ultrarunner

At some level these platforms are the public square and facilitate public discussion. In fact, Google has explicitly deprioritized public forum sites (e.g. PHPbb) in preference to forums like YouTube. Surely there is a difference between declining to host and distribute adult material and enforcing a preferred viewpoint on a current topic.

Sure, Google doesn't need to host anything they don't want to; make it all Nazi apologia if they thing it serves their shareholders. But doing so and silencing all other viewpoints in that particular medium is surely not a net benefit for society, independent of how it affects Google.

I wonder what Luigi thinks about this

It’s probably because they’ve seen the shit that government has done. The problem ends up being not who does it, but how much power they have.

Eventually, I think people will come to understand that local stations are entertainment outlooks, not informational outlets.

I'm tempted to agree, but I can't shake the question: …Manifested as blind trust in an elite and their institutions?

Who says you have to have 340 million people agree? Congress's approval rating hovers around 20% for years and years— they haven't been interested in the will of the people for a long time.

Agreed, but I suspect that this is an intuitive reaction to the fact that the markets are largely rigged in favor of the well connected. Of course, to the well-connected, this situation can be described as a "free market", but it isn't free in the same way it should be for the vast majority of people.

Even in popular tech-- the internet-- we're seeing a wave of regulation and surveillance that will certainly stifle future growth for the small guy. You still see a lot of positive sentiment with regard to the "old internet".

What difference does it make if they allow crimes to occur? They have no duty to protect.

By “flagged” do you mean to say that you’ve reported him to the FAA?

Because it's all a lifestyle signal, not for actual use. The Baja sent the wrong signal. Simple as that.

Flying is easy to those for whom it's become second nature. At first it's really very difficult to get the plane to do (and keep doing) what you want (or what ATC instructs). At some point, you realize that you're holding a heading and altitude without really thinking about it, while doing a several other things. I think it really depends on who you ask and a whole host of other variables just how easy flying is.

I wasn't even able to successfully land a 172 after 6 or 8 hours in a 150 and growing up around aviation, including flight sims. Add in the fact that these were night flights (and in SoCal airspace) and I become very skeptical of the flightsim theory. I only wonder what tail number the time builder logged (but if you're going to forge that, or the airports, why do the flight at all?)

I, too, landed whatever tailwheel my grandpa had back when I was eight years old, without even an hour of training. Now, my kids can land my plane too. It helps that I'm on the controls, but they don't seem to notice. I hope my grandpa enjoyed it then as much as I do now.

The suggestion that proficiency "in the air" correlates to ability to land, and the referring to the PIC as "co-piloting" are both pretty good indicators that there's more to the story. Flying is fun, but doing so without training is terribly unforgiving.

The idea that running leads to knee damage is a pervasive myth.

At risk of… what? Being uncomfortable?

> You could have told me this is from the current year and I would have believed you.

Agreed. It's a matter of degree, and I wonder what reaching the eventual limit (if there is one) looks like.

I'd imagine that once you're 150 ft wide the potential for several vehicles driving across or parking has to be considered.

This is an interesting point, but I wish the delivery wasn't so snarky. There probably are a number of issue of specialization that I wonder about now; is building bridges in an earthquake zone a solved problem at this point, or does it require additional focus that could justify some of the time and money cost. Similarly, desert ground can move a surprisingly large amount through heat and rain cycles; are similar challenges faced in places like Arizona and Texas for more ground-based infrastructure?

I’ve noticed a recurring theme on iOS where interactions intended for an app get trapped by the OS (especially multi-window interactions on iPad). The OS is less and less a foundation to support what you actually want, and more the product itself. If the actual content of the phones matters less than the fact that iOS itself is “the latest” then this makes perfect sense and is in line with the general momentum over the past several years.

The government shapes diets both through guidance (food pyramid, “plates”, etc) and regulation. For example, a major criticism revolves around farm bill payouts that incentivize corn production, leading to cheap fructose that finds its way into everything.

As a completely incidental observation (and maybe related to the article from a few days ago considering the importance of language skills compared to math skills for software development), I'm interested in what people choose to capitalize when developing languages. With c, lowercase seems to be the default, signifying variables or function calls. Adding inheritance in c++ leads to Proper Nouns like classes being capitalized, while their instances are often lowercase. This communicates a subtle "feel" for the language, meta information about what's being accomplished.

Capitalizing method calls (`rl.InitWindow()`) seems to place the importance on the Method being called, but at first glance (ASP, or Go off the top of my head) it muddies the waters. If this isn't clear, consider that capitalizing ALL code would reduce clarity as all letter shapes are now essentially the same (a box).

I spend most of my time in c, c++, ruby, and javascript, but maybe I should try to do a personal project in Go (or Odin) for this reason alone.

> Loud

Those are Harley enthusiasts, not motorcyclists. (Or, increasingly, just "work trucks")

Signed, someone who commutes on a rather quiet motorcycle.

This doesn't really address my point, but the ambiguity arises from the fact that there are often implicit understandings tunneled through standard phraseology that may or may not be intended. We don't know exactly what the Blackhawk crew said. Clearly tower thought they'd be staying clear of the CRJ, but the Blackhawk crew (to some degree) thought they'd be staying clear of some other lights in the area.

Regardless, 91.119 applies (harshly, and unambiguously, in some cases) to significantly safer operations than 75 ft visual separation from passenger aircraft in bravo airspace. That is absurd. Failure was built into the design from the beginning.

I recall the tower establishing that they could maintain visual separation, not a request being made from the helicopter. My point is that if everything had gone perfectly, as little as 75 ft of separation would be provided. This is unacceptable in this context for reasons should have been clear ahead of time, but very unfortunately are made clearer in hindsight.

The FAA says that I can't fly closer than 500 ft to a shed in the desert, but a Blackhawk is fine to be within 75 ft of a part 121 airliner in a bravo.

Everyone else has ADS-b and uses shared comms.

They could be huge in this, but sadly they'll continue to ruin it because (IMHO) they are rotten at the core. I can't tell you how many times I've seen a question posted on a relevant topic, switched tabs to consult the manual to verify my memory, and then gone back only to see Facebook do its ADHD reload and bury the question.

Once people get sufficiently frustrated and the ad revenue declines below the cost of running the servers, we will immediately lose all of the information shared there. None of it will be archived like the old forums. It's a genuinely sad situation.

It's done for e-bikes and mopeds and has been for years. Whether it's dangerous or not doesn't seem to be an issue.

As a pilot, if I see a notam "that caused restricted … notices to be issued"-- especially in a military context-- I would be very comfortable describing the affected airspace as "shut down". I'm probably missing something as your link to an apparently low quality story is also paywalled. Maybe they're referring to the fact that the military almost always exempts itself from its TFRs, so technically it wasn't completely "shut down", but by that definition no airspace is ever shut down.

This reads like it's referencing something specific. Am I out of the loop or is this just about heap exploits in general?