Of course I understand your silly point of deflecting with the manufacturing energy debt, which would falsely try to attribute a zero value to alternatives.
But, I will be nice and just directly address you (tl;dr, the global debt is payed between 2011 and 2020, depending on the study):
You did see the word âprobabilityâ in the first article⌠Itâs not science.
The other one is speculationâŚ
And all far more significant than your salty âopinionâ.
Not yet, which is why I said wouldnât it be something.
Do you understand what energy density is? In spite of the huge advances in battery development in the last couple of decades, there is nothing on the horizon that comes anywhere near to the energy density of aviation fuels. Furthermore, conventional aircraft can be refueled in less time than it takes to offload one set of passengers and cargo, and load up the next set. Can you say that about recharging time for the batteries? Planes donât make a profit sitting on the ground waiting for fuel. And as has been demonstrated all too frequently, the high density batteries of today can be very dangerous (and as the energy density goes up, so does the inherent danger) ⌠much more dangerous than jet fuel in wing tanks.
Eh that probably wonât ever happen unless we have some quantum leap in battery tech.
"If a business user defined a requirement that a specific set of business logic would trigger when a subset of the data was in the majority, then they would get exactly that. Function (x) is called when y > 50% + 1. "
#1 Why âY > 50% +1â and not Y >= 51%" having to add the â1â is just an extra processing step.
#2 Using the statement about what a business required wouldnât it be âY>50%â anyway as 50.001 is still a majority. Or you could just round it to to one decimal say âROUND(Y,1)>50%â so that it it deals with values only at least that round to 0.1% above 50.
.>>>>
You went too deep friend. 50% + 1 is adding one unit of measure to the subset so that it equals greater than 50%, regardless of precision. 
