> Trying to vilify people and attempting to create an environment to produce massive punitive damages and lawsuits, or to bring political pressure to change staffing decisions dramatically decreases safety. The FAA has spent almost a hundred years building up an environment of cooperation with a shared responsibility to understand failures and enable the changing of the entire aviation industry whenever necessary to promote safety. This has been fabulously successful.
346 dead passengers is definitely not successful or acceptable. You think the rating/MCAS problem doesn't merit further investigation?
I have no idea how you could possibly think I'm saying it shouldn't be investigated. I also don't understand how you could think that a union representative complaining about the company using non-union workers is the same as investigating the problem?
Investigating, understanding, and changing regulations and future policies and behavior is what we need. A witch hunt with a bunch of vested interests trying to benefit financially and find a scapegoat is not what we need.
"Reactionary" doesn't mean literally "reacting to a problem", it's a political term that comes from the French revolution, referring to monarchists who became organized and motivated as a reaction against the French revolution.
It's more or less synonymous with "conservative" and "right wing" which have similar origins, although today it has more of a pejorative connotation in English, or sometimes specifically refers to people on the colloquial "far-right" who advocate for ethno-nationalism, authoritarianism, military adventurism, nativism, etc.
Interesting to see all the pro-100%-remote comments here. I worked for a company for about two years. One year in, they decided to go fully remote. The goal was to save money (the business was bootstrapped at the time) and to allow one of the founders to move to where his wife was attending graduate school. I don't feel like our productivity changed much. I enjoyed the flexibility but found myself feeling horribly lonely without the normal day to day interaction. So, they offered to get me a dedicated spot in a co-working space. That helped some, but not as much as being part of an in-person team.
So I ultimately left, although for other reasons. Now I work at a place with a generous WFH policy but a central office. I WFH maybe one or two days a week and this is way better.
I think it depends on the job itself sometimes as well. I work on a data science team, and I've never found a good replacement for doing math on the whiteboard with someone. The communication barrier introduced with a network connection is just painful in that case.
However, I also live in Boston, one of the few American cities with (mostly) functional public transit. My commute is a 10 minute train ride where I can read email/slack and think about what I'm doing that day. Or if the weather is nice, it's a 30-45 minute walk. It's no pain at all to make it into the office.
Seriously, I've been doing remote for the past three years and I despise it. Maybe I'm just a weird for working together as a team instead of lone wolfing everything but it gets incredibly lonely.
Being unable to easily bounce ideas or ask Joe why something works a particular way is incredibly frustrating.
There are many confounding variables here that make it difficult to draw a convincing conclusion. The ethnic disparity can partially be explained by the fact that white men have higher handgun ownership rates than other demographics (my guess is this is because white men also have higher incomes, not because white men inherently like guns), and such access to guns is associated with increased suicide risk.
I'm sure that's not the whole story though. And statistics on suicides are notoriously unreliable, as many communities consider it shameful and are incentivized to rationalize the person's death with another explanation.
For students and researchers. If you're operating a business you still have to pay for VS licenses, or violate the free license and hope you get big enough fast enough that it's not a problem.
No I believe a company can use it up to 5 developpers. Which should cover the vast majority of start ups. Then you can buy a pro license for $500 which isn't that expensive if you have the financing for more than 5 devs.
People have rightly mentioned the cost and vendor lock-in issues. The other problem is that - for whatever reason - good engineers simply want nothing to do with the Microsoft ecosystem. In this market, they have other options. So tying your infrastructure to .NET means limiting your hiring pool to mostly 9-to-5er enterprise developers who tend to fix problems by asking Microsoft to sell them the solution. Not exactly the attitude you want at a startup.
Churning out Javascript/webshit frameworks every month, and running on fumes and the good graces of VCs isn't innovation.
"Boring" industries like insurance might not seem innovative on the outside because their members aren't blogging and twattering about it constantly. One of my clients does catastrophe modeling, and uses both Python and .NET (F#)...but it's probably not going to be something on your radar. But guess what, they're raking in the dough while actually being innovative, yet you're here on HN claiming they're not proper engineers.
Obviously it would be nice if a crack team of scientists and engineers ordered some pizzas and had a marathon science session that comes up with something that solves all our problems and lets us continue burning fossil fuels as usual.
But that's simply not how it works, no matter how much money you throw at it. And you won't even have money to throw at it in the US at least, because belief in climate change is a political opinion.
> in the US at least, because belief in climate change is a political opinion.
Which is a strange state of affairs. In the European countries I am familiar with, all the mainstream parties agree with core mainstream science. Their voters largely do as well. They may have more or less credible plans to address the problem but they don't have their own private scientific conclusions.
Why is the US (and maybe Australia?) different? Is it because voters are ignorant or short termist, and politicians follow? Or politicians are corrupted and mislead their voters? Or just a higher level of scientific ignorance all around? Or a heavy dependence on fossil fuel prosperity in key districts?
Can someone suggest the answer? Clearly Europeans are not more intrinsically virtuous or sensible.
Well, do they? The science is telling us that global pollution is an existential threat to humanity and that immediate drastic action must be taken. Which parties are behaving as if they believe that? Maybe Green parties are, but they aren't in power. Which parties in power are BEHAVING (not talking) as if they believe the science?
This:
Talk: "We believe in climate change"
Action: "Going to increase fuel mileage standards by 1%, that'll do it"
Even Green parties don't really believe it, because they're opposed to the only workable plan that isn't "let's all live like third world peasants": massive scale-up of nuclear fission energy.
I can't speak to Australia, but in the US I see two significant factors. The first is the news and the second is the evangelical christian movement. IMO, both are rooted in perverse interpretations of the first amendment.
My understanding is that Reagan struck down laws regarding truth in journalism, which really set the stage. Fox News is particularly egregious in climate denial (as well as fearmongering about Muslim folks, immigrants, etc.), and for many, that's just the start of a slippery slope. Smaller, especially local radio, talk-shows around the country are even more egregious. They use fear-based arguments to significant effect, and because politicians use these arguments, they're "political opinions."
The evangelical movement (which gets a lot of play on Fox and other platforms) has positioned itself as anti-science: anti-climate, anti-vax, anti-evolution, anti-lgbt. So these opinions are elevated beyond "political opinions," they're sitting on the lofty perch of "religious beliefs" and challenging them is an assault on religious liberty.
I would add Canada to that list as well. The current federal government has been trying to enforce a national carbon tax which has so far been met with siginificant resistance.
> Is it because voters are ignorant or short termist, and politicians follow? Or politicians are corrupted and mislead their voters? Or just a higher level of scientific ignorance all around? Or a heavy dependence on fossil fuel prosperity in key districts?
All of the above? :) And probably also corporate lobbying.
American immigrant to Canada: they consume Fox News here too. The station can't broadcast here, but the internet is everywhere. Canadians don't believe me when I say "Canadian politics seem to follow American politics by 5-10 years" but... I've had to update that to "1-10" years because Trump's impact on Canadian culture and politics was almost immediate.
We could get all the robots on a island together and have them shoot their exhaust fans simultaneously. This could move the earth a little further away from the sun, thus solving the problem
In a couple years, we send an email to president Warren asking her to create a new regulation that would require the FAANG companies to buy up the biggest oil, coal and gas companies and then shut their operations down. No more oil wells or coal mines!
p.s. pro tip: sell all of your Amazon, Google and Apple stock before we send out that email
I'm surprised this seems to work so well for you. I've had colleagues do similar things and it pretty much always resulted in them being "managed out", outright fired, or mysteriously lumped into a round of layoffs that otherwise didn't affect their department.
It really is about threading a needle and making sure you pay the appropriate amount of lip service. It really helps to make yourself really hard to fire and likeable otherwise in the organization. Respect starts with you respecting others and the company. If they respect what you do for them, then you get the latitude to push back on stuff.
You're being downvoted because your portfolio's performance is almost certainly a matter of luck and a bull market, not your clever investment research. Not even Berkshire Hathaway makes consistent 30% annual returns, and they employ plenty of "stock market wizards".
Ask the value investors who chased strategies like Berkshire Hathaway the past 8 years how happy they are with their returns compared to those who invested in growth stocks.
346 dead passengers is definitely not successful or acceptable. You think the rating/MCAS problem doesn't merit further investigation?