psunavy03

The fact they were even in that situation is only worth philosophizing about to a point. Because they were only in that situation due to what appears to be a series of totally unacceptable decisions that got them there. Based on everything that's come out, I'm comfortable saying as a former military aviator that in my opinion, this crash happened due to a complete failure of airmanship on the part of both crew members.

- a) Flying an unacceptably sloppy approach that put them on short final going that fast, high, and overpowered. Professionalism is being on airspeed and/or angle of attack and on glidepath . . . no excuses.

- b) Responding to a) by trying to force the jet onto the runway, when any aircrew member with half a brain should understand how badly you're going to float in ground effect when you're that fast and that overpowered. And what that's going to in turn do to your spoilers and thrust reversers that depend on weight-on-wheels before activating. Professionalism is recognizing a botched approach, swallowing your ego, and taking it the hell around.

- c) The pilot not flying sitting there like a coward and not taking the controls from the pilot flying. If someone hits a go-around criterion and isn't going around, YOU TAKE THE CONTROLS AND EXECUTE ONE. Professionalism is proper crew coordination and proper assertiveness in the cockpit.

This whole thing seems to just boil down to a complete failure of airmanship and a complete failure of professionalism all around. If I'd done that or allowed my pilot to do that, I'd expect to have had my wings pulled. If the investigation reveals more, I'll change my mind. But it ain't looking good.

CH Robinson, though, just lost a lawsuit at the Supreme Court with similar premises. They are a freight forwarder and third-party logistics outfit that contracts large amounts of capacity with subcontractors (airlines, trucking companies, shipping lines, etc.) and sells a complete package to their clients.

One of CHR's service providers was conducting hiring shenanigans and not fully, legally screening their drivers. One of the service provider's drivers hit another vehicle and crippled that vehicle's driver, who sued. CHR argued all liability should fall on the trucking company who hired the driver. The Supreme Court said no, CHR could be held liable for negligence in vetting their service provider as well, because it was ultimately CHR's load being carried.

I'm not a lawyer, but under that legal precedent, it seems Amazon might not be off the hook for damages in this case, given it was their subcontractor who was carrying Amazon cargo in a jet with "Prime Air" on the side.

You're being downvoted because actual qualified aviators are telling you how egregious of a mistake this looks to be, and you're quibbling with them without any professional credibility on the subject.

Sincerely, A former military aviator

So do you or do you not believe the First Amendment protects speech on this website? Or does it only protect quill pens and moveable type printing presses?

No, in a pinch, you're just beclowning yourself with your utter ignorance of carrier air operations.

They're not striking the entire air wing below just so one C-130 can land and take off, and that's assuming a stunt pulled by one elite test pilot was replicable by a bog-standard junior C-130 pilot.

You're just revealing your ignorance of Navy supply chains with this comment, and I say that as a veteran who has no support for the ongoing shitshow, only sympathy for my former colleagues trapped underway.

There's arguably more journalistic malpractice going on than actual journalism.

Think back to anything you can speak to with some authority, personally or professionally. Think of the last time a reporter actually got it right. It does happen, and there are a few good journalists still out there who care about getting the facts and the issues right. But it's buried under a pile of ignorant rage-baiting slop.

> And who buys furniture to pass it on to your kids? Your kids will be unburdening themselves of your old furniture before you are in the ground.

This highly depends on the furniture. As an example, my dad built some custom pieces out of solid oak that are absolutely finding a place in my house after he's gone.

The absurdity of anarchism is thus shown. It always ultimately ends up re-inventing government.

> None of those words what you think they mean. And fixing that requires basically throwing out the entire system of American jurisprudence. Which would be fine with me, to be honest.

The Constitution is written in plain English. And for the most part, Supreme Court decisions are written in plain English that any reasonably literate US citizen can understand. Yes, the law has technicalities and terms of art just like any other profession.

But one of the most damaging mentalities in modern times is the idea that the common man is incapable of understanding the law at even a basic level. This is flat-out not the case. Which leads to the follow-on problem: people who think lawyers have the ability to cast magic mumbo-jumbo spells that "get their clients off on a technicality" somehow. The best quote I ever heard about that from an attorney was "any time someone says a person 'got off on a technicality,' you can pretty much just safely replace that in your head with 'had their constitutional rights egregiously violated.'"

Yes, there are problems. Qualified immunity is a problem. Prosecutorial misconduct can be a problem. Abuse of discretion at the border is a problem. But that's different from doomerism about the entire justice system to the degree Very Online people express it.

At some point, esoteric UIs may have been needed in the 70s, but that ship has long sailed. I don't need to give myself carpal tunnel syndrome trying to quit vim. If anything, a lot of that is also a problem that continues to plague software to this day: devs who go "well if it works for me, it's good enough for anybody, and if you don't like it, you must not be a Real Developer!"

They're also not doing that to pay for tobacco. Come on. Heroin is justifiably illegal for good reason already; you're stretching the analogy past breaking point.

With a side of tasty meatballs.

> obvious to anyone who hasn't swallowed orthodoxy Agile development completely whole.

What? One of the first principles in doing Lean and Agile correctly is limiting Work in Progress and avoiding context switching whenever possible.

If the author was trying to make a point (as many sci-fi authors were), it's totally reasonable to call out someone who misses the point.

Like the people calling Starship Troopers fascist. Or even funnier, the people calling Heinlein a fascist for writing Starship Troopers, which just proves they haven't read any of the rest of his work.

Absolutely true. It's just tiresome to hear internet people decide the NSA is $GENERIC_VILLAIN when they're an intelligence agency with a given remit. Of course their job is to hack and penetrate foreign systems to get intelligence information for the Federal government. That's well-documented. But that's not the same as claiming their job is to create chaos for $PARANOID_REASON. That's internet tinfoil-hattery.

The NSA's job is to collect information, not screw with people's water.

The problem is things like regulation and litigation have pushed the price of those modern technologies up outside the reach of everyone who isn't filthy rich, meaning the average GA pilot is tooling around in a clapped-out rental C172 from the 80s.

If "aforementioned" is a word, "aforestated" is a word.

I don't need art that reminds me of how shit the real world can be. I see that every day. Why would I need to have my face rubbed in it? No, there are people who can aspire to greater things and people who think nothing can ever get better, and their art reflects it.

Nihilists who call themselves "sophisticated."

It's to the point where grimdark fiction, for me anyway, is gauche and a cliche. At this point it's countercultural and transgressive for characters to go through hell and high water, but then have a happy ending.

Too many modern writers would have ended The Shawshank Redemption by having Andy Dufresne get shot by a prison sniper the minute he got free.

Yeah, Littler is one of THE union-busting, anti-worker law firms out there. Their website specifically notes that they specialize in labor law from only the side of representing management.

> “There’s roughly 100 firefighter arsonists convicted every year in North America and all of them are serial arsonists, which means three or more fires,”

OK, so why should I care? A brief Google shows the population of North America at ~600 million people. And the number of firefighters in North America at ~1.3 million. So your likelihood of being victimized by a serial firefighter arsonist is about the same as being struck by lightning, dying in a plane crash, or being killed by a falling coconut.

At my (now former, thanks layoffs) company, we used to gripe about getting nontechnical management to understand how stupid it was to skimp on pre-prod funding . . . because pre-prod was our prod.

It's also possible to point the AI at legacy spaghetti and say "document this in detail" as a starting point for unspaghettifying it.

As someone who has been both a software professional and a jet aviator, the same process is going to occur in both. Humans will still be in the loop, but the span of control and effectiveness of each individual human will explode. There's a reason the current plan is to augment manned aircraft with "loyal wingman" drones and smaller ones. Even in the Russo-Ukrainian War, manned aircraft are still A Thing. They've even hauled old prop trainers out of storage to put a guy in the back with an assault rifle to shoot down Shahed drones, because they're too slow for fighters.

Software is going to go through the same adaptation and exaptation process as military aviation.

With respect to assessing whether an AI-controlled aircraft using only available onboard sensors and datalinks can defeat a manned aircraft in BFM, it's not even in the same ZIP code. You've never flown BFM, have you? I have.

The simulator is not the aircraft.

Because the most powerful military in the world can only do so much when ordered to execute a crap strategy by civilian leadership. Desert Storm worked because it followed the Powell Doctrine and was bounded to ejecting Iraq from Kuwait. Iraqi Freedom muddled through incoherently because the Bush and Obama administrations didn't want to understand the actual problem set they were faced with, but ultimately ended up with a reasonably stable country after way too much effort and time. Iran is what happens when you have an administration who thinks you can win a war by "just bombing things," which is ironically the stereotype most of the internet has about any kind of military action.

So many people in this thread not understanding what a luxury and a privilege "staying put" for decades is in this era of layoffs.