Georges Janin

The USA is cancelling the visas of Mexican musical groups that sing "narcocorridos" (music that glorifies narcos). Grupo Firme is HUGE, one of the biggest and most famous bands in Mexico right now.

This should be illegal.

Weirdest adjustment in SF hasn’t been how tech-centric the city is, homeless population, or any of the other stereotypes. It’s the dogs in restaurants and bars. All the time. People are too confident bringing their dogs in venues that have no business having dogs inside.

Uber to introduce fixed-route shuttles in major US cities designed for commuters | TechCrunch techcrunch.com/2025/05/14/ub…

Blake is 100% correct, and the commenters are wrong. The A380 was a bad idea from the start. Airbus spent $25B developing it forecasting 1,200 sales, needing 500 to break-even. They sold 248. When at BCG I worked on a project on this topic (for GE), we concluded that it was doomed from the start. It didn't make any financial sense. They misread two big trends: - They assumed that hub-and-spoke air travel (giant airports connecting everything) would get even more dominant (requiring larger planes), but all of the data suggested the opposite. - They underestimated how much smaller, more fuel-efficient planes (like the Boeing 787 and later A350) would change the economics of long-haul flights. -As smaller planes had long range, you could support Nashville to London on a 787 (as BA does) rather than a connecting flight Nashville to JFK to London... point to point is obviously better for passengers. -Even if you have enough daily traffic between 2 large airports to support 2 A380s, customers would be better off spacing them out and putting 4 787s / a350s on the route. Newark to London for example on United has 4 flights a day, but they could only do 2 a380s, making it less convenient for customers. Further, the a380 is actually less fuel efficient than 2 787s! People will say - but the a380 enables ultrapremium stuff like showers, full bars, and lounges on a plane... that is correct but ultrapremium is not where the money is made - the money is made on business class. Operating costs on the A380 are so high (4 engines! more landing fees! more gate space!) that filling even a fancy first-class section doesn't offset the fact that you need to fill 400–500 other seats too. Of the ~180 A380s in service, Emirates flies 65% of them. They really hitched their wagon to it and it makes sense for them! State-owned Emirates wanted Dubai to become the global aviation crossroads, the "hub of the world." To make it happen, they needed to funnel massive numbers of people through Dubai International. The A380 was perfect for this: huge capacity, premium brand image, exclusivity. They talk about it as a tool for soft power... Perhaps the worst part is that they spent most of Airbus’ resources (engineering time, budget, leadership focus) during a critical window when they should have been focusing on a mid-sized, efficient aircraft - ACTUALLY the right strategy - and Boeing ate their lunch with the 787 (compared to the too-late a350). Some of the commenters likely fly the A380 in ultrapremium and love that, but the A380 is a classic case of brilliant engineering chasing the wrong market. It’s an incredible aircraft solving a problem that didn’t exist and ignoring trends that were shaping the future of air travel.