cut off the fuel, as well as the mendacious response that he did not. You may believe that you would have immediately reached over and flipped the switches back, asking the question later. However, the fact of the matter is that this is not what happened. Had the sane pilot known that the insane one was suicidal/homicidal, he might have figured things out more quickly. He couldn't have suspected the other pilot was intent on killing him and everyone else on the plane. I don't think this method has been used before to crash a plane intentionally. I suspect that if someone tries this again, the time to switch the fuel back on will be quicker. Additionally, there may have been a struggle.

When the fuel is cut at altitude, the plane doesn't simply drop like a lead cannonball. It's when the plane is taking off that the most fuel is needed, and immediately. The other pilot (they haven't said whether it was the captain or co-pilot) would have almost no time to react when the fuel is cut off during take-off. The 10-second delay is explained in this video. I suspect that the non-suicidal pilot simply didn't catch on immediately that the guilty pilot was intent on killing himself and everyone else on board. I don't think anyone else has used this method to commit murder and suicide. I don't understand why people who want to off themselves don't just blow their brains out or jump from a very high place. I suppose that in many jurisdictions, perhaps most, it's very difficult to buy a gun. I guess some nut-cases feel they need to go in a "spectacular" way, or want to make sure their name is remembered by as many people as possible. 😒

I feel a song coming on. @vinapu hit it on the nose.

Just for kicks, I checked the prices on Amazon for the deoxyribose and for the minoxidil solutions. The minoxidil, which has actually been proven effective in humans, generally come out with a better price (and I can get it even more cheaply at CVS).

In hindsight, it shouldn't have taken that long, but as the captain explained, it's not as if alarms would have gone off immediately. He asked "Why did you switch the fuel cut-off levers?", then the other replied "I didn't switch the fuel cut-off." Then a few seconds to realize what was going on. Or maybe the suicidal pilot kind off fought him off. We now have a good feeling of what happened, but at the time it probably wasn't immediately obvious.

Captain Steeeve feels convinced that the switching of the fuel cutoff switches must have been intentional and neither due to accident nor negligence: