I’m lost in the air travel debate and it sucks. Ignoring the strike and pilots specific concerns, IMHO:

• Emissions of flights are horrendous and will be viewed as barbaric in 30+ years. It needs to stop.
• Denying those of a lower income the opportunity to partake in air travel is also horrendous, and should not be the main mechanism to disrupt the industry.
• There are, in many cases, no alternatives to air travel, so it cannot be abolished.

Smarter regulation is needed, but the finite details will likely never suit a majority of people.

Would it not be economic suicide to do so?

Obviously, more plants are needed to combat the destructive USB industry.

Everyone rigs elections

This Reuters article provides a decent summary: https://www.reuters.com/legal/case-against-elon-musks-56-billion-pay-package-2024-01-30/

While I understand the sentiment, such action doesn’t match the long term goals of the bloc to unify the continent. Another solution needs to be found to ensure single bad actors cannot hold up actions which severely impact the remaining stakeholders - I have no idea how it could be done though.

Xoxo, Another useless armchair observer

Thanks for the suggestion, I started looking into LaTeX during my studies but never went through with learning it. Others have suggested Scribus, is there a reason why you might opt for LaTeX over that for this case?

DigiKam and it’s associated plugins are what I use to sort, manage and store photos. It does have facial recognition option too, but I have not used it until now.

I noticed that as part of the LaTeX description, thanks for confirming! I will take a look at scribus.

Zoom out to the 5 year graph and it tells another story.

Also such events (which are non-catastrophic) are not entirely uncommon.

You need an incredibly robust quality management system to even achieve certification (allowing you to place on the market) when creating systems which include life support function, or functions which potentially could kill a user. All potential changes both within and outside of the manufacturers’ control MUST be assessed and constantly monitored so such issues CANNOT arise.

No one should be able to legally place an unsafe app on the market, or legally perform changes to the app without the necessary checks and balances.

Medical device approvals in most countries are definitely not the wild west. Although they are not perfect.

Even the smaller competitors like Bombardier would have an interest in this, even if they are not the manufacturers of similar sized aircraft, a loss of faith in the aviation industry hurts everyone too. Plus suppliers etc.

As for the investigators (I know you meant FAA, not FCC), we have a similar issue in medical devices - you need seriously well educated experts to perform the investigations, and it is hard to find any without industry experience which wouldn’t look good on paper. The solution is to try as hard as you can to not have ex-employees audit their ex-bosses, but it isn’t always possible so we accept some overlap. It doesn’t mean these people don’t take their job seriously.

I don’t think this ends in beheadings, but there will (hopefully) be significant follow on effects. A threat to consumer confidence in flying is a risk to the entire industry, all Boeing’s competitors and the airlines will be screaming for the FAA to get the actions right here…

Thanks! I wasn’t clear on that detail!

Everyone is a bit shit here (including whoever came up with that title…). No one “won” anything here.

DoE wanted to use “emergency” measures to survey miner’s energy use, which is likely outside of the scope of the original intent of such powers (which appears to be why the judge granted a temporary restraining order?).

The Bitcoin miner’s claim the data release would cause “irreparable harm to their business…” If that’s not an admission of guilt, then I don’t know what is.

There is no option currently, and no political interest to change it. Maybe this report will change that… Let’s see

Not owning a car with smart features

Laptops are being gradually added to the list of devices within scope of this change. It only counts for any new device being sold on the market after the changes take effect.

The clause only makes sure that chargers do not limit, when connected to competitors devices. The regulation is coming from an e-waste perspective, which the EU has made it clear that it is not interested in entertaining or letting companies push them around.

As I commented above, the regulation clearly states “any additional charging protocol allows for the full functionality of PD… irrespective of the charging device used.”

So they can’t have both unless they split EU & RoW devices.

This is not correct for devices being sold to the EU at least. Part of the amendment to the Radio Equipment Regulation outlines the exact standards for power delivery that must be used, and that interfaces which are capable of being charged @ > 15W must “ensure that any additional charging protocol allows for the full functionality of the USB Power Delivery…”.

For data transfer, I don’t see the point and future improvements to USB will come from industry in future.

The only way around this is with a wireless charging protocol, but manufacturers are moving away from that it appears.