https://youtu.be/XLcswkROgx8

That’s fair, but my point is that the NYT headline/article seems to be so simplified that it almost becomes contradictory. For example, you quoted this bit

The agency took the unusual step of creating websites debunking the conspiracy theory that chemicals are being sprayed in the sky to control the weather or do other things.

But later in the article it also says

The chief executive of Rainmaker, Augustus Doricko, has said that while the company released silver iodide into a pair of clouds on July 2, the mission led to less than half a centimeter of rain falling on drought-stricken farmland

So there is a company that is effectively “spraying chemicals in the sky” with the express intent of “leading to rain falling”. Again, I realize that is very different from the “chemtrail” conspiracy theory, but that nuance could have been handled so much better.

I much prefer the phrasing of the AP article’s headline that I linked earlier: “No, weather modification did not cause the deadly flash floods in Texas.”

Kind of reductive that the headline is “Chemtrials are not real or causing foods”, but the linked website points out that contrails are real, and

Current models indicate that persistent contrail clouds could have a small net warming effect.

And considering that climate change is considered a contributing factor to floods…

Additionally, one of the leading conspiracy theories related to the floods is about cloud seeding, not chemtrails. And, while cloud seeding is real (and has happened in south-central Texas), it did not cause the Texas floods.

So yes, the headline is technically correct, but there’s a lot of additional context that I feel like they’re skipping over.

I was just complaining about these “science” headlines the other day. This one in particular actually startled me a bit because I thought “The Sun is having a moment” was a euphemism for some potentially catastrophic solar flare or something.

Unfortunately sometimes it’s really hard to avoid. I’ve been to restaurants that don’t even have physical menus. You could probably find a menu on their website, but not always.

I wouldn’t call myself a frequent flyer, but I fly at least several times a year, and I’ve taken a lot of different airlines. To your point, I honestly haven’t seen much difference in terms of cancelation or delay between budget and regular airlines. There are 3 main differences in my mind.

First is that budget airlines nickel and dime you. Carry-on isn’t free, it’s an add-on. Your backpack size is thoroughly checked. And if you mess any of that up and they catch it, the upcharge is huge.

The second point is sort of a continuation of the first: on-flight service. Depending on the duration of the flight, non-budget airlines will give you some snacks and drinks for free. Budget airlines charge you for them. (I once had a budget airline try and charge me for water when I was fighting off a headache…) Some of the nicest airlines will even have entertainment consoles built in to the seats, even in economy.

Third is seat space and comfort. The seats on the nicer airlines have noticeably more leg room and more cushion. A lot of them have adjustable headrests and recline a bit. Sounds like a small thing, but I have pretty long legs and a bony ass, so it makes a huge difference to me.

For shorter flights/trips, I’ll still do budget airlines sometimes. For longer flights or if I have a lot of luggage, I usually have a strong preference for the nicer airlines. Of course, depending on how big the cost difference is, I’ll occasionally go against my preference.

I’m more a spaghetti-in-the-purse fan myself.