Ky1arStern

Updating the computer infrastructure of what is essentially a corporation is a pretty huge cost. You could have 100's of machines that all require licenses. Then there's the cost to pay someone to do the updating (normal IT overtime or bringing in someone to do it).

Then there is the cost associated with updating any software. It's possible they use TownBudgetPro.v3. TBPv3 might not be compatible with windows 10 so they'd also have to pay to update to TBPv5. They might have to do that for several programs. Then there are the programs they use that have never been updated so they have to invest in a new software.

All of this is of course under the assumption that the hardware itself doesn't have to be updated, so you're looking at possibly having to buy new machines as well.

Then you have the intangibles; training people on the new software, delays and problems as you have to deal with bugs you didn't have to previously, older employees that aren't very computer literate who have difficulty adapting to new software. Then there's your taxpayers who might not see why they're paying for the government to get "fancy new computers". In a smaller town it could be a non-trivial portion of the budget to update everything. If you just update most things, then you have to deal with cross-version-compatibility.

All of that has to be planned and budgeted for.

Often times I'll see threads on Reddit where someone gets in an accident and the car is declared totaled. They claim the insurance company is willing to provide them $X for the value of the car (because the insurance company deems it totaled), but a replacement comparable car might cost $X + $1000, and that number goes up when you factor the time and stop-gap measures needed to actually find and purchase a "new" car. I put "new" in quotes because the car someone is looking to purchase in this case would be a used car, just new to them.

Is there any way you would recommend or any recourse for attempting to get an insurance company to pay more for a totaled vehicle. Likewise how are things like recently bought tires or other maintenance accomplished factored into the valuation of the 'totaled' vehicle?

Don't be afraid of flying!

I work for an airline and it's super safe!

Can we all agree that the Halo 3 campaign was pretty lackluster? Not only was it short but it was artificially inflated by being mostly in the format of:

• Mission 1: Go from A to B
• Mission 2: Go from B to A
• Mission 3: Go from C to D
• Mission 4: Go from D to C

etc

Nice to see the love for Reach.

From a design perspective, has anyone talked about what aspects of the 737-Max required MCAS implementation? I understand they installed larger engines on the a/c and needed to move them up in relation to the wing in order to keep them from touching the ground, but I dont really understand how this results in an aircraft that needs a flight system to nose it down.

As I understand it, raising the engines would change the normal eccentricity of the engine weight from the lifting surfaces. This would make me think the aircraft is likely to nose down. The MCAS system seems designed to counteract the aircraft tending to nose up, why?

As kind of an add on/context for my question, I have another:

As I understood it, the MCAS system was implemented specifically to make the aircraft mimic the flight characteristics of the NG's, is this the case? Or is the MCAS system actually addressing a stability concern?