That sounds... unlikely, to say the least. The ship blew up at 145km altitude over Turks and Caicos. Debris would fall thousands of kilometers to the east, if anything survives re-entry.
EDIT: at these speeds, over 20000km/h, the falling debris will travel a very long way before coming down. For satellite re-entry, the usual estimated ground contact point is something like 8000km+ downrange [1]. There is little chance debris would come anywhere near commercial flight altitude in the area around where the videos were made.
Apparently the planned splashdown was in the Indian Ocean near Australia, but this being an uncontrolled re-entry it could be far off from that, in either direction.
Im not sure what part you are skeptical about. The debris videos filmed at Turks and Caicos are about 800km east of the explosion video in the Bahamas. They appear to be real. Still high but coming down fast.
Airspace is big, but I wouldn't want to fly a Jet with hundreds of people near it either.
I imagine aviation radar towers would only have the most limited data as the event unfolded.
Arlines are extremely cautious around these kinds of one off events.
It’s not about the calculated risks, but the uncertainty around if they have the right information in the first place. Sure it may have broken up at 145km miles, but what if someone messed up and it actually was 14.5km etc.
Yep, the point of saying “km miles” was the hypothetical uncertainty around units even for European airlines who use metric internationally. However, even within metric might be some question around units.
No, airlines do not build in a safety factor sufficient to cover an important measurement being off by a factor of 10.
They don't ground flights because the pilot might load 2,000 litres of fuel instead of 20,000 litres. They don't take evasive action in case the other plane is travelling at 5,000 knots instead of 500 knots. They don't insist on a 30-km runway because the runway published as 3 km might only be 300 metres.
You misunderstood what I’m saying. Airlines have systems to validate the amount of fuel loaded and currently aboard aircraft that have been battle tested across decades including fixes due to past issues etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Transat_Flight_236
They don’t have that level of certainty around what altitude a rocket exploded, or other one off event.
Unlike fuel gauges, land surveys, and radar, fast-breaking news of explosions carries a significant risk of mistransmission or inaccuracy. They might know when/where the explosion occurred, but not necessarily have much confidence on how fast debris might have been ejected and in which directions.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6hIXB62bUE ATC was being extremely cautious and diverting planes over quite a large area for quite some time to avoid the risk of debris hitting airplanes.
Can you not understand the difference between a stated measurement of a runway or drain fuel requirement, and a stated location of a unique explosion that happened just a few minutes ago? Are you prepared to bet 200 lives that no one fat-fingered the number?
> at these speeds, over 20000km/h, the falling debris will travel a very long way before coming down.
Without air resistance, falling 145 km takes 172 seconds, which would result in the debris falling 956 km east of the explosion point if it were moving horizontal to the ground to begin with. With air resistance, it is substantially shorter as everything is decelerating proportional to the velocity cubed. If we approximate the terminal velocity of the debris as 500 km/h, to a first order approximation it would travel approximately 79 km east. The distance from West Caicos island to Grand Turk island is 138 km, for reference.
Satellites are moving much faster and at much higher altitude. Starship was not in orbit.
I'm not at all qualified to speculate. So I'll just add that for those unfamiliar with him, the person who posted that tweet is an astrophysicist with a popular YT channel.
Good to read! Many EU countries had similar rules already in place. With the EU DSA + FTC now mandating this, it will probably finally become the standard world wide.
For comparison, in the Netherlands all postcode data is open data, including detailed building outlines as well as almost all other related information.
This also leads to some very interesting issues, as third parties who automatically ingest the data have a habit of just reading the docs and making the wrong assumptions about what it means in reality.
One example I often encounter myself is Google Maps trying to geolocate my address (city, street name, house number), and then reverse-geolocate that into my postcode. Which sounds like it would work - until you realize that the postcode polygons can overlap. I live in a building where (roughly) each floor has its own postcode, so whenever I try to fill in my address on a website which uses Google's API, it'll "helpfully" auto-fill or "correct" my postcode from 1234AB to 1234AZ. It'll essentially pick a random postcode, because all of them share the same coordinates!
That's Really Really Bad, because the postcode plus house number combination is supposed to uniquely identify a mailbox: it's only a matter of luck that the house numbers aren't reused in the set of postcodes used for my building. They could've just as well reused the numbers at the individual building entrances...
This creates a very special Dutch thing —- my neighborhood had the roads on the map before the map itself was updated to show landmass instead of the body of water.
I wonder if all the houses on disconnected long islands without roads in Vinkeveense Plassen have postal codes? It's hard to get a pizza delivered there.
In the PDOK viewer linked above you can enable the "Adressen" layer[1] and it will show markers on everything that has an address. Everything that has an address has a postal code, which is listed in the details if you click the address. (There might be an exception with an address but no postal code somewhere, I'm not sure, but not here.)
That area looks so weird on a map and so cool in person. I never kinda understood what is going on there except the whole having a lake and being the Netherlands.
I run a self hosted Gitlab CE instance for many years now and I am very happy with it. I also experiment a lot with local LLMs. Will there be a CE release which allows for usage combined with a locally running LLM in the future?
Since the relevant code appears to be in the "ee" directory <https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/blob/v16.11.0-ee/ee/l...> and is not present in the foss repo, I'm guessing the answer is no, at least for now. They do have a history of "releasing" features from EE back to CE but my suspicion is not for LLM stuff
It is always the edge cases that will kill you. In the case of WP on PostgreSQL, the reason you want WP in the first place is the plugins and those will be hit or miss on PostgreSQL. Just give up on the combination of those two.
To clarify, the wire protocol is the easy part, the semantic differences how each database does things is a whole other can of worms. Such emulation will never be 100%, quirks and all.
I remember back in the day when GDPR was announced this was an actual thing. Nowadays tho, 9/10 of the website that used that message caved and are serving EU without problems.
Websites that refuse to serve be any content due to that law are just yelling at me saying "we don't care one bit for your basic rights for privacy". They have zero intention of sharing anything respectfully and would just sell my data instead, with no accountability whatsoever.
