I'm against the death penalty - I do believe there's times it makes sense, and I certainly believe there's crimes worthy of it. But I don't trust the state to make this determination with 100% accuracy - and anything less than 100% means we have to make the choice between not giving the death penalty to those who do deserve it, or executing those who don't deserve it.
It's not unusual to hear stories of people being found innocent after decades in prison - and every single time it hammers home to me that they could have been pardoning a grave.
I suspect it only looks like overkill in the context of the simplest possible example.
Once you start adding things like pre-inst, post-inst scripts, binary redirections with update-alternatives, I suspect the complications start to pay off.
For 1), it seems clear that there's a heavy overlap between Jeff's market and Elecrow's, and it's difficult to see that as a coincidence.
If someone cloned both Shaq's voice and Jeff's, and used them to endorse sneakers - I think it's a fair assumption that Shaq would see this as a business risk, and Jeff .. I'm going to go out on a limb, and assume he'd probably find it hilarious. Using Jeff's voice for sneakers would be more akin to your example of finding a midwestern voice with a useful corpus. Using Shaq's would be a much more obviously targeted appropriation.
What we're looking at here appears to be exactly this scenario, except this is Jeff's niche, not Shaq's. Using Shaq's voice for SBCs and related products would feel quite absurd - using Jeff's feels like a much more obviously targeted appropriation.
I was going to say it'd be easier to have a single script, eg
#!/bin/sh
busybox $0 $@
and then every command required could just be a hardlink to the same script, instead of replicating it over and over again for hardcoded command names.
Then I realised the whole point is to posit a world where $0 doesn't exist, and we're not allowed to be clever about it.
I believe the biggest increase in security since 9/11, is that passengers are no longer expected to sit down and behave.
Pre-9/11, the expectation was you don't draw attention to yourself, wait it out, you're going to have a long day and a story to tell. Post-9/11, the expectation is you fight for your life.
Better cockpit doors and access hygiene probably come second.
I've written this comment here before, but I'll do it again.
"Post-9/11" began minutes after the first planes found their targets. Flight 93—the one that crashed in Pennsylvania—never made it because the passengers revolted after hearing about the other planes.
It only took a few minutes for the calculus to change. Knowing what was up, those passengers flipped from wait-and-see mode to fuck-you mode. This is pretty good evidence that you're right: the biggest increase in security was and still is that passengers will not be meek anymore.
the last time in history that Sovereign American territory was invaded and occupied by a
hostile foreign power was between 1942 and 1943 when the Japanese occupied the
small and sparsely populated Alaskan islands of ATU and Kisa which they struggled to reinforce with supplies and
were only able to hold on to for a year before getting overrun by much better supplied American and Canadian soldiers
Up until 9/11, the US people had forgotten what it was like to be on defense.
that doesn't mean that the US cannot be hurt or have its interests disrupted in other ways the US Mainland
can obviously still become the subject of major attacks from hostile foreign powers if not outright invasions and the
biggest and worst attack that ever befell the US on its own territory happened recently only 23 years ago
> were only able to hold on to for a year before getting overrun by much better supplied American and Canadian soldiers
Not especially accurate. The US and Canadian forces that landed on Kiska had no opposition because the Japanese had already left. They did not overrun Japanese forces that were not there.
Wikipedia describes this as: "On 15 August 1943, 1st SSF was part of the invasion force of the island of Kiska, but after discovering that the island had been recently evacuated by Japanese forces, it re-embarked ..."
And yet, there were still friendly fire casualties, a point omitted from many descriptions of the invasion.
Pilots are also now told to not open the cockpit door, no matter what's happening in the cabin and to land the plane. There is a near 0 change you could take control of the plane. I would be more concerned about someone bringing a bomb on board.
Not just cabin crew, a lot of the time anyone flying standby is offered the jumpseat if there are no other seats available out of courtesy. Especially if they are an airline employee, but often non-employees too.
My dad was an airline pilot. Policy was you had to be in uniform to sit in the jump seat, and, yeah, it's not open to just anybody. If he was flying standby to get home, he would take it if no other option was open.
This is like a person who took a few python courses pretending to be a software engineer with a full time job, the lie becomes very clear after a few sentences.
There's also at least one case[1] where the locked door itself stopped someone from stopping the crash (the CA had flying experience and Mentor Pilot[2] showed that even someone with no flying experience could be instructed to autoland if they know how to use the radio. If the CA had entered earlier they might've been able to land, though most of the passengers would've still died unfortunately.)
One of the more reasonable theories for MH370 is similar to the Germanwings case. Pilots can refuse access even if the person outside knows the access codes for the cockpit doors.
Unfortunately (as with everything else), even obvious improvements have potential downsides.
1> At 11:49, flight attendant Andreas Prodromou entered the cockpit and sat down in the captain's seat, having remained conscious by using a portable oxygen supply.
Yes, however it's not clear how they entered and why it took them so long (they entered a few minutes before the plane crashed due to fuel exhaustion -- the left engine shut down 50 seconds after he was seen entering the cockpit). It stands to reason that if the door was unlocked they may have been able to enter much earlier, which could've resulted in a very different outcome.
That's why I said "If the CA had entered earlier".
Underwear bomber was 2009, and if you search for 'aircraft passengers restrain' you'll find many other stories about passengers acting against dangers on flights.
Hijackings used to be common, they're not anymore post 9/11. There were 27 hijackings in 2000 worldwide. There were none in 2017, 1 in 2018, etc.
The issue is that corporations, with billions of dollars and hundreds of top lawyers at their disposal can always come up with justifications for everything they do.
My previous contract (Ireland) was 3 months - it was reciprocal, so they had to give me 3 months notice to quit, and I had to give them 3 months notice to quit.
Due to the position "garden leave" was the most typical way to spend those 3 months, so it wasn't much of a real-world concern.
I find it difficult to side with Delta when they're trying to shirk their legal obligations to their customers.
There's a comment in the video that this is david vs goliath, and they give david some leverage. I think that's the perfect use for high-court bailiffs. The other way around, maybe not so much.
(Ironically - obeying court judgements is not without control of the airline, so if this caused delays, those customers could claim compensation also.)
There's a strong chance Delta don't have much legal/fiscal presence in the UK. Probably also why they didn't feel a pressing need to pay fines in the UK.
There's a much higher chance that Twitter have a legal and financial presence in Ireland, especially being that it is/was their EMEA HQ.
It's not unusual to hear stories of people being found innocent after decades in prison - and every single time it hammers home to me that they could have been pardoning a grave.