News
Airlines Begin Weighing Passengers Prior to Boarding
As the number of fat passengers increases, airlines are temporarily forcing their customers to be weighed before boarding, the data from which is used in the computation of take-off weight to assure aircraft safety.
According to a new study conducted by RMIT University in Australia, obesity is becoming an issue in many countries and is likely to worsen. As a result, numerous airlines are now adjusting the average weights of male and female passengers on a regular basis in order to calculate the take-off weight more correctly.
This average weight modification is required for wide-body aircraft that can carry up to 300 people. For example, if the average weight of a passenger is inaccurate by one kilogram, an aircraft carrying 300 passengers may be carrying 300kg more than expected, and the take-off weight will be erroneous.
The average weight of male and female aviation passengers has been adjusted to 88.4kgs and 70.3kgs, respectively, from 81kgs and 69kgs in 2017, according to the US Federal Aviation Administration.
Air New Zealand had weighed over 10,000 passengers since June of this year, when Bangkok Airways opted to temporarily implement passenger weight measures before boarding. Finnair and Hawaiian Airlines have previously used the same measure. The measure is primarily transitory and voluntary, and it is dependent on passengers’ willingness to be weighed.
Bangkok Airways, for example, requests assistance from passengers by weighing them prior to boarding.
Fate passengers create a tonne of problems for airlines
Airlines face additional obstacles as the population grows larger, from seat sizes to weighing passengers before boarding.
Making calculations is essential when flying, but there is one that does not add up. Seats are becoming narrower as passengers become heavier, creating something of a flashpoint at 35,000 feet.
The average British man weighed 79kg in 1993, and the average British woman weighed 67kg. According to the NHS, by 2021, these averages had climbed to (85kg and 72kg.
This equates to nearly 2,200lb of weight on a flight with 189 seats, allowing for a couple of dozen youngsters on board and some empty seats. Passengers are literally a tonne heavier than they were 30 years ago. This has given airlines operating problems in more ways than one.
The average Boeing 737-800 has a maximum takeoff weight of roughly 160,000lb (80 tonnes), according to the US National Air and Space Museum.
After accounting for the weight of the jet itself (about 82,000lb; 41 tonnes) and the fuel (36,000lb; 18 tonnes), this leaves only 42,000lb or 21 tonnes for cargo, baggage, and passengers.
As passengers become fatter, airlines are looking for methods to save money elsewhere. Virgin Atlantic, for example, has changed its high class glasses to thinner glassware and altered its dinner trays to hold less dining carts.
They claim that losing one pound (0.45kg) of weight from a jet saved them 11,600 gallons (53,000 liters) of fuel each year, amounting to tens of thousands of dollars. To conserve weight, several airlines have eliminated in-flight magazines and bulky seat-back screens.
However, in their efforts to lower overall weight, airlines appear to have overlooked good adjustments that would make flying more comfortable for customers. In fact, the inverse is true.
The Telegraph reports, each airline has its own restrictions, but on average, plane seats are reducing in terms of both breadth and legroom as airlines try to pack as many seats as possible into their planes.
Squeeze on economy class seats
Seat width on the Boeing 747 and early Airbus jets was normally 18 inches in the 1970s and 1980s, increasing to 18.5 inches on the Boeing 777 in the 1990s and the Airbus A380 in the 2000s.
Seat widths in economy class on most modern aircraft, including Boeing 737s and Airbus A330s, are typically between 17 and 17.5 inches. Of course, business and first class have substantially larger seat sizes, and some airlines provide greater space in premium economy.
However, the squeeze on economy class seats is unusual, because seats are increasing bigger in most other public places. When Wembley Stadium reopened in 2007, the seats were 19.7 inches wide, as opposed to the 16.1 inches that football fans had previously endured.
Many theatres now post their seat widths online on their accessible pages, which became a big topic last year when London-based Danish comedian Sofie Hagen refused to play at any venue that did not.
Airlines didn’t get the memo, and it’s having a real-world impact on passengers.
The difficulties that plus-size travellers face
You may have noticed your elbows colliding with your seatmate more now than when you originally boarded the plane. However, smaller seats make flying extremely difficult for larger persons.
Kirsty Leanne, a plus-size travel expert, says there are several difficulties at 35,000 feet.
“I’m concerned that neither I nor the person next to me will be comfortable for the duration of the flight, which causes me a lot of anxiety,” she says.
Leanne checks if there are any seats with a vacant seat next to them when boarding an aircraft to ensure everyone is comfortable. She also requests a seatbelt extender, which some airlines gladly provide.
“Another source of concern is the restroom, which is usually quite small. “They are frequently unusable, and on a long flight, it can be a choice between staying hydrated and attempting to use a bathroom that you definitely do not fit into,” she explains.
Paying more for Being Fat
However, Leanne believes that refitting planes with more seats is not the solution.
“Southwest Airlines provides a refund on a second seat purchased if there are still empty seats available when the doors close.”
Something similar across the board would be fantastic, as it would allow people to feel more at ease when travelling, thus encouraging more passengers of size to fly.”
When boarding a flight, Leanne inquires whether there are any seats with an empty seat next to them to ensure everyone’s comfort; she also requests a seatbelt extender. Getty Images
During the epidemic, mask-wearing became a source of contention in the sky, but there are signs that personal space may become an issue in the future. Kirsty Leanne recalls a time when she was sat next to a passenger that made her feel uneasy.
“She made direct comments about me and my body size, but at the time, I was too shy to advocate and stand up for myself.” “I felt as though I didn’t deserve to fly.”
Many airlines have no formal policy, although others, including as Ryanair, easyJet, and KLM, propose that if you are unable to lower your armrest, you reserve an additional seat for your flight.
KLM and Air France both give a 25% discount on these extra seats. Others, like as Virgin and Tui, advise calling the airline before booking.
Eurowings is the most accommodating airline in Europe, allowing you to book an additional empty middle seat adjacent to your ticket for just €10, provided there is room on the aircraft.

News
Google’s Search Dominance Is Unwinding, But Still Accounting 48% Search Revenue

Google is so closely associated with its key product that its name is a verb that signifies “search.” However, Google’s dominance in that sector is dwindling.
According to eMarketer, Google will lose control of the US search industry for the first time in decades next year.
Google will remain the dominant search player, accounting for 48% of American search advertising revenue. And, remarkably, Google is still increasing its sales in the field, despite being the dominating player in search since the early days of the George W. Bush administration. However, Amazon is growing at a quicker rate.
Google’s Search Dominance Is Unwinding
Amazon will hold over a quarter of US search ad dollars next year, rising to 27% by 2026, while Google will fall even more, according to eMarketer.
The Wall Street Journal was first to report on the forecast.
Lest you think you’ll have to switch to Bing or Yahoo, this isn’t the end of Google or anything really near.
Google is the fourth-most valued public firm in the world. Its market worth is $2.1 trillion, trailing just Apple, Microsoft, and the AI chip darling Nvidia. It also maintains its dominance in other industries, such as display advertisements, where it dominates alongside Facebook’s parent firm Meta, and video ads on YouTube.
To put those “other” firms in context, each is worth more than Delta Air Lines’ total market value. So, yeah, Google is not going anywhere.
Nonetheless, Google faces numerous dangers to its operations, particularly from antitrust regulators.
On Monday, a federal judge in San Francisco ruled that Google must open up its Google Play Store to competitors, dealing a significant blow to the firm in its long-running battle with Fortnite creator Epic Games. Google announced that it would appeal the verdict.
In August, a federal judge ruled that Google has an illegal monopoly on search. That verdict could lead to the dissolution of the company’s search operation. Another antitrust lawsuit filed last month accuses Google of abusing its dominance in the online advertising business.
Meanwhile, European regulators have compelled Google to follow tough new standards, which have resulted in multiple $1 billion-plus fines.

Pixa Bay
Google’s Search Dominance Is Unwinding
On top of that, the marketplace is becoming more difficult on its own.
TikTok, the fastest-growing social network, is expanding into the search market. And Amazon has accomplished something few other digital titans have done to date: it has established a habit.
When you want to buy anything, you usually go to Amazon, not Google. Amazon then buys adverts to push companies’ products to the top of your search results, increasing sales and earning Amazon a greater portion of the revenue. According to eMarketer, it is expected to generate $27.8 billion in search revenue in the United States next year, trailing only Google’s $62.9 billion total.
And then there’s AI, the technology that (supposedly) will change everything.
Why search in stilted language for “kendall jenner why bad bunny breakup” or “police moving violation driver rights no stop sign” when you can just ask OpenAI’s ChatGPT, “What’s going on with Kendall Jenner and Bad Bunny?” in “I need help fighting a moving violation involving a stop sign that wasn’t visible.” Google is working on exactly this technology with its Gemini product, but its success is far from guaranteed, especially with Apple collaborating with OpenAI and other businesses rapidly joining the market.
A Google spokeswoman referred to a blog post from last week in which the company unveiled ads in its AI overviews (the AI-generated text that appears at the top of search results). It’s Google’s way of expressing its ability to profit on a changing marketplace while retaining its business, even as its consumers steadily transition to ask-and-answer AI and away from search.
Google has long used a single catchphrase to defend itself against opponents who claim it is a monopoly abusing its power: competition is only a click away. Until recently, that seemed comically obtuse. Really? We are going to switch to Bing? Or Duck Duck Go? Give me a break.
But today, it feels more like reality.
Google is in no danger of disappearing. However, every highly dominating company faces some type of reckoning over time. GE, a Dow mainstay for more than a century, was broken up last year and is now a shell of its previous dominance. Sears declared bankruptcy in 2022 and is virtually out of business. US Steel, long the foundation of American manufacturing, is attempting to sell itself to a Japanese corporation.
SOURCE | CNN
News
The Supreme Court Turns Down Biden’s Government Appeal in a Texas Emergency Abortion Matter.

(VOR News) – A ruling that prohibits emergency abortions that contravene the Supreme Court law in the state of Texas, which has one of the most stringent abortion restrictions in the country, has been upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States. The United States Supreme Court upheld this decision.
The justices did not provide any specifics regarding the underlying reasons for their decision to uphold an order from a lower court that declared hospitals cannot be legally obligated to administer abortions if doing so would violate the law in the state of Texas.
Institutions are not required to perform abortions, as stipulated in the decree. The common populace did not investigate any opposing viewpoints. The decision was made just weeks before a presidential election that brought abortion to the forefront of the political agenda.
This decision follows the 2022 Supreme Court ruling that ended abortion nationwide.
In response to a request from the administration of Vice President Joe Biden to overturn the lower court’s decision, the justices expressed their disapproval.
The government contends that hospitals are obligated to perform abortions in compliance with federal legislation when the health or life of an expectant patient is in an exceedingly precarious condition.
This is the case in regions where the procedure is prohibited. The difficulty hospitals in Texas and other states are experiencing in determining whether or not routine care could be in violation of stringent state laws that prohibit abortion has resulted in an increase in the number of complaints concerning pregnant women who are experiencing medical distress being turned away from emergency rooms.
The administration cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in a case that bore a striking resemblance to the one that was presented to it in Idaho at the beginning of the year. The justices took a limited decision in that case to allow the continuation of emergency abortions without interruption while a lawsuit was still being heard.
In contrast, Texas has been a vocal proponent of the injunction’s continued enforcement. Texas has argued that its circumstances are distinct from those of Idaho, as the state does have an exemption for situations that pose a significant hazard to the health of an expectant patient.
According to the state, the discrepancy is the result of this exemption. The state of Idaho had a provision that safeguarded a woman’s life when the issue was first broached; however, it did not include protection for her health.
Certified medical practitioners are not obligated to wait until a woman’s life is in imminent peril before they are legally permitted to perform an abortion, as determined by the state supreme court.
The state of Texas highlighted this to the Supreme Court.
Nevertheless, medical professionals have criticized the Texas statute as being perilously ambiguous, and a medical board has declined to provide a list of all the disorders that are eligible for an exception. Furthermore, the statute has been criticized for its hazardous ambiguity.
For an extended period, termination of pregnancies has been a standard procedure in medical treatment for individuals who have been experiencing significant issues. It is implemented in this manner to prevent catastrophic outcomes, such as sepsis, organ failure, and other severe scenarios.
Nevertheless, medical professionals and hospitals in Texas and other states with strict abortion laws have noted that it is uncertain whether or not these terminations could be in violation of abortion prohibitions that include the possibility of a prison sentence. This is the case in regions where abortion prohibitions are exceedingly restrictive.
Following the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, which resulted in restrictions on the rights of women to have abortions in several Republican-ruled states, the Texas case was revisited in 2022.
As per the orders that were disclosed by the administration of Vice President Joe Biden, hospitals are still required to provide abortions in cases that are classified as dire emergency.
As stipulated in a piece of health care legislation, the majority of hospitals are obligated to provide medical assistance to patients who are experiencing medical distress. This is in accordance with the law.
The state of Texas maintained that hospitals should not be obligated to provide abortions throughout the litigation, as doing so would violate the state’s constitutional prohibition on abortions. In its January judgment, the 5th United States Circuit Court of Appeals concurred with the state and acknowledged that the administration had exceeded its authority.
SOURCE: AP
SEE ALSO:
Could Last-Minute Surprises Derail Kamala Harris’ Campaign? “Nostradamus” Explains the US Poll.
News
Supreme Court Rejects Appeal From ‘Pharma Bro’ Martin Shkreli, To repay $6.4 Million

Washington — The Supreme Court rejected Martin Shkreli’s appeal on Monday, after he was branded “Pharma Bro” for raising the price of a lifesaving prescription.
Martin appealed a decision to repay $64.6 million in profits he and his former company earned after monopolizing the pharmaceutical market and dramatically raising its price. His lawyers claimed the money went to his company rather than him personally.
The justices did not explain their reasoning, as is customary, and there were no notable dissents.
Prosecutors, conversely, claimed that the firm had promised to pay $40 million in a settlement and that because Martin orchestrated the plan, he should be held accountable for returning profits.
Supreme Court Rejects Appeal From ‘Pharma Bro’ Martin Shkreli
Martin was also forced to forfeit the Wu-Tang Clan’s unreleased album “Once Upon a Time in Shaolin,” which has been dubbed the world’s rarest musical album. The multiplatinum hip-hop group auctioned off a single copy of the record in 2015, stipulating that it not be used commercially.
Shkreli was convicted of lying to investors and defrauding them of millions of dollars in two unsuccessful hedge funds he managed. Shkreli was the CEO of Turing Pharmaceuticals (later Vyera), which hiked the price of Daraprim from $13.50 to $750 per pill after acquiring exclusive rights to the decades-old medicine in 2015. It cures a rare parasite condition that affects pregnant women, cancer patients, and HIV patients.
He defended the choice as an example of capitalism in action, claiming that insurance and other programs ensured that those in need of Daraprim would eventually receive it. However, the move prompted criticism, from the medical community to Congress.
Supreme Court Rejects Appeal From ‘Pharma Bro’ Martin Shkreli
Attorney Thomas Huff said the Supreme Court’s Monday ruling was upsetting, but the high court could still overturn a lower court judgment that allowed the $64 million penalty order even though Shkreli had not personally received the money.
“If and when the Supreme Court does so, Mr. Shkreli will have a strong argument for modifying the order accordingly,” he told reporters.
Shkreli was freed from prison in 2022 after serving most of his seven-year sentence.
SOURCE | AP
-
News4 years ago
Let’s Know About Ultra High Net Worth Individual
-
Entertainment2 years ago
Mabelle Prior: The Voice of Hope, Resilience, and Diversity Inspiring Generations
-
Health4 years ago
How Much Ivermectin Should You Take?
-
Tech2 years ago
Top Forex Brokers of 2023: Reviews and Analysis for Successful Trading
-
Lifestyles3 years ago
Aries Soulmate Signs
-
Movies2 years ago
What Should I Do If Disney Plus Keeps Logging Me Out of TV?
-
Health3 years ago
Can I Buy Ivermectin Without A Prescription in the USA?
-
Learning3 years ago
Virtual Numbers: What Are They For?