slavak

They literally define themselves as "The job board for conservatives, libertarians and free thinkers." It's just a job board for conservative companies to hire conservative workers; if they're trying to hide it, they're doing a pretty half-assed job.

In Israel it's affectionately known as "short cow".

Your Rotax is limited to 5 continuous min. at 5800 rpm, or a max continuous RPM of 5500. There's no setting at which you are limited to only 1 min.

Well there are US Supreme Court justices who seem to agree with that definition, so it might be tautological, but it's legally significant regardless.

https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-court-apple-monop...

Does it matter where the risk comes from if the differences in risk are still there? A person dying due to falling off a tree is just as dead as one dying from a GSW. Police work is objectively less dangerous than many other much more mundane professions; why does it matter what the source of the danger is if the results are the same?

I think it's pretty clear "votes" meant what's known in the US as "the popular vote," not "electoral votes," particularly since it's impossible, under the US election system, to win the presidential elections with fewer electoral votes than the opponent.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidentia...

A monopoly is not _just_ a company that controls 100% of the market. If pure monopolies were the only kind the term referred to it would be all but useless.

https://bizfluent.com/about-6601606-monopoly-economics-.html

I'm afraid I have some bad news for you:

https://youtu.be/wfOD2y_AD_w?t=190

https://www.dynonavionics.com/SkyView-HDX/

https://youtu.be/1oyCzT6sB_4

Just a few examples.

Aviation very much uses touch screens quite extensively. The difference usually is that more thought is put into when and how to use them; you're not just replacing all the buttons with a touchscreen and letting some underpaid intern design the interface for it.

The pilots are definitely not "mostly asleep" on long flights. There will be two qualified pilots monitoring the aircraft at all times during the flight (with the possible exception of one stepping out for a moment to use the restroom during cruise). Long haul flights will carry relief crew, 3 or even 4 pilots total, so they can take shifts flying the aircraft.

Being asleep in the cockpit is a good way to quickly end your flying career.

You keep posting this, but it's simply not true- Qantas flight 72 did not experience an AoA sensor failure, and even if it had, the A330 uses all 3 independent AoA sensors and all 3 independent air data inertial reference units to command control movements.

The issue was caused by one of the ADIRU CPUs corrupting valid sensor data to produce a series of very specific spikes, hitting a specific edge case in the AoA cross-check logic that made the flight computer behave as if the erroneous data it was seeing was valid.

It's undoubtedly a serious design flaw, but it's not even remotely in the same ballpark as the Max's flagrant disregard for all process and well known design standards.

http://code7700.com/accident_qantas_72.htm

That's not actually true, though: https://dogtime.com/lifestyle/56357-can-die-dog-allergy

It also absolutely discloses its shit after they patch it.

The compelling reason is that users have a right to know what they're vulnerable to, and how they can protect themselves, or at least mitigate the risk. Once a patch is released, the changesets get examined, and the binaries get reverse engineered. This happens within days, if not hours. That means if the exploit wasn't known before, it definitely is now; the only thing not disclosing achieves is leaving the people vulnerable to the exploit in the dark. Blackhats and the world intelligence community certainly don't need Google's blog post to figure it out.

Project Zero absolutely covers vulnerabilities in Google products. Just take a look at the blog archives (https://googleprojectzero.blogspot.com/). Chrome and Chromium seem to be frequent features, but they cover other Google properties as well.

What if I _like_ being a pervert?

If I like midget porn, or have a foot fetish, why exactly should I have to suppress that? It's not illegal, and it's not immoral, but I'd still prefer my coworkers not be aware of the specifics of how and why I get my rocks off.

The new, more economical engines are physically bigger, so in order to maintain the required ground clearance the engines were moved forward and up. This gave the plane a tendency to nose-up in certain extreme circumstances. MCAS was supposed to make the plane behave more like previous 737 models, in order to fulfill the "common type" requirement that would allow 737 pilots to fly it without getting qualified for a new aircraft type.

The plane _is_ balanced; it's not like Boeing built an aircraft that falls out of the sky if you slightly nudge the yoke wrong. (Which wouldn't even be unusual; plenty of modern aircraft are completely uncontrollable without computer assistance.) Yes, the problem could've been solved with a re-design of the aircraft- lengthening the landing gear struts, modifying the wings, etc. - but that would negate the point of using an existing and well-tested design.

There's A LOT of guilt to go around in this story, but no one can actually be casting doubt on the abilities of Boeing engineers in the fundamentals of aircraft design.

As an Israeli, I'm not sure the IDF has even a single all-female unit. Most of the service is quite definitely fully integrated.

You appear to have no idea of what you're talking about here.

That is only a slightly less stupid argument for why women can't fight than the "women get irrational for several days every month" argument.

If you're worried about them getting pregnant, provide access to contraceptives. This is only a problem in the minds of people grasping at every possible straw to prove women can't do something they've successfully been doing at scale for decades.

That's not the target standard, that's a basic baseline. When you're worried about violating neutrality by denying service based on potentially subjective moral judgements, using at least the low bar of an almost-universally accepted set of rights is probably a good place to start.

For God's sake, STOP trying to re-implement my browser's interface with Javascript! I don't want you to "put in the effort" to make my URL bar, back/forward buttons, and tabs work the way they naturally do in my browser; that's what my browser is FOR! Even when the developer does put in the effort, the results are usually _just_ different enough in various subtle ways from the browser's native behviour as to be annoying.

Just build a normal website and let my browser do what it was built to do. The APIs that allow SPAs are great and useful. The Pixlr online photo editor has a good reason to be a SPA, and that works great for it. Your forum/email interface/management API would work better as a normal website.

TCMA, the system the article refers to, doesn't actually shut down the engines in flight. In fact, one of the explicit conditions for its activation is the aircraft being on the ground:

> The EEC commands shutdown of the affected engine when the: > • airplane is on the ground, and > • thrust lever is at idle, and > • engine is above idle speed and not decelerating normally > The EICAS caution message ENG FAIL (L or R) is displayed with an aural beeper once the engine falls below idle speed.

https://quizlet.com/27148021/engines-apu-787-ge-engine-flash...

I'm pretty confident horses, especially ones pulling carriages, aren't super safe for pedestrians either.

In fact, the article makes it clear that this is exactly the case:

' “Oh, the joy, the sheer pleasure of pushing that button and seeing the complaints mount up,” she wrote in response to a reporter’s query. “We are over 115,000 complaints for BWI, more than 35,000 in just the past 30 days! So now when MAA wants to know ‘which flight bothered you,’ I have a real answer! ALL OF THEM.” '

Sure, noise complaints can be valid. Even saying "all the flights bother me" may, in some cases, indicate a real problem with the noise abatement procedures at the airport. In 99% of cases, however, noise complaints are simply NIMBYism, or people for whom any amount of noise is too much. Everyone wants to fly somewhere on vacation, or order cheap products from China online and have them delivered by air within a few days. Aviation is necessary, and airplanes need to land somewhere, but too many people are unwilling to tolerate even a small amount of discomfort to allow that. It doesn't matter that there's literally nowhere you can put an airport where the planes wouldn't fly over someone's house, as long as it's not _their_ house...

For every legitimate complaint caused by changes in approach procedures or the use of new navigation technology, there are 10,000 that can be summed up with "flying a hundred tons of steel through the air generates sound, more news at 11!" All it achieves is drown out the real problems in a sea of pointless griping.

On the other hand, you _are_, possibly intentionally, mixing the concept of open-source as defined by the OSI, and proprietary software as defined by the FSF. You're acting as if proprietary software is the antonym of OSS, and citing the FSF definition to support it. Except, the FSF doesn't talk about open-source (except to say that it "misses the point"), it talks about Free Software. And the OSI doesn't provide a definition of proprietary software.

No, I'm sorry, that's not how things work.

You can say the license isn't "open source." The term has a well-defined meaning provided by the OSI, and they arguably have the right to define what it means and which licenses meet the definition, being the ones who pretty much invented the term.

You DO NOT, however, get to also define the meaning of the word "proprietary." The English language is not your plaything, and you have not been given dictatorial rights to re-define words as you wish. "Proprietary" does not suddenly mean "restricts any of the four freedoms" just because you said so. When antt calls this instance a misuse of the word, [s]he is relying on the common English meaning of the term, which very much supports their point. Your rebuttal is pretty much "nuh-uh because we're now using a different definition."

Chrome doesn't support the APIs needed to make a full Tree-style Tabs replacement. Anything that attempts to do it by necessity runs in a separate window disconnected from your browser.

So it's there, but it's nowhere near as seamless and convenient as it is in Firefox.

Grab a cheap protection sticker for the back of your phone from eBay. They usually offer better grip than the slippery glass, and look more presentable than black duck tape.

What does "pre-vaccinated" mean in this context, exactly? Vaccinations only come in the "pre" variety; once you've caught the disease, vaccination is unlikely to do any good. Some diseases (e.g.: rabies) have a long enough incubation period that post-exposure prophylaxis is effective, but this is very much the exception.

Sure, kids can get measles, and they'll probably be just fine. Measles only has a 0.1%-0.2% mortality rate, after all... On the other hand, that means 1-2 of every 1,000 children who get the disease will die a completely pointless and preventable death.