It’s important to note that potential power increases with the cube of velocity, but too much power means the forces are so high that it’s impossible to keep the system from self destructing.

So the curve plateaus because the turbines purposefully puts on the brakes to limit power. And at some point the wind will be so strong that the turbine is completely shut down.

If a turbine were capable of operating at full power under 100km/hr winds, the output would be spectacular.

That is also true, but I was referring to, for a given monthly payment, the ratio of that payment that goes to interest vs principle. As a fraction, the lower the interest rate, the more of every payment goes to principle. For the very high 10% and above rates, principle might only be 20 bucks a month vs 980 paid to interest. For the very low interest rates, nearly 50% might go to principle and 50% to interest. For all cases, payment 360, the last one, will be mostly principle. So maybe it’s $980 principle and $20 interest.

This dynamic significantly affects loans that are not kept to maturity.

This is great! iso-affordability lines.Another interesting topic includes the change in amortization schedule. The higher the interest rate, the more front-loaded the interest payments become. So the rate of equity building of the borrower also slows down. This has a huge impact on people who do not stay in their homes for very long. It also makes it much easier for someone with a high interest mortgage to find themselves underwater in a market downturn.

It's the specific insight the author chose, not me. If we focus on the regression line characteristics then its fine viewed like this. But a title like "Supersonic Inefficiency: Why the Concorde was Decommissioned" along with a red dot for the Concorde is intended to focus your attention on how inefficient the Concorde is relative to the others. In regards to the main point the author intended to convey, the graph is misleading.

When you are reading a table, you are expected to read.
When you are reading a graph, you are expected to view.

If you just want the numbers you should opt for the table of values. A graph adds value above and beyond a table because it enables visually derived insights into the differences and relationships between values. Physically skewing the visual characteristics of the graph can result in the visual derivation of false insights (Concourse appears to consume 10x more fuel when it really consumes 4x more).

Graph is misleading. It doesn’t start at 0 which normally wouldn’t be an issue for similar graphs, but the main focus is how much less efficient Concorde is. For this purpose the graph gives the false impression of 10x more fuel compared to a similar capacity traditional jet. However it is closer to 4x more fuel. This is because visually going from the graph’s starting point of 1.5 to 2 makes the 0.5 above the starting point give the impression that the starting point is 0.5. Therefore the concord’s consumption of 13 appears like a higher multiple of consumption than it actually is.

The same goes for passenger count. That doesn’t start at 0 which gives the false impression that the jet carried fewer passengers than it actually did.