If lower salary means they won’t go bankrupt, and won’t have to sell their house or live paycheck to paycheck from a small medical issue it’s a Great trade off.
US adults have the shortest life span among the richest countries so it sucks even more, even your high salary and zero medical issue still means you are living inferior life.
If more money made for a better life, you’d think the US would rank higher in quality of life measures, rather than often being dead last among its peer OECD nations.
That line of thinking has very much been proven wrong by decades of facts.
Australia and the UK have their own particular immigration crises. In Australia, overstaying a student visa is the most common way of becoming an illegal immigrant, and so the increased fee is part of a larger suite of reforms designed to reduce this. In the UK, the government wishes to reduce the number of skilled worker visas to deal with a pay compression issue: the average salary for a new graduate in the UK is the same as the minimum wage.
This visa integrity fee seems to be a much blunter instrument.
> the government wishes to reduce the number of skilled worker visas to deal with a pay compression issue
At least in IT/tech I would expect an opposite effect - with number of skilled immigrants reduced there will be risk that multinational companies will close development offices in the UK, startups will have one more reasons to choose another country too. With number of available jobs going down workforce reduction will not prop salaries up IMHO.
There is, however, a long history of immigration to Australia that is illegal under Australian law; see the 'Timeline' section of this Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asylum_in_Australia
You do not sound very genuine. It does not say it is multi-entry fee enywhere. For tourists very few countries ask more except visa fee (and many do not require visa at all). For UK this fee is only 16GBP for 2 years and not 1200 USD:
The EU is far ahead of Texas on this. Spain is launching a “porn passport” system (Cartera Digital Beta) using government-issued digital ID to verify age, and France has already attempted something similar. Under the EU’s Digital Services Act, platforms—including porn sites—must implement age checks for EU users regardless of where the site is based. And this isn’t being led by “conservative Christians”—Spain’s Socialist PM Pedro Sánchez is pushing it. I know we’re talking “America” here, but this isn’t some puritanical American concept.
This article overreads the Supreme Court’s decision. It upheld a narrow Texas law requiring age verification to access adult content, applying intermediate scrutiny and emphasizing in-state regulatory authority. It didn’t grant states power to prosecute across borders, nor did it change existing limits on state jurisdiction.
The argument relies on a stack of fallacies:
Post hoc — assumes the ruling causes harms that depend on future, hypothetical laws.
Slippery slope — claims this leads to extraterritorial prosecution, which the ruling doesn’t support.
Appeal to fear — frames state level regulation as existential threat without legal basis.
Landing gear controls are nothing like the fuel shutoffs. And they are in completely different locations. Landing gear controls are in front of the throttle, fuel shutoffs are aft of the throttles.
Is that "nothing like" though? You are saying they are in different places, ok, but are they similar in other ways? Are both controls the same shape? size? colour? texture?
Respectfully, it's not up to other people to disprove your toy theory. The question you're asking here can very easily be answered with a quick Google search.
The short answer is that they are _very_ different controls, that looks and operate in a completely different way, located in a different place, and it's completely unrealistic to think a pilot could have mistaken one for the other.
Different controls with different t shapes, operated in different ways, of different number, different size, and very different positions. One is down almost on the floor, and well rearward, the other is at stomach height and well forward.
The fuel cutoffs also require pulling the control out and over a guard.
We could also suggest that aliens in the cockpit did it — about the same probability. Two switches, on independent circuits, both failing within one second of each other in the exact same way?
Nope. First of all, the FO was the “pilot flying” and thusly controls the throttle. The fuel shutoffs are on the left side, well clear of the range of motion throttle operation for the right seat.
If the Captain were controlling throttles, it for some reason he could contort his wrist to accidentally open the red cutoff switch guards, the switches themselves move in the opposite direction of the pivot of the switch guard. And to have that happen to both switches — one second apart. That would be astronomically (not to mention anatomically) improbable: you can’t have your hand on the throttle and also be dragging your arm on the switches unless the pilot has an extra elbow.
Further more, the 787 has auto throttles, at takeoff the pilot advances the throttles to N1, then all the way through climb out the auto throttles control the throttle unless manually disengaged.
Also a “bumpy runway” wouldn’t do anything because if those switches were activated on the roll out, the engines would shut down almost immediately: that’s the point of those switches to kill fuel flow immediately not minutes later.
And no there isn’t a report of the safety locks not working properly on the 787. The report to which you are referring was in 2018 and that was an issue with a very few 737 switches that were improperly installed. The switches didn’t fail after use, they were bad at install time. Exceedingly unlikely that a 787 was flying for 12 years with faulty switches. (Notwithstanding the fact they they are completely different part numbers.)
The 787 that crashed had been in service since 2013 which means if that were a problem in that plane, however unlikely, with hundreds of thousands of flight hours, inspections, and the 2018 Airworthiness Bulletin — that problem would have been detected and corrected years ago.
You are wrong. The fuel shutoff switches are directly beneath the throttle levers, and they move down to cutoff, which is exactly the direction a hand beneath the throttle would move to accidentally switch them to cutoff.
Secondly, while the FO was flying the airplane and thus would have control of the throttles during rollout, the captain would certainly have his hand beneath the throttles in an observer position during at least part of the takeoff. And during takeoff, procedure would have the captain take over control of the throttle levers until rotation while the FO handled the yoke with both hands.
blancolirio[0] has two excellent video examples of 787 takeoffs within the cockpit showing FO-pilot takeoffs and both officers' actions during takeoff.
Page 10 of the Air India preliminary report[1] shows a picture of the fuel cutoff switches -- clearly labeled "FUEL CONTROL" with "RUN" in the up position and "CUTOFF" in the down position -- directly beneath the throttle levers.
This. There are no flip-covers on the switches in any of the photos I've seen. Additionally, it looks like the side guards are only on the left and right sides of the pair of cutoff switches, not in-between the two switches. So if one bumped one switch, seems like it would be very easy to bump them both.
There's a metal nib on the switch and switch housing preventing it from being bumped. There's also a spring holding it down so it can't bounce up. The distance and required force makes switching them at the same time impossible, thus the 1 second difference. This was absolutely an intentional act.
One can easily switch them with two fingers at the same time.
I tried (with similar switches.): Works. If the locking mechanism fails, even unintentionally.
Getting loose, wristworn jewlery snatched and then pull: Works.
My question to Boeing is:
Why did you cover the neighbouring (stabilizer cut-off, IIRC) switches with red springloaded flip-covers, but not the fuel cut-off switches?
My buddy says the same, he’s a 787 captain for United. Essentially impossible to accidentally turn off those switches. My buddy isn’t “evidence” of course, but actual airline captains are all saying similar things.
You don’t inadvertently turn off both switches. The linked SAIB was in 2018 and addresses faulty installations, not a failure after use. And preflight over thousands of flights would have detected if the switches had a failed locking mechanism. And for both to fail at once? Practically impossible. Also the recommended inspection — that was almost 7 years ago. If a major airline didn’t comply with the SAIB, that’s on them, not Boeing. There hasn’t been a single reported instance of fuel switches being accidentally switched off on any Boeing airliner — in 320 million flight hours over the past 10 years.
If you drive a car, you've demonstrated being willing to spend time learning a tool to take advantage of something being more efficient (than walking).
There is a tradeoff between efficiency and learnability, in some cases learning the tool pays off.
Look at the image of 2.0. There is permanent screen space dedicated to:
- Open
- Print
- Save
- Cut
- Copy
- Paste
I'm guessing you know the shortcuts for these. You learned the tool.
But by taking up so much space, these are given the same visual hierarchy as the entirety of the word 'Wikimedia'!
>Configurable options are certainly a good approach for those that know the tool well, but the default state shouldn’t require “learning.”
In practice, IME, this just means there being combinatorially many more configurations of the software and anything outside the default ends up clashing with the rest of the software and its development.
