nwt

Nah

You imply it pretty directly with:

So you're suggesting that COVID is not transmitted between people? Sorry, I forget which exact brand of crazy nonsense you've been spouting.

Too expensive when there was a (very) used PDR126 I could get for $450 shipped Sold my OP143 to a friend for $1650 and bought an AAD--now I'm just waiting on UPT production!

Mostly. It's often impossible to tell whether someone means "1.22" vs "1.2 to" until you hear whether or not there's a "1" coming. It doesn't sound like much, but it can really fuck with you if you're trying to organize a load of hop n pops next to running turbine engines that want to leave.

A square foot is no more variable than an hour. Just as your canopy may have multiple square feet, your drive may take multiple hours. There is neither technical nor practical difference here. ":1" conveys no meaning and and has no intuitive benefit--it isn't making anything "more apparent". If you don't believe me, just start leaving it off and see if anyone's confused--nobody will be and it's commonly left off anyway. I'm not suggesting you actually say the units every time. Leave it off just like when you're telling someone how fast you were going. But if you feel the need to add units, then actually add the units and convey something useful.

I've never seen the second part of the ratio change. It's always been ":1"

I understand this. I'm asking can we please stop because it's stupid.

I'm having serious deja vu

Canopy loading isn't a ratio any more than your car's speed is. Sammy Hagar isn't complaining about driving 55:1, he's complaining about driving 55 miles per hour. Sorry, but this has always irked me. The only effect of using this prevalent but incorrect notation is to cloud the conversation with additional numbers and additional words that sound like numbers that have no meaning and provide no clarity. "one point two pounds per square foot" vs. "one point two to one" Sorry, was that 1.221? Anyway... You're arguing something should not be widely accepted that I'm not convinced actually is widely accepted. You opened the thread with a screenshot of someone's planned progression not being accepted, as if it supported your point.

Could we dispense with the ratio nonsense and express wingloading as pounds per square foot? I don't understand what you mean by 1:2 before 50 jumps.

I'm not convinced this philosophy is actually prevalent. I haven't see people being told they need to downsize. Not here and not at any DZ. There are practical drawbacks to limiting yourself to 1.0 psf, but I haven't seen anyone criticized for accepting those. Did you type that wrong or are you now taking the position that we should not be allowed to downsize "rapidly", whatever you mean by that?

We've literally just been through this. You posted a quote, and everyone saw you were wrong.

Proof that vaccines are being thrown away left and right!

We are averaging about 1.3 million doses administered in the US per day.

This is all your own personal speculation.

Of tens of millions administered. Rare.

For the 3rd time, that's 4 doses that weren't wasted...

None of them says anything about "most cases". Prove me wrong.

According to what reference?

No they don't, and that would be assessed by % of doses wasted, not by number of articles. Again, this is the solution that discredits the point you're trying to make.

Who said that? Can you quote?

That article is 2 weeks old--practically an eternity these days. And guess what? You've actually just stumbled upon the solution to the problem you were complaining about. So we're done here?

If you think that's profound, then you misunderstand science.