Reminds me of all the de-crufting you've always needed to do when you install Windows. Looks like we've gotten to the point on macOS too, where you need to run third party scripts on a new OS installation to gain back control of your system resources and remove unwanted crapware.
True that, win11debloat is 'mandatory' nowadays.
The time that OS makers competed with each other with features users actually wanted is long gone, alas..
This is why Linux is now making more serious momentum. Even a long term 'Microsoftie' like myself is now standing on the brink of making the leap. Just a bit more Steam compatibility first please...
For those of you who don't read NTSB reports as a hobby, know that Preliminary reports generally do not assign probable cause or list contributory findings. They're usually just full of basic, factual information like the date, time, location, weather, info about the aircraft and pilot, and so on. So don't go into the PDF thinking you're going to learn the cause of the crash.
While this is generally true and having read this report I do not believe it to contain any new material information related to the probable cause, it continues to paint the picture of the captain making a pretty big series of mistakes.
It really sucks that the FO could not intervene further as he clearly identified the problem and articulated the solution.
I certainly doubt there will be a satisfying ending to this one.
> It really sucks that the FO could not intervene further as he clearly identified the problem and articulated the solution.
First officer could have easily intervened, all they needed to do was call for a go-around. If the captain wouldn't initiate a go-around(AFAIU typical airline policy from my understanding is that if either pilot calls for a go-around then they must initiate a go-around) after being called for by the FO they should have initiated one themselves. The events from the CVR show only the captain ever called for a go-around after it was too late.
Even if they had died, it would still be relevant. It may point to deeper systemic issues at the company or could lead to identify additional ways to train aircrews to avoid this situation in the future.
It's always relevant but the NTSB's recommendations sometimes fall on deaf ears in a way that endangers future safety.
The fundamental question is why they pressed on and what we need to look for in other airlines to avoid this. Why was the FO so unassertive? Was this a common pattern at that airline? Was there pressure from the airline to minimize go-arounds?
Is this an issue with the re-training of rotor to fixed wing pilots?
> Was there pressure from the airline to minimize go-arounds?
The thing I've heard from the fine folks on the pilot forums is that for most airlines (granted, passenger airlines, not necessarily cargo), the reverse is usually true. An unstable approach generates a number of these warnings and the plane tattles on the pilot in real time, there will be repercussions for not going around.
This amuses me, as it clearly addresses a tiny minority of HN commenters, and I can only imagine the arcane, irrelevant documents each one of us has saved to our disk and open in tabs right this very moment
Editing Wikipedia for 17 years has left me with research superpowers, in any arena I should choose, and it unfortunately supercharged my ability to ruin dinner parties by blurting out series of factoids about any item that should be mentioned.
In fact, my research efforts and other actions may have been directly responsible for a security lockdown at an international airport once upon a time. I have no way of knowing for sure, and I was innocent of all malice, but imagine my surprise when I arrived to find the chaos.
Well yeah the report is not a bunch of nothing also. NTSB usually takes 12+ months to complete their investigation so they release a preliminary report within a month of the incident usually to share relevant factual information. But the investigation remains ongoing so they have the time to check all angles and come up with final conclusions.
> But he laid out a blueprint for ruling by executive decree.
Other presidents also extended the power of the executive branch and over-used executive orders. Of course, not to the extreme degree Trump did.
Trump's legacy will be his effective use of social media saturation and his "mask off" approach to rallying his base. Previous (R) administrations felt they had to maintain at least a little civility and be coy about the kind of people they were rallying, and cryptic about the kind of emotions that activated these people. You had to use innuendo and dogwhistles. Trump proved that you can directly preach to people's anger, belligerence, and cruelty, win elections based on those messages, and even maintain your popularity by delivering on your promises with oppressive, cruel policies. This lesson is going to be burned into politics long after he's gone: You don't have to even try to be a statesman to lead government.
Yea, the planets are gigantic, and in distant orbits from their star. I don't think we even have the ability yet to directly image exoplanets much smaller than, say, Saturn, or closer to their stars than Saturn.
Being able to tie an IP to a rough physical location was, in retrospect, a huge Internet design mistake. IPs should be like random UUIDs. They should have been designed to get assigned randomly when you obtain one, rotated / thrown away periodically, with no hierarchical numeric relationship with the ISP that is assigning them.
It was much easier to assign blocks of IPs to an ISP rather than a 4.3B line lookup table. And how would you ensure that an address has been rotated? How do you determine who the real owner of an IP is when collisions occur? You're asking for a worldwide atomic database propagated to all routers in the days where a 32bit number was considered massive.
It's not practical because IPs are routed in blocks, and this is necessary for efficiency. Otherwise every single router on the internet would have to remember the locations of up to 100 billion connections, and when the internet surpasses this size every router will need to be replaced.
I must be lucky or work in a great company, because I've never seen this, and I think it would be totally unacceptable for a coworker to even think about doing this. What kind of horrible company culture normalizes this kind of behavior?
I wonder if this toxic "Why are you talking to me? Just RTFM or ATFLLM (ask the fucking llm)" attitude can be filtered out during interviewing.
> But I dont know if they matter to the employers who can only see LLMs as "free milk".
Line Must Go Up.
If treating employees with dignity and giving them intellectually challenging and satisfying tasks make Line Go Up, then that's what employers will do. If making us push "Allow Claude To Do This" hundreds of times over and over makes Line Go Up more, then that's what they'll make us do. If sitting us in a factory and giving only our finger freedom of movement makes Line Go Up, that's what they'll do. If strapping us into pods like in The Matrix makes Line Go Up, that's what they'll do. If feeding us into wood chippers makes Line Go Up, that's what they'll do.
Yea, I got into programming because... I like programming. Not whatever the fuck this is. We've been reduced to hamsters pushing a button and getting a little pellet back, over and over.
You may be right, but I'm not sure we actually have strong evidence for that. Mozilla has run like a bigtech firm for so long that it's not really clear whether the open-source portion thereof could survive without.
$500 million in annual revenue and $6 million CEO compensation packages are well in excess of what other similar-scope projects get by on. Mozilla accounts for somewhere between 30-50% of all funding in open-source - if you sum up the Linux foundation, the Wikimedia foundation, the Apache foundation, KDE e.V, the Gnome foundation... it's still less than Mozilla
reply