Readit Newssbuttgereit commented on Preliminary report into Air India crash released bbc.co.uk/news/live/cx20p... · Posted by u/cjr
Totally different airplane with a totally different flight deck, designed generations apart. The fact that the manufacturer is the same is irrelevant.
You are trying to draw parallels between the ignition switch in a 1974 Ford Pinto and a 2025 Ford Mustang as if there could be a connection. No.
And yet the preliminary report for the incident in question includes reference to that bulletin, indicates that the switches in the accident aircraft were of a very similar design and subject to advisory inspections:
"The FAA issued Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin (SAIB ) No. NM -18-33 on December 17, 2018, regarding the potential disengagement ofthe fuel control switch locking feature. This SAIB was issued based on reports from operators of Model 737 airplanes that the fuel control switches were installed with the locking feature disengaged. The airworthiness concern was not considered an unsafe condition that would warrant airworthiness directive (AD) by the FAA. The fuel control switch design , including the locking feature, is similar on various Boeing airplane models including part number 4TL837-3D which is fitted in B787-8 aircraft VT-ANB. As per the information from Air India, the suggested inspections were not carried out asthe SAIB was advisory and not mandatory. The scrutiny ofmaintenance records revealed that the throttle control module was replaced on VT-ANB in 2019 and 2023. However, the reason for the replacement was not linked to the fuel control switch. There has been no defect reported pertaining to the fuel control switch since 2023 on VT-ANB."
So while I agree that this being the cause sounds unlikely, referencing the switch issue is something relevant enough for the report itself.
This is essentially an ad hoc Constitutional Convention being carried out by 6 people, 3 of whom were hand-picked by the sitting president and another of whom is arguably the most corrupt Supreme Court Justice in our history. Nothing is off the table. Anyone who thinks the Constitution can protect them should think again.
[flagged]
sbuttgereit commented on A Blacklisted American Magician Became a Hero in Brazil wsj.com/lifestyle/careers... · Posted by u/bookofjoe
I've seen P&T's show in Vegas a few times, and I've seen many of their TV appearances. They do explain how illusions work, but they don't spoil other magicians tricks. They will do an old classic, show it from the "other side", and then while you aren't paying attention they pull off something new, giving no explanation for that one.
One thing I haven't seen mentioned here to your point about sharing other's work. Some (many?) sell their tricks. So assuming that you've spent time developing a new trick and some portion of your living depends not just on presentation, but also selling the trick or training.... I could see some getting upset.
Otherwise, I don't think the issue is spoiling it for audiences as the craft and presentation style count as much or more than the trick itself.
Maybe I’m not reading the post right but the dude sounds like a dick? What am I missing here?
One thing that you, and many others commenting on may be missing, is that we're getting an uncorroborated, retelling of a story that may well be simply reflecting the teller's own attitudes and reflections rather than a blow-by-blow account of what actually happened.
For example, say I was the interviewee and actually said of the SQL question: "Well, to be frank, that question isn't so good for understanding my SQL abilities." I don't think that would be rude or evidence of "being an asshole". A retelling of that story may simply be condensing it down to how that statement was interpreted: as a nice way to say, "that's a stupid question".
We shouldn't get too far into parsing what's in the story as a verbatim telling of what happened. We have the author's impressions of those events and their interpretations of the outcomes to drive home a larger point the author wants to make. That's it.
In my experience most SQL developers don't care too much about tooling. In most cases someone designs the database and tables, developers don't care about databases and care mostly about tables and views, rarely about indexes. The ones that care, and need tooling, are usually called development DBAs and they are very rare. Rare enough I was never able to hire one and keep them (we don't pay enough for how rare they are).
I've been in that camp for much of my career, and yes, tooling matters.
As you suggest however, tooling for that workload is pretty rare. I want something that focuses on enhancing the database development experience: that understands that there are development workflows for database code which are well controlled and rigorous. So many database tools are focused on being system administrative aids first, or giving you features for directly interacting and <ack> altering the running state of the database and its server from the tool.
The best tool I found for what I do was targeted at Oracle: Allround Automation's PL/SQL Developer (https://www.allroundautomations.com/products/pl-sql-develope...). It's a development oriented tool that, at least last I used it, was focused on serious development work rather than administrative work. Now, I haven't used it in almost 20 years when last I did Oracle development... but I haven't found anything for PostgreSQL that has that thoughtfully implemented database developer centric feature set.
Today I muddle through with DataGrip. DataGrip has just enough of what I need that it's marginally better to work with than just a simple text editor... and also narrowly avoids some misfeatures as not to negate it's utility.
Here's a much better article from the Finnish public broadcaster giving more context: https://yle.fi/a/74-20161606
My comments:
The important thing to note that at this point it's just a political posturing and an announcement of intent. They haven't shown any concrete technical plan how this would actually be executed.
> "Of course, we are very pragmatic and realistic, we cannot do this in five years. Planning will continue until the end of the decade, and maybe in 2032 we can start construction."
Once they have the cost estimates and effects on existing rail traffic studied, I bet construction will never start.
On the other hand....
"Unification to standard gauge on May 31 – June 1, 1886 [United States]
In 1886, the southern railroads agreed to coordinate changing gauge on all their tracks. After considerable debate and planning, most of the southern rail network was converted from 5 ft (1,524 mm) gauge to 4 ft 9 in (1,448 mm) gauge, then the standard of the Pennsylvania Railroad, over two days beginning on Monday, May 31, 1886. Over a period of 36 hours, tens of thousands of workers pulled the spikes from the west rail of all the broad gauge lines in the South, moved them 3 in (76 mm) east and spiked them back in place.[6] The new gauge was close enough that standard gauge equipment could run on it without problem. By June 1886, all major railroads in North America, an estimated 11,500 miles (18,500 km), were using approximately the same gauge. To facilitate the change, the inside spikes had been hammered into place at the new gauge in advance of the change. Rolling stock was altered to fit the new gauge at shops and rendezvous points throughout the South. The final conversion to true standard gauge took place gradually as part of routine track maintenance.[6] Now, the only broad-gauge rail tracks in the United States are on some city transit systems."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Track_gauge_in_the_United_Stat...
This statement is just wrong. More accurately, A UUID -can be- a 128 bit number made up of mostly random bits (UUIDv4) which can be represented as a string using a common representation. Sure, that may well be a common case for most, but there are very completely non-random UUID versions as well, such as UUIDv1 or, more recently, the somewhat random UUIDv7.
The author's proposed ID system is less defensible against some of the other UUID versions which aren't addressed. But that initial description suggests that the author doesn't have a complete enough understanding of UUIDs to really make a credible case about UUID problems (which do exist) vs. their own proposed system.