Of course, you can't expect prices as cheap as China. There are shipping costs, local regulation compliance overheads and increased labour costs (for dealers, sales/marketing, servicing etc).
But as an example, Australia is a highly developed country with high labour costs/standards -- similar to Canada in many ways (though closer to China geographically). But without a local car industry to protect, there are no tariffs nor quotas on Chinese cars.
I expect Canada in the short-term to have prices similar to Europe/UK. With car manufacturers focusing on the premium models (which are the highest priced and hence greatest profit). But there's no reason they can't drop further as trade barriers are lifted and manufacturers are subjected to greater competition.
It's not about being cheap. China has been manufacturing high end goods for the global marketplace for a long time, and has also been doing if for their domestic market. The challenge is that most Canadian and American experiences with Chinese products are with white-label, top tier products like the iPhone built to high quality standards, or dollar store trash manufactured as cheaply as possible to be cheap. Until Apple started moving production, most consumers thought of the IPhone as an American product when it was really American software running on Chinese hardware (I know, it's a simplification). From everything I have read, the BYD cars that would be available here would be competitive products, not the cheapest thing you can buy, which means you should expect to pay for them, but the feature set and value will likely be higher (though I will remain skeptical till I can take one on a test drive here).
I am cautiously optimistic about this, and look forward to that test drive.
Aren't worktrees multiple copies?
I usually have multiple worktrees and each one has different ports the various apps and servers talk to so I can easily visit each worktree's instance to test while having them all run.
Isn't there a call out usually where the plane says "minimums" and the pilot flying has to verbally confirm that they are committed? You'd think for this flight, that would have been the final time to realize they need to go around? Or is that strictly just a visibility call-out?
No you must pass the stabilized gate well before minimums; legal requirement is usually 1000ft above the airport for IMC (instrument conditions), 500ft for visual conditions. AFAIK airlines can set higher minimums and may set other configuration gates (eg 1500ft gear must be out, flaps in landing configuration).
To be stabilized you must be lined up laterally (eg localizer captured) and on glide slope (vertically aligned). Airspeed must be Vref +/-10, final landing configuration (flaps, gear, etc), sink rate correct (<1000fpm), power set (not idle), and all checklists complete.
Typically the pilot monitoring should make a callout for this (eg "Approach") and the pilot flying responds ("stabilized" or "unstable, going around").
The "minimums" callout is to verify that you can see the runway sufficiently to land. The exact requirements vary - a Category I ILS you can go down to 200ft without seeing the runway. A Category IIIb ILS is 50ft. Technically Category IIIc allows 0 so has no decision height and requires no "minimums" callout but I don't know of anyone crazy enough to allow this - you wouldn't be able to taxi off the runway with zero visibility.
The stabilized approach gate is a performance & configuration check. Is the aircraft configured for landing and on the correct performance profile with the expected automatic guidance?
Minimums callout (DA/MDA) is a visibility check. Can we see the runway to whatever degree our approach requires?
btw: If you are curious the various ILS categories impose performance and redundancy requirements on both aircraft and the airport ground equipment. Things like backup transmitters, self-monitoring to catch drift, battery backups, etc.
Yeah but that's what I mean, like having to acknowledge minimums and saying "yes let's do it" is like the last like external trigger that they should have listened to and decided to go around.
Yes that's true. They knew before but at 1500 they should have gone around. At "minimums" callout they should have gone around. When they floated so far down the runway they should have gone around.
Instead they waited until they were about to go off the end with idle engines to try it - the one time it was too late to go around.
In the longstanding tradition of leading on the forefront safety, we introduce Engine Check coming up after mysterious, unaccounted for, unsigned voltage drops.
Can't be too safe if it could be a short, right?
"Tinkerer mode" only £14.75 per month*
*additional checks during the annual service apply.
I've always wondered how something like an Autodesk Inventor sldprt file was formatted so that I could write a program to manipulate those files.
I assumed it was proprietary and left it at that.
A few years later, I saw that Onshape allows importing sldprt files into their system and I wonder how they were able to provide that ability without some proprietary knowledge transferred
per the article, because the stub pipe counter bore had to be drilled after that end of the pipe was welded in place, so directly measuring pipe wall thickness wasn't practical
reply