asynchronous13

There are still laws at the state level in the US that make it illegal for a merchant to charge more for credit cards. I lived in Colorado when the law passed there. It was impressive marketing by the credit card companies under the guise of consumer protection. Sucks because most people fell for the propoganda and now it's law.

  Colo. Rev. Stat. §5-2-212 
  “(1) Except as otherwise provided in §§24-19.5-103 
  (3) and 29-11.5-103 (3), C.R.S., no seller or lessor 
  in any sales or lease transaction or any company 
  issuing credit or charge cards may impose a surcharge 
  on a holder who elects to use a credit or charge card 
  in lieu of payment by cash, check, or similar means. A 
  surcharge is any additional amount imposed at the time 
  of the sales or lease transaction by the merchant, 
  seller, or lessor that increases the charge to the buyer
  or lessee for the privilege of using a credit or charge
  card. For purposes of this section, charge card includes
  those cards pursuant to which unpaid balances are 
  payable on demand.”

Honestly I feel like you're splitting hairs here. You say that exercise is not a treatment, but at the same time say that exercise may help. Isn't a treatment something that may help? I get it, don't pretend that exercise is the magic pill that will work for everyone, especially for those at the more severe end of the depression spectrum. But, even the NICE guidance that you linked to suggests "taking regular physical exercise" (1.4.1.2) in mild to moderate depression.

People commonly use the term "depression" in a way that does not exactly match the true medical definition. People say "i'm depressed" when they should really say "i'm feeling sad today". People say exercise is a treatment, when they should say it makes them feel better. I fear your pursuit for the exact terms might prevent some people from trying a thing that would help them.

>> the entire opensource community is based on sharing

True. The primary purpose of open source is sharing, whether that is code or information. Open source is not opposed to making money, however making money is not the primary motivation for open source. It makes sense that best practices for how to make money can be different than the standard practices for open source.

While pilots now know how to counteract this specific problem, it also highlighted how flawed the safety analysis of this plane was. It makes sense to re-evaluate to make sure there isn't a second problem that just hasn't killed anyone yet.

I believe you're right that the truth is in the middle. It really points to the pilots being inadequately trained on this aircraft. Boeing strongly pushed to avoid requiring new pilot training for the MAX airplane. They claimed that MAX was similar enough to the previous version of the 737 that if a pilot were checked out on the previous plane they were good to go. What we're seeing now is that assessment was wrong. More training should have been required.

Boeing fucked up big time on this one. FAA also fucked up. Pilots were inadequately trained, and some delivered info was false (Boeing said MCAS could only bring the nose down 0.6 degrees, in fact, it was unbounded)

The MCAS system was designated "hazardous" by Boeing in their own safety assessment. A system that is labeled hazardous can not be reliant on a single system failure. MCAS is reliant on a single sensor. That's already a major error in the safety analyses. As we can clearly see from two accidents, MCAS system should have been designated "catastrophic", one step more dangerous in that scale, with even more stringent redundancy requirements.

To be clear, I'm not pointing fingers at any particular politics. American government in general is pro-business. That's both good and bad, and this happens to be an example of pro-business policy outweighing safety policy.

The earlier crew faced an identical issue the day before, and it was only the deadhead pilot onboard who recognized the issue and suggested flipping the stab trim cut off. Out of 5 pilots (7 if we count the other crash), only one suggested the correct fix.

> Why they didn’t flip the stab trim cut off switch is a mystery.

Not really. In the previous incarnations of the 737, a hard pull on the yolk by a pilot disengaged the automatic trim system. In the 737 MAX, the yolk pull method to disengaged the trim was disabled. What the pilots did would have worked on the previous version of the plane, but not on the MAX.

Boeing really tried to claim that the MAX was just like the previous version, and that pilots didn't need new training to fly it. I think the data shows that more pilot training is appropriate for this plane.

> But it's crazy how many, when they're actually faced with catastrophic failure, forget how to fly the damn plane.

Your comment makes me sad. Especially since there will be many other people who come to a similar conclusion without adequate information.

The runaway trim problem and the new MCAS problem are superficially similar, but the symptoms are distinctly different. The runaway trim manifests itself with a continuous deflection of the trim. Pilots are trained to recognize this symptom and compensate. The new MCAS also affects the trim, but it is engaged in repeated nose-down commands. It has fundamentally different symptoms compared to the older and more widely known runaway condition.

There is no absolute reference on the position of the stabilizer. It is a wheel that turns, so a pilot must watch that wheel continuously to know if it keeps turning or if it turns periodically.

The controls column has force feedback. The pilot was pulling back with ~50 lbs of force to fight the angle of the trim. Imagine holding a 50 lb dog while simultaneously trying to review emergency procedures to find the source of the problem. The pilot was flying the damn plane, and the symptoms of this problem were different.

Totally agree, and that's not what happened. Some of the data that Boeing presented to the FAA was wrong/old.

> But in this case, the certification process was seen as too expensive.

Not just that, but also pilots would need new training if it were a new type certificate. This was a huge marketing advantage for Boeing because their end customers could avoid the cost of re-training their pilots on a new airplane.

> And I gotta say the worst failings here are with the FAA.

The FAA is underfunded to do their job properly. The major consequence of this is that to properly certify the changes from Boeing would have taken a long time. A long time would mean that Airbus would win more contracts compared to Boeing. With a pro-business administration in place, there was significant pressure put on the FAA to complete the certification quickly. They were actively encouraged to outsource safety work back to Boeing's engineers to keep pace on the timeline.

Everything in engineering is a trade off. The changes that were made were not inherently dangerous, but the certification process on those changes fell apart for a variety of reasons. If the certification process had been followed correctly, these planes would be flying safely.

The FAA is underfunded. A pro-business administration applied pressure to help Boeing certify more rapidly. Due to time and money pressures, many things that should have been performed by the FAA safety inspectors were actually performed by Boeing engineers. The safety assessment was performed on incorrect numbers! (Boeing estimated some parameters and performed safety assessment. Then those parameters were updated after flight testing, but the safety assessment was not re-performed with the updated numbers! That's a huge problem in the process.)

Several years ago I tried finding some reasonable software tools for music and was not at all impressed with what I could find. Great that you decided to make a better one!

A long time ago I ran across ABC music notation, typically associated with old time or traditional music. I wonder if there could be an import filter that works with ABC notation?

additionally

4. Insufficient regulatory over site

5. Failed safety analysis

FAA pushed much of the safety analysis to Boeing engineers due to lack of funding and external pressures to help Boeing speed through certification.

The safety analysis was performed on incorrect data. The initial safety report said the MCAS system could lower the nose by 0.6 degrees. After flight testing, that value was increased to 2.5 degrees but the safety analysis was never updated to reflect the new parameters. Additionally, the MCAS system could reset each time the pilot attempted to override, and it could change 2.5 degrees for each reset. So effectively it was unbounded. The numbers on the safety report did not reflect the actual system. If the real numbers had been updated, the problem likely would have been caught sooner.

Yeah, as a new transplants to the bay area it is mind-boggling. $1500/mo per person in a roommate situation is common. That said, my take-home pay more than made up for the rent increase. The cost for a family type living situation is truly mind-boggling.

> I don't want some regulator mandating such "features" in my own car.

I hate to tell you this, but unless you bought a pre-1966 vehicle, there are already regulators mandating safety features on your car.

> I'll take responsibility for safe driving on myself, thank you.

As long as someone else is out there who can run into me through no fault of my own, I'd like some assurances that their vehicle has safety features that will protect me.

I can't speak for negotiating in general, but I had some experience in leadership courses. This was in the context of an outdoor club in university, and they taught us techniques on how to make new people feel welcomed. Even among the group who were all given the same instruction, the techniques were still effective! I wouldn't discount it entirely just because the other party is also aware of the same information.

You're right that there are aspects of the case that would not apply to a current-day situation. The takings clause can only apply to the US Government, for example. But the main takeaway that I believe would apply is that a property owner effectively owns the airspace up to some altitude X ft.

The way I see it is that the property owner should be entitled to exclusive use from 0ft to Xft. (Of course, the land owner can always give permission for lower flights if they so choose.) And drones should be able to legally traverse from Xft to 400ft.

It would be great if a law would establish what X is. Unfortunately, I think it's more likely that someone will fly a drone over private land at 150ft, the land owner will shoot it down, and the ensuing lawsuit will set a precedent.

> Why would it need to be tested in court?

Because the law is not clear as it is currently written. On one hand, the minimum safe altitude to operate an aircraft is 500ft. So it's pretty clear that anything above 500ft is considered a public thoroughfare.

The FAA claims to own and regulate all US airspace down to ground level. The FAA also says that drones must be operated below 400ft (clearly an effort to keep drones and manned aircraft safely separated). If we embrace this version of the law, then drones can operate from 0ft to 400ft with impunity over private land without any legal repercussions.

On the other hand, it is established law that a property owner is entitled to the full enjoyment of their property. In a famous case, United States vs Causby, military bombers were flying at an altitude of 83ft over Causby's house and chicken farm. The courts sided with Causby and established a precedent that a landowner does own some portion of the airspace over their land. However, it did not establish a specific altitude.

A bomber at 83ft was deemed to infringe on private property rights, but should a small drone at 83ft be judged in the same way? It's not clearly defined in law right now, that's why it needs to be tested in court. Or alternatively, the legislature needs to adjust the laws to make it clear.

> Does anyone know why this isn't standard?

Because cages weigh more. Minimizing weight is critical for anything that flies. If it weighs more, then it takes more energy to make it fly. If it weighs more, then that's less payload that it can carry.

Actually, you do have the right to fly over someone else's property. It's well established law that Delta airlines does not need to ask permission from every land owner that they overfly.

A long time ago, property rights were 'Cuius est solum, eius est usque ad coelum et ad inferos' -- from hell below to heaven above. (now referred to as the 'ad coelum doctrine') But that law was changed a long time ago. Just because you own the land, doesn't mean you own all of the airspace above it.

It has been tested in court that a property owner owns some height above the surface of their land. 300ft over the tallest structure is definitely in the public domain. However, the minimum altitude that one is allowed to fly over private land without permission has not been established in court.

A drone at 10ft could definitely be pursued for trespassing. A drone at 400ft definitely could not be pursued for trespassing. A drone at 150ft? That still needs to be tested in court. Then general rule is that a property owner is entitled to the enjoyment of their property.

In the early tests in Australia there's already a lot of complaints about noise. Making the flights quieter is already becoming a higher priority. https://www.engadget.com/2018/12/27/alphabet-quiet-wing-deli...

Privacy is also important, but it's a separate issue. Is there anything that can be done via drone that can't be done with a cell phone or a go pro? It doesn't make sense to outlaw hammers just because they can be used for murder.

edit: allow to outlaw

This was a very polite version of what an FAA employee told me.

The major unknown that prevented this until now was the average age of the people working at the FAA. For a long time any request for something unusual was met with the simple response, "No". The FAA's mandate is safety, and they could justify disallowing new things for the sake of safety. They've finally realized that this is inevitable, and they can't just say "No" forever. A lot of the old guard is retiring, and the newer employees are figuring out how to integrate new technology safely.

The FAA cares about "equivalent level of safety." If it can be demonstrated that an operator can keep things safe even though they're breaking a rule, the FAA will allow a waiver for that rule.

Imagine someone operating out in the bush in Alaska where there are no people. There's no need for the same safety precautions out there. Or operations in mountainous terrain where it's not possible that a manned aircraft would fly -- no need for anti-collision lighting there.

The FAA is quite strict and is very unlikely to hand out waivers unless the operator can clearly show an equivalent level of safety.

Good. The US government has been restricting commercial operations of drone development for far too long. Many companies that were US-based are moving their operations overseas where the laws are more reasonable (Australia and New Zealand, for example).

This is a simple and reasonable step in the right direction. Open up legal operations for the smallest category and begin collecting data. It can help pave the way towards larger operations in a safe way.

> in the states the term 'remote sensing' refers to aerial photography of crops either by satellite, airplane or drone.

Sorry, but that's not even remotely true. (Haha, I kill me). There's all sorts of remote sensing in embedded systems for oil companies and other applications that is just some electronics, sensors, and a radio for sending data back to some central location.

There's been ~100 cases in 40 years. That's less than 3 people per year, so it's very rare.

There's about 10 shark attacks per year in the U.S. Now that you know that, will you stay out of the ocean forever? Or will you maybe take the risk and go for a dip if you go on a beach vacation?

edit Plus, of those 40 cases the vast majority are from swimming in lakes. So there's only a handful of cases where the infection was due to neti-pot usage. I could only find 3 confirmed cases. That's extremely rare.

Mostly good tips for someone considering cycle commuting, but I'm disappointed in the "Dress for the Occasion" section. It's easy to ride in jeans and a t-shirt, there is no need for special bike clothes. I've seen this as a barrier to entry so many times in the U.S. Just check out a city like Copenhagen and count how many cyclist are wearing full kit (almost none).

There is some extra comfort in wearing bike specific clothing on longer rides, but don't let that prevent you from getting started.

The population of Kyoto has been over 1 million since 1932.