abadpoli

Yueh isn’t a mentat and his betrayal is unrelated to mentats. He’s suk, but even this is not integral in understanding that he was a trusted part of House Atreides and then betrayed them. The rest really isn’t needed to further the plot.

Movie adaptations will never be able to be as detailed as books. People that first read a book and then watch the movie will almost always notice there are things that are missing, and if those missing things are something the watcher was really attached to, they will be disappointed. But for people who haven’t read the book, as long as the missing things don’t create large plot holes or confusion, it’s fine. I think Dune does a fantastic job of striking the balance of detail while still telling a cohesive and fascinating story. Stuff like mentats and suk doctors are really fascinating and it’s unfortunate that movies don’t have the time available to expand on them, but the movie is able to stand alone without it.

I think it’s interesting how subjective this can apparently be. What I saw in the video was someone standing up for themselves and fighting against perceived wrongdoing in an articulate way. That’s exactly the type of person I want on my team. I’d hire them in a heartbeat.

Recording and posting company videos is bad in the general sense, but not in this case. There’s nothing sensitive or confidential in the video that was posted. The fact that she posted this specific video doesn’t make me assume that she would go and post other videos that do have confidential information, and if a company is embarrassed by their actions in this situation, that says more about the company than it does this employee.

I doubt this is career suicide. It might even do the opposite by getting this person’s name and situation out there.

I watched the recent movies before reading the book and I disagree. The Shadout Mapes scene had more than enough context clues to understand. Thufir Hawat is very clearly a trusted advisor, and for the purposes of the story that’s really all that matters. The “humans computer” is also there in context clues, but even if you didn’t catch it, it doesn’t detract from the movie at all. This seems like something that if you were actively _looking_ for a deep explanation of mentats, of course you would notice it’s missing… but if you didn’t know mentats were a thing, then the movie’s portrayal of Hawat is great.

Paul’s awakening is definitely different in the movie, but I think it’s because in the movie they spread it out (ie there’s a larger emphasis on Paul’s spice trip when saving the crawler). Still, having not read the book at the time I first saw the movie, I didn’t think it was “bland” at all and still made for great storytelling to me.

> dream-like mystic feel to it, which is completely absent in the new adaptation

Man, I can’t disagree harder with this. One of the best things about the new movie to me is that the entire thing has an aura of intrigue and mysticism that left me just wanting more more more.

It’s hard for me to think of any one specific scene that is visually memorable, because _the entire movie_ is visually memorable to me. It’s easily one of the most visually and auditory impressive films I’ve seen in the past decade, whereas Lynch’s seemed like a low-budget SyFy film in comparison.

Ok never mind you did entirely miss the point of the article. Shame.

> You can increase your opportunity, but your luck never changes.

Exactly. Congrats, you have realized what the point of the article is.

Same here, I never have a problem with Amazon.

I’ve noticed there are different shopping styles though, even in physical stores. Some people go to the store with no idea what they want or just a vague idea that they want something, and will browse the store to see if anything interests them. Other people will go to the store knowing exactly what item they want, and don’t need to browse.

I’m the latter, and I’ve never had an issue with Amazon. I know what I want, so it’s trivial for me to just go straight to it and buy it.

But other people that like to browse… I can definitely see how they would get caught in the endless see of EFUZZYA and OPANKY products.

The pilot of AF296 claims the crash happened because the fly-by-wire system preventing him from being able to select TOGA and from pulling up. The official investigation still found the pilot at fault, but there were also claims and later investigation that Airbus interfered with the official investigation, leading to general distrust of Airbus and the fly-by-wire system.

The very first A320 demonstration flight _and_ one of the first A330 flights both crashed and killed multiple people due to issues with the autopilot programming. The whole “if it’s not Boeing, I’m not going” thing was because of distrust around the fly-by-wire system that Airbus used.

I guess all big companies eventually succumb to this fate. It sucks.

The comment that kicked off this chain of comments wasn’t suggesting the past 25 hours, it was suggesting recording all flights, always, and storing it forever to be analyzed at any date in the future.

Making snap decisions under stressful conditions has nothing to do with recording actions for later root cause analysis. If you can’t see the difference, sorry, that’s on you.

You’re not seeing the parallels.

The original comment suggested recording every action from the cockpit and using it for analytical data. The final action isn’t the goal. The steps and discussion that got them to the final action is. Hence recording every step the pilot takes, and the equivalent would be also recording every discussion that the software developer made that influenced them to write the code the way they did.

Saying “the git commit is there, that should be good enough to know the result” is like saying “the pilot landed the plane, that should be good enough to know the result”. Why do we even need CVRs at all? The final action is right there, right?

So again, why record everything the pilot says but not everything the developer that wrote the autopilot says?

That mildly-explosive missile has software running on it too. So do a lot of actual missiles, for that matter.

If we record every action of the pilot of a plane, why wouldn’t we also record every action of the developers who wrote the autopilot software, or the fly-by-wire software?

Sure they do: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_software_bugs

> There's no such thing as "safe to fly" or "not safe to fly."

Except the type certificate issued by the FAA for a given aircraft is by definition the FAA saying that the type meets all applicable standards and is safe to fly. So is the granting of exceptions to any applicable requirements.

The FAA doesn’t say “eh maybe, it’s a judgement call” to an aircraft manufacturer when telling them whether or not the plane can board passengers. They may include various factors, probabilities, and judgement calls in their own determination of if the type gets certified or not, but ultimately there _is_ a determination made: either it can fly in a given context, or it cannot.

If the argument is “we learn and get better over time, and just because we approved something yesterday doesn’t mean we approve it today”, I fully agree with that, but within reason. And while I don’t agree with this mitigation being an acceptable exception, I also don’t think it’s “insane” or incredulous for Boeing to ask for it, given that the FAA already approved the same thing previously.

There’s no “two wrongs” here, per the FAA. There was one wrong (the issue) and then that issue is mitigated by a procedure (the issue is righted, at least partially).

Even if you disagree with this mitigation, every time a new MAX 8 rolls off the production line and enters service, the problem grows larger. Why is this okay, but not with the same for a MAX 7?

Again: either the mitigation is effective enough for MAX variants, or it’s not. I see no reason the two variants should be treated differently here.

I could see this being an argument, basically saying “we’re okay with the size of the problem now but don’t want to make the problem bigger by allowing more planes to fly with this issue”.

But if that was the argument, then that would also mean that we shouldn’t allow any newly built 8s and 9s to enter service, and I don’t see that happening.

Please explain how this is “normalization of deviance” any more than allowing newly-built 8s and 9s to fly is.

> allowed it for 8 means that the FAA has to allow it for all plans from here on out? 1, 2, infinity.

If the plane’s issue is the exact same issue and the mitigation is the same mitigation that’s already been approved by the FAA as effective, yes, and this is currently how things work. See the MEL. If mitigation X is approved for situation Y, then it is approved for all situations of Y (within the same context). You don’t have to go to the FAA to get a new approval to take off every time Y happens, you just do X and you’re approved.

Yes, it sounds to me like that’s the issue too, but I disagree with it.

Either the mitigation is acceptable to make the plane safe to fly, or it’s not. “Well this one already existed before we knew about the issue, whereas this one is new” doesn’t actually change the risk calculus nor the effectiveness of the mitigation.

Youre being disingenuous if thats how you interpreted my comment. Of course there are changes, and as someone who does significant research on plane variants, I know that more than most.

But it doesn’t take a genius to see that in this particular case, there is no evidence (at least none provided in the article, nor none that I’m aware of) that the 7 is different from the 8 or 9 in regards to how the engine icing system works (or doesn’t, in this case).

I have to disagree with all of the comments in this thread saying this is “insane”.

The FAA approved a mitigation for an issue in MAX 8 and 9 planes. The MAX 7 has the same issue, so Boeing is asking for the same mitigation to be approved.

If the FAA thinks it’s acceptable for the 8 and 9, I don’t see why asking for the same for the 7 is bad.

On the other hand, if the FAA doesn’t think this is acceptable for the 7, then I don’t see why it would be acceptable for the 8 and 9.

Either it’s an acceptable mitigation and all 3 should play by the same rules, or it’s not and all MAXes should be grounded (FWIW, the mitigation seems ridiculous to me and I’m leaning towards the latter).

> defending them because they’re women

There’s absolutely nothing in my comment that even implies I’m defending them and their actions, and also absolutely nothing in my comment that implies any of my statement is based on their gender.

I seem to have struck a nerve with you, though. I think the commenter doth protest too much.

I think part of this was also your classic case of tech industry misogyny, too. There has been a lot of thinly veiled sexism in the discussions about Helen and Tasha vs Sam.

WiFi calling isn’t always free internationally though, it often gets charged according to your phone plan’s international rates, which is discouraging for many people. Signal, on the other hand, just sees WiFi as WiFi.

Aircraft windows are double paned. On the inner pane, there is actually a small hole that allows air to pass to the outer pane, and makes it so that the outer pane is holding in the pressure during normal operation.

If the outer pane is cracked (or lost entirely), then the inner pane will take on the pressure. The hole in the inner pane is small enough that the aircraft’s pressurization system can still maintain pressure even if that hole is leaking air.

However that hole likely makes a lot of noise if air is actively rushing through it, and also without the outer pane, there would be less insulation against the cold air and noise outside, and also the missing pane would create an aerodynamic change that I think would cause a lot more noise from the wind.

edit: actually per the AVHerald article, some of the windows were missing both panes (although from the pictures it looks like the inner pane is still intact?), so it must have just been that the pressurization system was just strong enough to keep up with the hole in the fuselage.

Are you using a docker image to run AWS CLI or something? It shouldn’t have anything to do with docker at all if you’re just running the bare ‘aws’ command.

It isn’t simple at all. You lack nuance.

You can stop doing business with Mom&Pop’s coffee shop relatively easily, just like you can move to a different town to get away from your city government authority.

But you’re practically never going to truly get away from Meta, Google, Amazon, Nestle, McKesson, ATT, and those behemoths due to their size, similar to how you’re going to struggle to get out from under the US Federal government.

I recently replaced a windshield (plus calibration) for a Honda Accord and it was $350.

The headline of this article is ridiculous and doesn’t match VA’s statement at all.

Both British Airways and VA have a direct LHR-AUS flight, and they both are at basically the same time and around the same pricing. BA has much better connections from both LHR and AUS (via partnership with AA), and BA has been flying one of their best planes on this route.

Corporate travel is down since the pandemic, but this doesn’t mean the tech boom is “over”, VA just got out-competed.