But that's only half the story.
The other half is that the FAA -- which is meant to be the counterweight to those perverse incentives -- is no longer credible.
(I've made this point before [0] but it bears repeating here.)
The other half is that the FAA -- which is meant to be the counterweight to those perverse incentives -- is no longer credible.
(I've made this point before [0] but it bears repeating here.)
No snark intended.
I’m likely missing something.
"(idiomatic) To argue or promote an idea."
It isn't enough to just say a statement when you want to make a point. It's usually expected, especially here on HN, to put some effort into demonstrating why you believe that statement is true, something which his linked comment doesn't do. It doesn't need to be anything elaborate, even references to other comments mentioning things FAA has done would be more than enough to make the point, which gives people something factual or "real" to respond to or look into.
I don't think there's anything wrong with his statement per se. You don't always need to write a treatise whenever you want to join a discussion or throw in your two cents. Just that when he says he's made the point before, it'd be more helpful to link to something more substantial than the same statement in a different place.