arcfour

No. They might have to say why they went around but they can't be punished for it (that's a great way to open yourself up to liability even stripping away all of the human elements). And I can't imagine any reason that an airline would truly care since they don't want their planes crashing so they don't want to discourage pilots from going around if they need to do so. The delay incurred is usually fairly small anyways, maybe 20-30 minutes.

However I will say that the majority of unstable approaches (97%!!) do continue to landing: https://flightsafety.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Go-aroun...

...but I think that most of these unstable approaches are likely marginally unstable and only in one dimension. This landing was so far outside the realm of normal it's actually mind boggling that it actually happened. Pilots are trained to immediately go around without questioning it if many of the things that happened on this flight occur (such as not being in landing configuration well before touching down!)

> unclear how speed didn't increase

How can you comment as if you are knowledgeable enough about aviation to speak on this with authority, but you aren't aware that turbofan engines don't have instant throttle response and need time (up to 8 seconds) to spool up? I think a little more restraint is warranted in something like this if you don't know something that basic.

You can actually do the math to work backwards and approximate how much thrust the engines were producing during that time, which was about 15,000 lbf (vs ~120,000 lbf max thrust for a 767-300er) which reduced how quickly they were decelerating by... Maybe a few % or so. But they didn't start accelerating yet. They would have in another second or two, however.

I'll agree that they should have gone around far earlier; getting non-spurious GPWS callouts on final because you're trying to dive and find the glideslope is... Crazy, and configuring landing flaps over the numbers is also crazy, and so is landing 10-20kts faster than the highest possible Vref value for the type, and everything else. But that's fairly obvious...

So your employer is having a problem, and prevents you from using any of the available options to solve it? And you have asked them about all of them/told them about the problem? They don't like saving money?

Well, sounds like it's not your problem then.

There are numerous services that will let you host static pages for free or nearly free. There are also numerous services that sit in front of your website that can block bots and reduce load on your origin server, many of which are also free, or very low cost relative to the service they provide.

The situation you are in is far less dire sounding when you consider that you have these options available to you.

Because you don't apply to a gun company to buy a gun. (You actually apply to the government...chew on that one for a while.)

Most of them are also easily pissed away if you have money. It cuts both ways.

The functionality is restricted, but the capability of expressing the intent at all exists.

Among other things, JavaScript in the browser has no way to even express "kill PID 1234 on the user's machine" or "list the contents of `C:\Users\Documents` and upload all of the files" or "spawn cmd.exe on the user's machine". How would you even do these things if you could run any JavaScript in the browser? You can't.

However, chrome.exe itself does because it's a native application, as is the sandboxed JavaScript interpreter inside of chrome.exe.

(This is a very oversimplified explanation but I think this is the disconnect people are having)

Speak for yourself, there are hundreds of thousands of people playing games that do not fall into this category on Steam right now.

This really grinds my gears, way more than it should for some reason.

Use the system as it was intended, people!

Very few are these days with the enormous amount of resources Valve has been pouring into Proton. The only truly Windows-only games I have encountered were online multiplayer with anticheat and that was almost always because the developer chose not to support Linux (e.g. EAC, Rust) and not for lack of support for Linux.

Perhaps that wouldn't happen if more people switched...

A "data breach" refers to unauthorized access to nonpublic or protected data. Scraping content that is publicly viewable without logging in - or even with logging in, since an account is effectively disposable - is not a "data breach" (as far as any typical usage of the term goes).

In hiQ Labs v. LinkedIn, the 9th Circuit (US) ruled that scraping publicly accessible data does not violate the CFAA's "without authorization" clause (hiQ was bulk scraping public LinkedIn profile data - in violation of LinkedIn's ToS). The Supreme Court later specifically narrowed the CFAA in Van Buren v. United States saying "exceeds authorized access" applies to accessing areas of a system you aren't entitled to enter at all, not misusing access you legitimately have (regardless of ToS violations).

Other CFAA cases have ruled similarly - being legitimately granted access (i.e. signing up for an account, or browsing publicly without logging in, since the site is intended to be available to the public) and then misusing it is not "hacking".

So in the U.S., it's not a computer crime ("hacking"/"breach") to scrape data, and nobody uses the term "data breach" to refer to scraping publicly available data on a public site, except for apparently you.

Obviously I meant that any data a person expects to be public, like a public post on a social media site... I was not referring to data exposed in data breaches, which is a different subject entirely...

If that was not obvious to you then I apologize; though it really should have been, since you are encouraged to interact with others in good faith on HN.

And if you expect your medical records to be public...then what is the point of this discussion?

That's a blatant strawman - that's not a reasonable position at all. A reasonable person does not expect their private medical records to be accessible to you or me just because they are stored in an EHR system.

They might be surprised that you or I looked at their TikTok video when we aren't the intended audience, but they still posted it publicly, with the understanding that it would be made freely available to others.

Something posted with the understanding that it could potentially be viewed by anyone on the Internet with minimal/no restriction.

ToS are just what you follow if you don't want to get banned off of the site. If you don't care about that, then you can go hog wild, though you're being a bit of a jerk/not playing nice obviously.

No, I don't care at all, but I recognize that my morals might be lower than others here. To me it's just public data...whatever.

My criticism was basically - this is trying to sell an AI slop project for $699 a pop - I could get this out of a few Claude Code sessions if I had the storage and network bandwidth to run such a scraper. The value proposition is questionable when the writing shows that the entire project was AI generated, and clearly Claude understands the way the TikTok Android app internal API works quite well...

Man, I could use $699. If this gets even a single sale, then maybe I need to try having less decency...

(I guess that is sort of a roundabout summary...)

So if I uploaded a black screen, or a black screen with text (the title of the song), that would be sending a message...that I do care about quality...? Since there was no AI?

As opposed to thinking of a play on words between the game/the original song and having an AI make the joke cover per my directions, instead of me just doing it (worse) by hand, which is "I don't care about quality?"

The whole point of the video is not the visual component, it's really just about sharing the non-AI music.

Yes, I'm thinking I'll stop doing it from now on since YouTube doesn't make the distinction.

I figured that LLMs saving me the 20 mins in GIMP making a silly joke filler album cover was the perfect use case... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

What's the difference between me pasting a face over a body in GIMP manually and me prompting an LLM to make the same edit, faster, and better than I would by hand? They aren't particularly high-effort. The artwork isn't really the point, but I can't just upload a black video...

Yeah, I make song remixes in the style of a particular video game and while the music is completely human written (by me), I'll often have AI generated or edit the "cover art" for me so people have something to look at/chuckle at.

These videos are still marked as AI, and fairly so; however I don't think that means people should want them hidden :-(

No it doesn't. This reads like someone who hasn't touched a non-apple Laptop in 15-20 years.

> IMHO, capitalism and FOSS are fundamentally incompatible.

A bold statement to make given the world we live in today contains plenty of both, working together, in harmony.

Not really. They can get RAM just fine, and delay upgrade/refresh cycles to stretch existing component lifecycle, which was already very long if they needed to.

Nobody really "needs" RAM immediately though, like a heart or a lung or something.

Yes. Convince me why your site is worth my attention, don't try to force it through a dark pattern and then try to justify why I should waste my time figuring it out.

I moreso meant the quality of their hardware, though that's fair, I didn't recall that. Still, if they are bothering to go to the effort of getting audited (granted, I don't like reading audit reports so I didn't look at who actually performed them) - it seems like they are actually trying, as opposed to what you might expect from a less scrupulous company, where it's more like the wild west.

> Honest note: Anthropic has not shipped a public Claude watermark detector yet. This tool uses rewrite-based neutralization — a meaning-preserving paraphrase with a non-Claude model — which is the attack path watermark research points to. Not affiliated with Anthropic.

Well, they should have run their own AI slop website through their tool...

What on earth LLM are you using and do you tell it which distro/version of Linux they are supposed to be working with + give them access to web search or man pages? I haven't had this issue in like a year and a half.

Well, on the plus side, SoundCore (Anker) are at least reputable enough (even though security teams would still want to review that!):

Under the security part, they do seem to at least be compliant with your typical security standards (HIPAA, SOC 2 Type 1, etc.) and claim that all data is deleted within 12 hours of transcription. So it isn't like the contents of your meeting are being siphoned off to some fly-by-night service, at least.

https://www.soundcore.com/soundcore-work-ai-voice-recorder