Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 18 submissions in the queue.
posted by janrinok on Sunday December 11 2022, @05:41PM   Printer-friendly
from the walking-will-be-mandatory-soon dept.

It's official: France bans short haul domestic flights in favour of train travel:

France has been given the green light to ban short haul domestic flights.

The European Commission has approved the move which will abolish flights between cities that are linked by a train journey of less than 2.5 hours.

[...] France is also cracking down on the use of private jets for short journeys in a bid to make transport greener and fairer for the population.

Transport minister Clément Beaune said the country could no longer tolerate the super rich using private planes while the public are making cutbacks to deal with the energy crisis and climate change.

[...] The ban on short-haul flights will be valid for three years, after which it must be reassessed by the Commission.

"[This] is a major step forward in the policy of reducing greenhouse gas emissions," transport minister Beaune said in a press release.

[...] Sarah Fayolle, Greenpeace France transport campaign manager, told Euronews that there were both "negative and positive aspects" to the European Commission's decision given that only three routes are affected.

"It's going in the right direction, but the initial measure is one that's (not very) ambitious. We must go even further," she said.


Original Submission

 
This discussion was created by janrinok (52) for logged-in users only, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Sunday December 25 2022, @08:51PM (7 children)

    by JoeMerchant (3937) on Sunday December 25 2022, @08:51PM (#1283957)

    As accurate as you need to be, I see.

    --
    🌻🌻 [google.com]
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday December 25 2022, @10:12PM (6 children)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday December 25 2022, @10:12PM (#1283969) Journal
    Indeed. There's no need for high precision when the risk is orders of magnitude below. We don't, for example, need to plot alien invasions or acts of evil deities to high precision.
    • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday December 26 2022, @12:09AM (5 children)

      by JoeMerchant (3937) on Monday December 26 2022, @12:09AM (#1283984)

      20 standard deviations is outrageous, in any field.

      --
      🌻🌻 [google.com]
      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday December 26 2022, @04:20AM (4 children)

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday December 26 2022, @04:20AM (#1283991) Journal

        20 standard deviations is outrageous, in any field.

        And yet, quite adequate for this task. We don't need to know the precision of the risk when the order of magnitude is more than sufficient.

        • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday December 26 2022, @02:02PM (3 children)

          by JoeMerchant (3937) on Monday December 26 2022, @02:02PM (#1284014)
          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday December 26 2022, @04:20PM (2 children)

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday December 26 2022, @04:20PM (#1284020) Journal
            Already knew that. Funny how you just can't post anything relevant or informative despite more than a dozen attempts. Instead, you're spinning fables. Here's a serious engineering example: you call up your guy at the dam to see how close to overtopping the water level is. He reports back, there's almost no water behind the dam. It doesn't matter if he means 1% or 10% left. That eyeballing can be an order of magnitude off without changing a thing. But what it does mean is that the great majority of water that you expected to be behind that dam is now... somewhere else.

            Similarly, I can evaluate orders of magnitude risks without requiring significant precision. That's why I'm not concerned about a few standard deviations when I find that a risk is more than two orders of magnitude short of being a real problem. Conversely, imagine if I told you that a risk was negligible because it was 9.7% instead of a back of envelope calculation of 10%? That precision make you feel better?
            • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday December 27 2022, @12:39AM (1 child)

              by JoeMerchant (3937) on Tuesday December 27 2022, @12:39AM (#1284071)

              When speaking of 20SD, that's - generously - over 10 sigma from the mean:

              http://www.aleph.se/andart/archives/2009/09/ten_sigma_numerics_and_finance.html [aleph.se]

              1.529245*10^-23

              Ain't nobody got that kind of data on much of anything in the real universe.

              --
              🌻🌻 [google.com]
              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday December 27 2022, @03:21AM

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday December 27 2022, @03:21AM (#1284085) Journal

                When speaking of 20SD, that's - generously - over 10 sigma from the mean:

                And as I have already observed, 10 sigma from the mean is not significant for the parameters I looked at because they were two orders of magnitude shy of being relevant.