News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:One dead as London-Singapore flight hit by turbulence by etrautmann on Tuesday May 21, 2024 @09:30AM (#40428277)
People are constantly bombarded with seemingly unnecessary warnings. I frequently assume that these warnings are to insulate a company from legal trouble and not really to protect me. This might be an American perspective.
Re:One dead as London-Singapore flight hit by turbulence by dalyons on Tuesday May 21, 2024 @10:31AM (#40428971)
See: many airlines that still warn to put your phones in airplane mode, despite that being known nonsense for decades
Re:One dead as London-Singapore flight hit by turbulence by ghaff on Tuesday May 21, 2024 @11:00AM (#40429343)
It may still be a good idea because of battery but basically no one cares. Contra early days of smartphones when there near altercations with passengers responding to one last email after the doors closed.
Re:One dead as London-Singapore flight hit by turbulence by miki123211 on Tuesday May 21, 2024 @04:43PM (#40433637)
It's not "known nonsense", but not for the reason you think. There's a small risk of your phone connecting to some random carrier located in whatever country you're currently flying over. For some smaller / third-world countries, this can be quite expensive, cents-per-megabyte isn't unheard of.
Re:One dead as London-Singapore flight hit by turbulence by avar on Tuesday May 21, 2024 @05:11PM (#40433995)
Every time this is brought up people come out of the woodworks with post-hoc rationale for this rule that has no basis in historical fact. This comment is good example.

Why would the FAA and other aviation regulatory agencies care about your phone bill?

Re:One dead as London-Singapore flight hit by turbulence by lxgr on Tuesday May 21, 2024 @08:14PM (#40435886)
I completely agree on GPs statement being absurd post-hoc rationale, but interestingly, this rule is actually coming from the FCC, not the FAA [1], with the FAA only indicating support for it [2].

The motivation is supposedly cellphones at high altitudes interfering with far-away cell towers that are reusing the same frequency at a distance that would normally make interference very unlikely, given the radio horizon and everything.

I highly doubt that that would still be an issue modern networks couldn't handle (also given that most other countries don't have a corresponding law on their books, as far as I know), yet here we are.

[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/47/22.925

[2] https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/...

Re:One dead as London-Singapore flight hit by turbulence by miki123211 on Tuesday May 21, 2024 @07:46PM (#40435664)
It's not the reason the rule was implemented, it's not something the FAA cares about, but this doesn't change the fact that it's still a good idea in some cases, rule or no rule.
Re:One dead as London-Singapore flight hit by turbulence by lxgr on Tuesday May 21, 2024 @08:23PM (#40435962)
By that logic, many more things ought to be declared illegal by completely unrelated regulatory bodies. It would be a bit like the FDA banning gambling, or the SEC reinstating prohibition.
Re:One dead as London-Singapore flight hit by turbulence by lxgr on Tuesday May 21, 2024 @08:09PM (#40435851)
If that were the motivation, airlines should also display a "no credit cards" icon to protect you from overspending on the in-flight drinks service.

> cents-per-megabyte isn't unheard of.

If only! Double-digit dollars per 100 kilobyte aren't unheard of.

Re:One dead as London-Singapore flight hit by turbulence by janalsncm on Tuesday May 21, 2024 @02:48PM (#40432276)
Here’s another American perspective: there are tons of videos of crazy turbulence tossing people around the cabin. I don’t want to get tossed around.
Re:One dead as London-Singapore flight hit by turbulence by lxgr on Tuesday May 21, 2024 @08:28PM (#40435988)
Warning fatigue is a real concern, and requiring people to watch videos on the internet should not be a prerequisite for adequate safety.

I've definitely noticed a proliferation of warning notices and signs in the US (and I don't just mean the Californian chemical hazard warnings in the most bizarre/unavoidable locations like a jet bridge), with the really important ones usually reiterated by a human standing next to them, continuously shouting the same instruction, apparently because people don't seem to take them seriously otherwise.

Re:One dead as London-Singapore flight hit by turbulence by throwaway2037 on Wednesday May 22, 2024 @01:01AM (#40437500)
What is a "jet bridge"?
Re:One dead as London-Singapore flight hit by turbulence by AlotOfReading on Wednesday May 22, 2024 @01:34AM (#40437651)
It's the enclosed, moveable walkway you go through between the airport gate and the plane.
Re:One dead as London-Singapore flight hit by turbulence by janalsncm on Wednesday May 22, 2024 @07:57PM (#40448501)
It’s always been an American impulse to resist authority and think for yourself. That is generally admirable. Then at some point the “think for yourself” part got tossed out, and people disobey instructions for the sake of it.

It’s not that hard to follow instructions. There aren’t that many, and almost all flights have the exact same ones. If you don’t want to learn about getting tossed around like a rag doll at 40k feet that’s fine, just do what the crew tells you to do and you’ll be ok.

Re:One dead as London-Singapore flight hit by turbulence by radicality on Wednesday May 22, 2024 @12:12PM (#40442696)
Something interesting I’ve seen on my recent domestic United flight, which I don’t think I’ve seen before. While the flight safety video was being played, a male flight attendant was walking through the cabin and actively telling people with headphones on (connected to their own device), to take them off and listen to the safety video. It wasn’t a recommendation though, he would wait until the person complied and would then continue down the aisle.

I didn’t have any headphones on. At first it felt a little bit overboard, but with events like this turbulence happening, I can see the need for it.