yipbub

It seems like the comment above is describing out-out and the it pesters you to opt-back in if you opt-out.

> Too much regulation and safety enhancements don’t reach the fleet, is the thesis. Does the FDA believe this thesis for drugs? Clearly not. Or, more precisely, the benefits do not outweigh the harm. I don’t believe it applies to aircraft, either.

What's the connection? Allowing drug use on planes does not increase technological innovation. Technological experimentation does.

> Umm, that’s wishful thinking. It might work to some degree, but the real fix is to regulate the crackpots out of the experimental category.

Source? The FAA seems to back their claims up with actual data.

> Flying a dangerous piece of shit through common airspace is not a right.

I did a little bit of googling, and the experimental aircraft are not allowed over densely populated areas or crowded airspace without the guidance of an ATC and sufficient altitude is there to glide away to safety. Even experimental aircraft must receive an airworthiness certificate.[0]

From what I've seen, they're only loosening the restrictions that seem to make no contribution to safety and will make it easier for more aircraft to adopt the restrictions that do make it safer. They're incentivized to be safe because they fly the planes, and a higher rating means more privileges(haven't verified this), crackpots who don't care about safety won't make it through the trial period before their plane is allowed out of limited airspace.

Why express strong opinions that are unresearched? Or if they are, provide some sources? Or provide some reasoning other than intuition? Especially in a world where we are increasingly not allowed to do things unless specifically allowed. (allowlist instead of denylist)

[0] https://www.eaa.org/eaa/aircraft-building/intro-to-aircraft-...

To me, it seems to be merely the illusion of control. Sure, you can teach it what topics you prefer, but it'll always be tempting you with what is truly addictive and crap. Trying its luck like an adversary. It also punishes creators who create their content at a pace that's more sustainable for both producer and consumer. There's plenty of really good bait, but in the end a trap is a trap.

Places like Youtube are now a public platform serving many important purposes. Designing for addiction, vague policing, and arbitrary trends is a problem. Are the videos on YouTube worth a payment? Yes, but there is an arbitrarily frustrating and exploitative user experience that comes with it. I pay for premium, but have stopped watching Youtube out of frustration with the addictive nature. I will probably stop paying for it soon as it is currently harming me and designed to do so in exactly that way. I would pay more for something where I have more control over the content I receive and has a more transparent way of governing content creators, and slightly less power over content creators. Moderation is well and good and necessary, but Youtube has failed unrepentantly many times in this regard.

Yeah, I imagined the same, but can't recall or reproduce in anything else now. Possibly a Mandela Effect?

What do the critics have to say about why they think people should be motivated to commit to a single other person in the long term?

> I'm sure Nazi Germany surely fires for some after such statement as it does for me, but they did not minimize suffering. We should. We should just allow people to take risk if they want to. We allow skydiving and trying to climb Mount Everest. Why not allow to take it with benefit to other humans.

The problem is that incentive structures of profit, monopoly, and power accumulation mean that people will get put into economic situations where they might do this to get out of desperation or not being well informed enough. Regulation will not work well enough, and we can't proceed assuming it might.

We can't engage in such risky/dystopian behavior unless we can reduce the risk of systematic abuse, and right now we definitely can't. For example:

We now are so much more productive than any time in history because of automation, but our work-life balance has not significantly improved. The US (and I'm assuming other) economies are structured in a way that 0 employment would mean extremely high inflation, so they intentionally increase unemployment instead of curtailing price-gouging.

The impact will not only be abuse in terms of negative outcomes for "volunteers", but the ugly psychological impact on everyone the more hellish the bottom of the economy becomes as people become desperate to avoid it.

Why don't we slice apart one perfectly healthy human to save 10? Maybe their family will be rich. Suicide becomes noble. Blood, kidneys, livers, eyes, etc. What if someone is coerced?

The practical consequences of what you are suggesting are abhorrent.

That's because that's the preview page to creating a pull request between those forks. It's a handy way to get a diff, but intended for something else.

Yes, but this doesn't seem like that usage. It's neutral on those issues.

Theoretically, you charge taking PTO into account.

Perhaps my grandmother has wheels, maybe she is a motorcycle :)

> I don't know any of this I'm just trying to be positive.

I joke to make a point, but I sympathize with the need.

shhh

Why, what's he saying?

> Norman Garrett was the Concept Engineer for the original Miata back in his days at Mazda’s Southern California Design Studio. He currently teaches automotive engineering classes at UNC-C’s Motorsports Engineering Department in Charlotte, North Carolina and curates his small collection of dysfunctional automobiles and motorcycles.

Being a recognized expert in the field, he might understand how safety works.

> Norman Garrett was the Concept Engineer for the original Miata back in his days at Mazda’s Southern California Design Studio. He currently teaches automotive engineering classes at UNC-C’s Motorsports Engineering Department in Charlotte, North Carolina and curates his small collection of dysfunctional automobiles and motorcycles.

He probably knows a thing or two about car safety and risk. All the issues he described are around starting the thin and parking.. It probably drives safely.

>The TV boxes, reported to be T95 models with an h616, report to a command-and-control server that, just like the Guerrilla servers, can install any application the malware creators want. The default malware preinstalled on the boxes is known as a clickbot. It generates advertising revenue by surreptitiously tapping on ads in the background.

That article doesn't confirm or deny whether that happened. It outlines the speculation and says that Belkin fixed something.

Some users on ifixit said that switching the polarity worked for them: https://www.ifixit.com/Answers/View/83099/Smart+Cover+Magnet...

The word is commonly used to mean abuse of power, The original usage of the word in this conversation clearly meant that usage of the word:

> Modi is corrupt. The guy does not have the interest of the country at heart, he just cares about the Ambanis and increasing the wealth of his political allies.

Deciding whether Modi is corrupt or not based on technical differences between political gains and personal gains seems purely motivated to keep his image "squeaky clean".

> None of this is corruption

Even if that were true(which it's not), that's not a good defense of Modi.

"Corruption is a form of dishonesty or a criminal offense which is undertaken by a person or an organization which is entrusted in a position of authority, in order to acquire illicit benefits or abuse power for one's personal gain."

He was complicit in the Gujurat riots ethnic cleansing[0] Demonetization was a scheme to enrich his billionaire friends and party[0]. There's a lot more, and being the PM he hasn't allowed the media to question him. He only appears in staged interviews singing his praises or speeches.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Gujarat_riots [1] https://www.nationalheraldindia.com/national/bjp-members-kne...

You objected to "In South Asian politics, bribes are a way of life", that statement is still true.

Yes, but bribes are a fact of life in India as well. (Indian here)

IIRC, this seems to imply companies are colluding. Does it even matter if it's tacit or explicit collusion? - Explicit collusion is hard to detect. Someone with interests (an exec with giant options and incentives), meets an Exec from another at dinner. They have a conversation. Who knows? - Implicit/Tacit collusion is easy. The execs know that they can defect (lower prices) as soon as they see the other party defect. Why would a potential competitor ever think arbitrary prices that could sink at any point would be a competitive advantage worth investing in?

So I should not sit at my desk barefoot?

Spammers are the most willing to pay negligible amounts. Way more than regular users. They pay for tools, servers, services, etc. because they have some expected return on email.

I asked Dumbledore something from the books[0] and got something somewhat innovative, somewhat wrong: "How can I turn a staircase into a slide?"

> To turn a staircase into a slide, you can use the spell 'Tergeo' to remove any dirt or grime from the stairs, and then use the spell 'Lubricus' to make the stairs slippery. Lubricus is an incantation, which can be cast with a wand and by reciting the word 'Lubricus' while pointing the wand at the object in question. You can also use the spell 'Flagrante Curse', which can make a surface slippery by causing the target object to become extremely hot, in order to render the staircase slippery. However, this spell is considered one of the Unforgivable Curses and is strictly forbidden. It takes years of study and practice to become a proficient wizard, and performing spells can be dangerous, so it's important to learn and practice magic under the guidance of a skilled wizard or witch.

[0] https://harrypotter.fandom.com/wiki/Glisseo

OS: linux,fedora, bsd Cloud: They're all closed-source.

Doesn't seem black and white since they have their hand in so many pies, but name a real competitor to Microsoft that uses github.com?

They don't stand to lose much if their risky behavior fails, but they stand to make a lot if it succeeds.

I agree with the business use-case for copyright, trademark, intellectual property, it is a useful collective agreement. To the extent that it is useful.

I thought about this a bit more, and I agree that it is useful that giant software automatons and conglomerates should not get the benefit human creativity until they pass down the value to the creators. Automation should mean less work for everyone, not hyper-profiteering for the few.

No part of the comment you replied to implied the post was condescending, just seems to me to be a reminder of some things we often forget when this topic comes up :)