Men and women are obviously very different from one another. Thank god. Now let's treat everyone the same.
If man and women are obviously very different then why on earth should we treat them the same? That makes no sense.
As for the obviousness, well that's up for debate as well.
Stop dividing everyone.
You literally just said that men and women are obviously very different from one another. Perhaps you are the one who needs to stop dividing people.
Let's work together.
You're not interested in that. You are trying to pretend that you are innocent of all things (interesting since no one accused you of anything) while trying to take the moral high ground on an incoherent position.
It's really not rare at all among people on the left,
Yes it is. I've nt actually ever met a person who has said this. Never. Not once.
the fact you've already dragged politice into this as "the left", while applying sweeping generalisations says to me that you're far more interested in banging a partisan drum than actually having anything approaching a sensible discussion.
Many insist that all cognitive and emotional differences among men and women are due to socialization, and that if boys and girls were treated identically we would see no differences whatsoever in non-physical abilities and inclinations.
Nope, never actually heard anyone say that. I'm sure you can find someone on the internet who has. That's the nice thing about the internet, you can find someone to say almost anything or even find a whole community of people to say anything.
What I have heard people say is that the differences are probably much smaller than the socialisation aspect, there's much more variance and treating differently simply because of their gender tends to enforce social based differences.
Even people who will readily concede that we see large differences in other species deny that there can be any in our own, and insist that any that we see are due to social pressures/structures
That qualifies as "not even wrong". Other species are to various degrees anywhere between interesting and utterly irrelevant. Female anglerfish abosrb males and carry what remains arond as balls, giving (ironically) female angler fish more testicles than anything else. Clearly that means women are unsuited to computer science.
Then there's that dubious one about boy monkeys and toy cars or somesuch which has a bearing apparently because monkeys of that sort have no particular affinity for tools so it shows men like tools more?
What I have seen is people insist that certain culturally enforced things are innate despite other cultures having it the other way around.
The thing is you don't know which are cultural and which are innate. Humans are very malleable and it's very, very hard to separate out the differences. cute little just-so stories are not a substitute for actual knowledge.
This is mostly ideological,
Your claim is mostly ideological. Very few people actually believe that. Bonus points if you can cherry pick a few out of the 4 billion or so people on the internet.
Scientists in other fields have much higher costs on the whole than mathematics. They means they need grants for equipment, supplies, technicians and so on. That comes from the fnuding bodies. The more impact your work has the more you lkely you are to get funded.
And publishing in high profile journals is a good way to get that impact.
Reducing it to "not as smart or organised" is vastly oversimplifying the problem and doing so in a very snobby way.
Women are on average more neurotic than men. James Damore got fired for saying this.
That's a massive misrepresentation of what he wrote: he said so, so much more than that.
Here's the funny thing though you can't actually defend what he did write, you're defending a fantasy version of what he wrote. So, why are you defending it?
I've been assured that gender is merely a social construct.
I don't hold with that idea, but many, MANY of the trappings of it are. Girls/pink boys/blue which seems deeply ingrained flipped 100 years ago. Men not having close, emptionally intimate relationships with men where they talk about feelings is a recent invention much to the detriment of men (go read some old letter collections betwen men).
The thing about men being sex-beasts always wanting it and women being pure and innocent. That also flipped, many cultures of Antiquity thought the exact opposite was true. Seems to be an Abrahamic thing.
Men being good with tools? Just my personal observation but given how awful the average dude is with tools, I'd lose all faith in humanity if that qualified as "good". Most people suck with tools, but men have a tendency to charge in and make a bigger mess because there are a lot of unfair expectations about how they should already know what they're doing.
If so, how is there a gender gap?
Let's say we take the premise that gender is a social construct for the purposes of an if. That, you know the social aspect, can go as far as banning one gender from a certain field of endeavour (as was commom even in the 1970s in the US).
And you don't see how there could be a gap? Astonishing.
(1) People who insist that there are no differences
That's pretty rare. I mean I'm sure you can find them but you can find flat-earther's too so there's not much to be found cherrypicking nutters.
This leads to stupid things like insisting that exactly half of the students in computer science classes should be female
Like when? What we do know is there was a dramatic drp down from about 37% in the early 1980s. Biology doesn't change significantly over the course of 1 generation.
or that 50% of nurses should be male
There are no significant voices saying that.
( I suspect most people, of any gender, would prefer most nurses to be female!)
Why on earth would people care? Especially as the majority of people are tending towards overweight or obese and one job of nurses is to move people who can't move themselves easily. At some point that requires upper body strength.
In fields such as particle physics where we all tend to work in large, international collaborations this already means that all research is open access
In most of physics work has been open access because people post stuff to arXiv. It works because the field considers first to arxiv to be first to publish.
Some areas of computer science sich as ML seems to have recently got with the program and use the archive now, because the conferences have become so overwhelmed it's about the only way to actually publish in a timely manner.
Other fields, such as biology were (in the words of someone in the field that I know) "a bunch of asshole snobs who always try to scoop each other". Effectively the entire field strongly resisted the simplest and easiest form of open access by refusing to take the unreviewed archive as first to publish. They seem so have finally got a clue except they have their OWN prepreint server, presumably the blackjack and so forth.
[data] At the end of the first year of the initiative, only 5 people had accessed the data and 4 of those turned out to be members of the experiment itself who were curious about the program!
Honestly that doesn't surprise me. Making stuff usable (either data or software) by other people is hard and it's a skill scientists don't tend to have because they're scientists not software engineers or whatever. And they're not paid to do it, merely told they're supposed to.
Also other people's data is just not that interesting most of the time. Mostly people want to work on their OWN science.
The ASK21 has, of course, a tail wheel which doesn't touch the ground when the aircraft is sitting level. The tail wheel would only touch if the aircraft were nose up. In the videos, we see the nose well below the horizon during the approach. Then just before touchdown we see the nose rise, the tailwheel touch
The main wheel (centre) touches first right at this time point:
Then the front wheel touches. The tail wheel never touches down. It's a pretty level landing, but you see the glider wobbling up and down in angle a lot on the approach.
Either way, I assume you know the tail wheel on the ASK21 typically touches
I wouldn't say typically. You can. Tend to land on the middle wheel though if you can though as a beginner it's better to err towards the back than the front. Remember the ASK21 has airbrakes (really combined airbrakes and spoilers, they do both) so you jut hit them to drop more with the nose level. Avoids picking up too much speed as well.
You do NOT want "extra lift" when you're two feet off the tarmac!
There's not eally another way to decrease your descent rate.
You want to set the plane down.
Yes set it down. Not smear it across the tarmac.
What do you think you get when you start with "less than 1.3a, then reduce it twice? You get about 1.0.
Kinds of depends on how much you reduce it by, really.
Sounds like you need to work on your roundout, and probably your approach speed.
Tell you what you try flaring an ASK21 on the way in and let me know how it goes for you. You might find the airbrakes more useful otherwise they have a bit of a tendency to not quite manage to hit the ground, preferring instead to hit higher obstacles shortly past the end of the field.
Again, your approach needs to be not much above stall, per FAA license requirement.
Yes, not much above, which is not the same as below. It's not really an FAA requirement that you don't stall into the ground, it's more that it would only be something you tend to do only once.
Finally, 1-2 feet above the deck, flare to scrub further speed as the main gear touch down.
Which also drops your descent rate further to give a nice gentle landing. Here look someone made a nice graph:
you see how in phase 3 (flare) your descent rate is a bit lower than in round out? How d you think that happens?
Hold the stick back to further reduce speed so you don't go off the end of the runway
And that works by transferring your speed to the air, by blasting it downwards, i.e. increasing lift. But you don't have enough speed to take off again and the engine is off so it bleeds your velocity instead.
Says the guy trying to convince me that you're supposed to stall during flare. If you are a pilot then your landings are rough as all hell, but at this point wet both know you're not.
Hell you don't even seem to realise that planes actually stay in the air rather than being held up on a giant pole like wind turbines. At least that's what your reasoning is predicated on even if you haven't figured that out yet...
while also saying that approach velocity is the same thing as touchdown velocity
Another reason you aren't a pilot: you actually need to be able to read to get a license and it's clear you have failed to do so. I made no such claim.
I have my FAA log book here.
Any yahoo can get an empty log book. As for your hours? Technically, zero is a number of hours.
You probably know 1,000 times as much about sports as I do.
I say this as a nerd: that's the saddest bit of nerd bigotry I've seen all week.
Wow you're just flinging concepts at the page and hoping they stick aren't you!
Firstly stall is not turbulent versus laminar. Many aerofoils have turbulent flow.
The definition of a stalled aerofoil has nothing to do with your criteria, no matter how technical you think they sound. Stall is that point at which lift starts to decrease with increasing angle of attack.
For aircraft but not aerofoils, it's a speed because you have to balance out the weight with lift, so as you slow (decreasing the just) you have to increase the aoa (thereby increasing lift to match) until eventually you stall. Guess what happens if you forget to do that with a wind turbine? Nothing because its held aloft with a honking great pole.
Wind turbines do not have a minimum speed and are much more heavily built than aircraft. This is why your comparison is utterly invalid.
As someone who actually HAS flown a aircraft, not a video game, if you think that the touchdown flare (nose up) is the same as the descent (nose down), please never get behind the controls of an aircraft that isn't pixels
Lolwut? Flare is not the same as stalling! On a powered craft you flare mostly to slow the descent so you don't land too hard (and also to hit the rear first if applicable), and as a bonus you trade some of your velocity for the extra lift you get. End result: that means getting MORE lift not less, so you are certainly not stalling.
But if you try that sort of nose up tomfoolery on the aircraft I've spent most of my time flying you'll fnd yourself overshooting the field and landing in a hedge.
It's shredded, composted one way for a week the nanother way for 6 more weeks and then sieved.
They accept animal bones in with the compostable waste. Oce the binmen have wheeled the bins to the dustbin lorries everything else is handled by machines. No one actually picks through the half-composted waste for bones.
and I bet great smelling compost
It smells fine.
I just can't imagine what it would be like to work at a place like this. It would take a special someone.
If this year is anything like last year, it will be open for a weekend in September and you can visit it when you're in the area. I don't see why a municipal composting facility would be significantly different from one that accepts humans.
Actually it was weird cousin Jeremy. The did listen to him. In fact he even attended the meeting of the college council (listed as "present but not voting") in 1976, a mere 144 years after his death.
If you factor that in, looking at the Concorde's top speed at sea level, you'll find it's top sea level speed is about 3.3 times its minimum sea level speed.
Sigh fine OK. Keep moving the goal posts and I'll keep scoring. The Eurofighter typhoon can hit 1470 km/h at sea level and has a inimum speed of 203 km/s. That's 7.2x the speed at the same air density. Similar for the F14. And the F104.
That's more than your original claim of 3 and still more than your original claim of 5.
* Though actually you can do the math as if they do
No you don't. Well you clearly are but actual engineers don't. Here's a free example for you. What happens if you stick a 300 tonne block in the hold of an A380? Now what happens if you attach a 300T block of concrete to a wind turbine?
You keep acting like there's a minimum speed for wind turbines. THERE IS NOT.
Also, you keep forgetting that wind turbines can feather and simply stop if the air gets too fast. THIS IS NOT SOMETHING PLANES CAN DO.
Being (a) heavy and (b) bolted to the ground is a massively different design space from being light enough to fly.
which is analogous to the load borne by the wings of an aircraft
Not in the case you're talking about because in an aircraft you need enough force to lift off the ground. If you manage that with a wind turbine, then it doesn't remain being a wind turbine.
Oh here's another example for you. F1 cars use aerofoils to get down force. They have a top speed of about 230 miles per hour. They have a bottom speed of 0. That like wind turbines and completely unlike planes gives them an infinite ration of minimum to maximum speed. Because liek wind turbines they don't fall out of the sky when they stop what with not being in the sky in the first place.
It's hard to make a jet exceed 3x the landing speed because of the tradeoffs of fuel economy, structural weight and engine size. Because a plane has to stay in the air ideally for more than 5 minutes. Turbines do not suffer from that constraint.
Actually the 130 knot touchdown speed is stalled. A stall means your wings non longer hold you up - which is pretty much the definition of landing.
Look, as someone who has actually done some flying, if you think controlled descent is the same as stalling then please please never get behind the controls of an aircraft.
Slashdot Mirror
Right. Me not blindly agreeing with your flagrantly exaggerated/outright false claims is me being "wiillfully obtuse". LOL.
Self-driving is actually not that impressive When you're a train.
It is when it changes lanes.
Men and women are obviously very different from one another. Thank god. Now let's treat everyone the same.
If man and women are obviously very different then why on earth should we treat them the same? That makes no sense.
As for the obviousness, well that's up for debate as well.
Stop dividing everyone.
You literally just said that men and women are obviously very different from one another. Perhaps you are the one who needs to stop dividing people.
Let's work together.
You're not interested in that. You are trying to pretend that you are innocent of all things (interesting since no one accused you of anything) while trying to take the moral high ground on an incoherent position.
It's really not rare at all among people on the left,
Yes it is. I've nt actually ever met a person who has said this. Never. Not once.
the fact you've already dragged politice into this as "the left", while applying sweeping generalisations says to me that you're far more interested in banging a partisan drum than actually having anything approaching a sensible discussion.
Many insist that all cognitive and emotional differences among men and women are due to socialization, and that if boys and girls were treated identically we would see no differences whatsoever in non-physical abilities and inclinations.
Nope, never actually heard anyone say that. I'm sure you can find someone on the internet who has. That's the nice thing about the internet, you can find someone to say almost anything or even find a whole community of people to say anything.
What I have heard people say is that the differences are probably much smaller than the socialisation aspect, there's much more variance and treating differently simply because of their gender tends to enforce social based differences.
Even people who will readily concede that we see large differences in other species deny that there can be any in our own, and insist that any that we see are due to social pressures/structures
That qualifies as "not even wrong". Other species are to various degrees anywhere between interesting and utterly irrelevant. Female anglerfish abosrb males and carry what remains arond as balls, giving (ironically) female angler fish more testicles than anything else. Clearly that means women are unsuited to computer science.
Then there's that dubious one about boy monkeys and toy cars or somesuch which has a bearing apparently because monkeys of that sort have no particular affinity for tools so it shows men like tools more?
What I have seen is people insist that certain culturally enforced things are innate despite other cultures having it the other way around.
The thing is you don't know which are cultural and which are innate. Humans are very malleable and it's very, very hard to separate out the differences. cute little just-so stories are not a substitute for actual knowledge.
This is mostly ideological,
Your claim is mostly ideological. Very few people actually believe that. Bonus points if you can cherry pick a few out of the 4 billion or so people on the internet.
I noticed that you didn't say there are no significant voices saying that women should be 50% of computer scientists though.
Yes I did, specifically I said "like when" in response to the original claim. You even fucking quoted it.
Sadly,scientists in other fields are not as smart
Yeah bullshit.
Scientists in other fields have much higher costs on the whole than mathematics. They means they need grants for equipment, supplies, technicians and so on. That comes from the fnuding bodies. The more impact your work has the more you lkely you are to get funded.
And publishing in high profile journals is a good way to get that impact.
Reducing it to "not as smart or organised" is vastly oversimplifying the problem and doing so in a very snobby way.
Women are on average more neurotic than men. James Damore got fired for saying this.
That's a massive misrepresentation of what he wrote: he said so, so much more than that.
Here's the funny thing though you can't actually defend what he did write, you're defending a fantasy version of what he wrote. So, why are you defending it?
This post is just incoherent.
Let's just do what we can to help HUMANS.
There are two choices here:
1. There's no difference at all between men and women. Therefore any gaps are due to bias and those need fixing.
2. There are differences in wich case it's really stupid to pretend they don't exist.
. I've had it.
Bye bye then. Go find another forum which doesn't hurt your feelings with scientific studies.
I've been assured that gender is merely a social construct.
I don't hold with that idea, but many, MANY of the trappings of it are. Girls/pink boys/blue which seems deeply ingrained flipped 100 years ago. Men not having close, emptionally intimate relationships with men where they talk about feelings is a recent invention much to the detriment of men (go read some old letter collections betwen men).
The thing about men being sex-beasts always wanting it and women being pure and innocent. That also flipped, many cultures of Antiquity thought the exact opposite was true. Seems to be an Abrahamic thing.
Men being good with tools? Just my personal observation but given how awful the average dude is with tools, I'd lose all faith in humanity if that qualified as "good". Most people suck with tools, but men have a tendency to charge in and make a bigger mess because there are a lot of unfair expectations about how they should already know what they're doing.
If so, how is there a gender gap?
Let's say we take the premise that gender is a social construct for the purposes of an if. That, you know the social aspect, can go as far as banning one gender from a certain field of endeavour (as was commom even in the 1970s in the US).
And you don't see how there could be a gap? Astonishing.
(1) People who insist that there are no differences
That's pretty rare. I mean I'm sure you can find them but you can find flat-earther's too so there's not much to be found cherrypicking nutters.
This leads to stupid things like insisting that exactly half of the students in computer science classes should be female
Like when? What we do know is there was a dramatic drp down from about 37% in the early 1980s. Biology doesn't change significantly over the course of 1 generation.
or that 50% of nurses should be male
There are no significant voices saying that.
( I suspect most people, of any gender, would prefer most nurses to be female!)
Why on earth would people care? Especially as the majority of people are tending towards overweight or obese and one job of nurses is to move people who can't move themselves easily. At some point that requires upper body strength.
Cavemen understood this.
You know this how? Have you spoken to some cavemen or analysed their writings?
Yeah didn't think so. Sounds more like it's a "fact" you made up because you think it sounds true.
Was a clinical study really necessary?
It sure beats making wild-as guesses about cave-men.
In fields such as particle physics where we all tend to work in large, international collaborations this already means that all research is open access
In most of physics work has been open access because people post stuff to arXiv. It works because the field considers first to arxiv to be first to publish.
Some areas of computer science sich as ML seems to have recently got with the program and use the archive now, because the conferences have become so overwhelmed it's about the only way to actually publish in a timely manner.
Other fields, such as biology were (in the words of someone in the field that I know) "a bunch of asshole snobs who always try to scoop each other". Effectively the entire field strongly resisted the simplest and easiest form of open access by refusing to take the unreviewed archive as first to publish. They seem so have finally got a clue except they have their OWN prepreint server, presumably the blackjack and so forth.
[data] At the end of the first year of the initiative, only 5 people had accessed the data and 4 of those turned out to be members of the experiment itself who were curious about the program!
Honestly that doesn't surprise me. Making stuff usable (either data or software) by other people is hard and it's a skill scientists don't tend to have because they're scientists not software engineers or whatever. And they're not paid to do it, merely told they're supposed to.
Also other people's data is just not that interesting most of the time. Mostly people want to work on their OWN science.
Somehow the idea of putting a loved one into a blender (shredding?)
Will they blend? That is the question.
The ASK21 has, of course, a tail wheel which doesn't touch the ground when the aircraft is sitting level. The tail wheel would only touch if the aircraft were nose up. In the videos, we see the nose well below the horizon during the approach. Then just before touchdown we see the nose rise, the tailwheel touch
The main wheel (centre) touches first right at this time point:
https://youtu.be/Cj2wsJ5Wbqw?t...
Then the front wheel touches. The tail wheel never touches down. It's a pretty level landing, but you see the glider wobbling up and down in angle a lot on the approach.
Either way, I assume you know the tail wheel on the ASK21 typically touches
I wouldn't say typically. You can. Tend to land on the middle wheel though if you can though as a beginner it's better to err towards the back than the front. Remember the ASK21 has airbrakes (really combined airbrakes and spoilers, they do both) so you jut hit them to drop more with the nose level. Avoids picking up too much speed as well.
u wot m8?
You do NOT want "extra lift" when you're two feet off the tarmac!
There's not eally another way to decrease your descent rate.
You want to set the plane down.
Yes set it down. Not smear it across the tarmac.
What do you think you get when you start with "less than 1.3a, then reduce it twice? You get about 1.0.
Kinds of depends on how much you reduce it by, really.
Sounds like you need to work on your roundout, and probably your approach speed.
Tell you what you try flaring an ASK21 on the way in and let me know how it goes for you. You might find the airbrakes more useful otherwise they have a bit of a tendency to not quite manage to hit the ground, preferring instead to hit higher obstacles shortly past the end of the field.
Again, your approach needs to be not much above stall, per FAA license requirement.
Yes, not much above, which is not the same as below. It's not really an FAA requirement that you don't stall into the ground, it's more that it would only be something you tend to do only once.
Finally, 1-2 feet above the deck, flare to scrub further speed as the main gear touch down.
Which also drops your descent rate further to give a nice gentle landing. Here look someone made a nice graph:
https://www.aeroskytech.com/en...
you see how in phase 3 (flare) your descent rate is a bit lower than in round out? How d you think that happens?
Hold the stick back to further reduce speed so you don't go off the end of the runway
And that works by transferring your speed to the air, by blasting it downwards, i.e. increasing lift. But you don't have enough speed to take off again and the engine is off so it bleeds your velocity instead.
Or, we can pretend to be a pilot
Says the guy trying to convince me that you're supposed to stall during flare. If you are a pilot then your landings are rough as all hell, but at this point wet both know you're not.
Hell you don't even seem to realise that planes actually stay in the air rather than being held up on a giant pole like wind turbines. At least that's what your reasoning is predicated on even if you haven't figured that out yet...
while also saying that approach velocity is the same thing as touchdown velocity
Another reason you aren't a pilot: you actually need to be able to read to get a license and it's clear you have failed to do so. I made no such claim.
I have my FAA log book here.
Any yahoo can get an empty log book. As for your hours? Technically, zero is a number of hours.
You probably know 1,000 times as much about sports as I do.
I say this as a nerd: that's the saddest bit of nerd bigotry I've seen all week.
Wow you're just flinging concepts at the page and hoping they stick aren't you!
Firstly stall is not turbulent versus laminar. Many aerofoils have turbulent flow.
The definition of a stalled aerofoil has nothing to do with your criteria, no matter how technical you think they sound. Stall is that point at which lift starts to decrease with increasing angle of attack.
For aircraft but not aerofoils, it's a speed because you have to balance out the weight with lift, so as you slow (decreasing the just) you have to increase the aoa (thereby increasing lift to match) until eventually you stall. Guess what happens if you forget to do that with a wind turbine? Nothing because its held aloft with a honking great pole.
Wind turbines do not have a minimum speed and are much more heavily built than aircraft. This is why your comparison is utterly invalid.
As someone who actually HAS flown a aircraft, not a video game, if you think that the touchdown flare (nose up) is the same as the descent (nose down), please never get behind the controls of an aircraft that isn't pixels
Lolwut? Flare is not the same as stalling! On a powered craft you flare mostly to slow the descent so you don't land too hard (and also to hit the rear first if applicable), and as a bonus you trade some of your velocity for the extra lift you get. End result: that means getting MORE lift not less, so you are certainly not stalling.
But if you try that sort of nose up tomfoolery on the aircraft I've spent most of my time flying you'll fnd yourself overshooting the field and landing in a hedge.
This sounds great, but you're still going to have the bones. No one month process will decompose bone material.
Here's an exmple of a municipal composting thing:
https://www.southwark.gov.uk/b...
It's shredded, composted one way for a week the nanother way for 6 more weeks and then sieved.
They accept animal bones in with the compostable waste. Oce the binmen have wheeled the bins to the dustbin lorries everything else is handled by machines. No one actually picks through the half-composted waste for bones.
and I bet great smelling compost
It smells fine.
I just can't imagine what it would be like to work at a place like this. It would take a special someone.
If this year is anything like last year, it will be open for a weekend in September and you can visit it when you're in the area. I don't see why a municipal composting facility would be significantly different from one that accepts humans.
Actually it was weird cousin Jeremy. The did listen to him. In fact he even attended the meeting of the college council (listed as "present but not voting") in 1976, a mere 144 years after his death.
Another wooooosh.
Say something stupid. Get a massive smackdown delivered. Claim it's a "whoosh".
Sure thing buddy. We do all believe you.
If I can't buy it on CD and rip it myself, I'm not interested.
Whyever not?
I'm definitely not interested in paying to stream music
OK... but why do you want it on CD?
Amazon have sold DRM free MP3s for years now. You go there click some stuff and get a file.
If you factor that in, looking at the Concorde's top speed at sea level, you'll find it's top sea level speed is about 3.3 times its minimum sea level speed.
Sigh fine OK. Keep moving the goal posts and I'll keep scoring. The Eurofighter typhoon can hit 1470 km/h at sea level and has a inimum speed of 203 km/s. That's 7.2x the speed at the same air density. Similar for the F14. And the F104.
That's more than your original claim of 3 and still more than your original claim of 5.
* Though actually you can do the math as if they do
No you don't. Well you clearly are but actual engineers don't. Here's a free example for you. What happens if you stick a 300 tonne block in the hold of an A380? Now what happens if you attach a 300T block of concrete to a wind turbine?
You keep acting like there's a minimum speed for wind turbines. THERE IS NOT.
Also, you keep forgetting that wind turbines can feather and simply stop if the air gets too fast. THIS IS NOT SOMETHING PLANES CAN DO.
Being (a) heavy and (b) bolted to the ground is a massively different design space from being light enough to fly.
which is analogous to the load borne by the wings of an aircraft
Not in the case you're talking about because in an aircraft you need enough force to lift off the ground. If you manage that with a wind turbine, then it doesn't remain being a wind turbine.
Oh here's another example for you. F1 cars use aerofoils to get down force. They have a top speed of about 230 miles per hour. They have a bottom speed of 0. That like wind turbines and completely unlike planes gives them an infinite ration of minimum to maximum speed. Because liek wind turbines they don't fall out of the sky when they stop what with not being in the sky in the first place.
It's hard to make a jet exceed 3x the landing speed because of the tradeoffs of fuel economy, structural weight and engine size. Because a plane has to stay in the air ideally for more than 5 minutes. Turbines do not suffer from that constraint.
Actually the 130 knot touchdown speed is stalled. A stall means your wings non longer hold you up - which is pretty much the definition of landing.
Look, as someone who has actually done some flying, if you think controlled descent is the same as stalling then please please never get behind the controls of an aircraft.