Burning fuel to no effect is better than burning fuel to get somewhere? A quick search suggests a 747 burns 5 gallons per mile. An idling engine achieving nothing is burning infinity gallons per mile. Which if you check the number line you’ll find is slightly higher.
Comment on Climate activists glue themselves to Munich airport runway
Lmaydev@programming.dev 5 months agoI doubt they leave the engines and even if they did leave them idling it’s better than flying
letsgo@lemm.ee 5 months ago
Lmaydev@programming.dev 5 months ago
Only if you do it per mile. Not if you do it as gallons burned.
Also 0/1 isn’t infinity it’s undefined.
letsgo@lemm.ee 5 months ago
You’re right about one thing: 1/0 = inf is sloppy and lazy. The better way to write it is: the limit as x approaches zero of 1/x is infinity.
InternetPerson@lemmings.world 5 months ago
You probably meant 1 / 0.
0 / 1 is 0.
InternetPerson@lemmings.world 5 months ago
You require more fuel to move compared to fuel consumption while running idle.
letsgo@lemm.ee 5 months ago
Yes, but if the plane isn’t going to move then there’s no point it burning fuel.
InternetPerson@lemmings.world 5 months ago
Sure. But it’s still less.
feddylemmy@lemmy.world 5 months ago
I’d assume there has to be some engine use for electricity generation, climate control, etc. even when grounded.