CPLX

That doesn't match what I'm seeing in the online discussions. I think most people who have a basic understanding of aviation or have been part of it would immediately see this as what happens when you fly a Learjet directly into a thunderstorm. The likely question is whether the first cause of loss of control was ice or something aerodynamic, like pushing the nose down in an updraft, causing the horizontal stabilizer to rip off.

In contrast, the coffin corner doesn't really have anything to do with this the plane would have been operating at standard enroute altitudes and speeds.

For context, I am in fact a pilot. I've read a little about what people are saying about this accident, but I've absolutely no new information or unique insight whatsoever.

Wow this one specific guy was wrong thirty years ago!

> You shouldn’t get to choose to stop them because you don’t like their actions

Of course we should, at a society level. This basic concept is called public policy.

Does that make it incorrect?

Many things are stopping you. I see this response all the time as a counter to inappropriate behavior by monopolistic giant entities.

It's the wrong way of thinking about the problem. The whole point is that they've gained too much market power for any individual to be able to stop them meaningfully, and that collective action using the power of government is the only way.

Any argument that tries to talk people out of that is on the same side as the tech oligarchs, in my opinion.

A bus isn’t a natural monopoly. A subway system is.

Right this is an important thing to note. As an old guy, the fact that the Reddit comment section conceptually took over our culture and then literally is now taking over our culture is really kind of mind-boggling. This is not a good turn of events.

Yeah, I had a Panasonic plasma too the picture was so much better (well in many ways at least) than the new generation. It seemed a lot more "analog" for lack of a better term.

Presumably cards run on electricity?

I think when you're asking normative questions, what you're saying is that it should be established. And that it should be established in the way that you're proposing.

> > I think planes are public places

> They literally aren't, though.

They literally are. They are common carriers, which is a legal concept with a lot of precedent. The UK term for this, ironically, is "public carrier" and while yes it's a privately owned it has distinctly public characteristics encoded in law that sharply distinguishes these spaces from genuinely private areas.

In contrast, this is the only reasonable take. Given the extensive history of large multinational corporations abusing the rights of consumers with impunity, letting one of the two parties in any such dispute record the other, but not the reverse, is obviously unfair and unreasonable.

I have decidedly mixed feelings about this. In general, I don't think people should just be allowed to record and post other people's private moments. I think we don't want to live a life where we are at risk of every single thing that we've ever done being posted as video.

On the other hand, I travel a lot, and I take videos frequently to protect myself. Almost invariably, what I'm talking about here is walking around a rental car when I pick it up and drop it off. But there are other scenarios, like documenting that I was at a gate on time if they're claiming I was late and denying me boarding.

Of course, there are the ones that are contemplated by this article, like a dispute with another passenger or someone about what happened or what's happening, since the consequences of that stuff can be so severe.

I think a lot of European countries have laws around this that usually have exceptions for scenarios like that. For example, I was once recording the condition of a drop-off rental car in Italy. The rental car employee started screaming at me, claiming that, since he had been in the frame at some point or another, what I was doing was illegal. Meanwhile, he was refusing to give me a written receipt or some other proof that I had actually returned the car. If you know anything about rental cars in Italy, you want that, so I just took the video to confirm that I had, in fact, given them the keys and the car.

After it blew up and some research was done, it became clear that, while Italian law does have very strict restrictions on publishing recordings of people, recording your own customer service interactions for purposes of protecting yourself is clearly allowed.

I think a fairer policy here would be sharing, publishing, or distributing any recordings is very strictly prohibited, but merely possessing them can be permitted if the recorder can make a bona fide assertion that it was done for purposes of recording or protecting themselves and their rights as a customer.

Have you ever really been at any kind of rock bottom? Or known people who have been around situations like that? Just purely from a self-improvement standpoint, you should try to open your mind to what that might be like and how people make decisions in those kinds of situations.

> We could go on and on about the merits of voting for Kamala or Biden in that election, but ultimately it didn't matter

Pretty sure it matters. In fact, I think the merits of the people that you run for president are super insanely unbelievably important. The idea that there's any other way to look at this is completely baffling to me. The fact that Biden was essentially incoherent and Kamala did not appear to have a discernible idea of why she was running in the first place mattered a ton, as did the fact that Kamala was literally selected by an opaque committee process with no voter input whatsoever.

They matter a lot. Try it the other way and run a candidate that has a clear and articulable vision for how people's lives will get better if they're elected, and then starts to act on that vision as soon as they're elected effectively. See what happens. It'll be different. It's happening in New York City right now, if you want one example. When people try this approach instead, the distinction is really easy to see. As is the suddenly vicious opposition from the establishment Democratic Party that's behind these people you're talking about

> People are refusing to vote for Talarico because... Nah, he's unelectable...

This election hasn't happened yet. Once it happens, that will be a better time to explain why he did or didn't win.

I still think that your understanding of the reasoning of the people who don't like him is flawed. The reason people oppose him and don't want to vote for him is because they don't think he's like them and or has their interests in mind. They think he cares about other things and other people besides them and the things that they care about. Conversely, the people that will vote for him will have been convinced that he does care about the things that they care about and will help people like them. Because that's pretty much always how it works.

Have you ever talked to a single person who has the views that you think they have? Or is your opinion of these "people" with these crazy views something that was served up to you by a company run by Mark Zuckerberg or Larry Ellison?

A candidate favoring or opposing government restrictions on abortion is most certainly a political question. A voter having delusional opinions (or claiming to) is something else.

> I feel you think you've had some sort of "gotcha" moment by implying that Democratic candidates have failed in meeting their claimed goals.

Yeah, of course I do. The fact that Democratic politicians have failed to improve the lives of regular people and aren't really trying to is pretty fucking relevant to why they lose to obviously corrupt opponents.

Which seems important if your goal involves acquiring and wielding political power instead of lamenting all the idiots out there in internet posts.

This sounds like a conversation about something other than politics.

Do the candidates you support have any kind of track record of making people's lives better, helping average regular everyday working people live lives of dignity where they can afford to live in places and raise their families?

Or do they have a long track record of doing the opposite, favoring the interests of war overseas and corporate hegemony at home?

Those are political questions.

Is it irrational to smoke cigarettes if you're in a concentration camp?

Is it irrational to take out yourself as well as your enemies if you have no realistic prospects for improving your situation but you do have the ability to hurt people who hurt you?

There's no scenario where I'm voting for Trump. I'm a lifelong progressive and I've been involved in Democratic Party politics for about 30 years. Worked on my first campaign in the early '90s.

So you can dispense with that assumption. Hopefully you can pick up on the point I was making, which is that there are a lot of irrational belief systems in politics. You can find them everywhere.

What I dislike is this tendency among overeducated elite, nominally Democratic Party-type commentators to focus on this meta discussion: Why are they stupid? Why are they misinformed? What bots are influencing them?

How about we just focus on the merits? What exactly is your favorite politician proposing to do? Do they have a conception and understanding of how power works and will they use it to achieve goals of any kind? Can we evaluate them on those goals? The last time your team got a chance, what did they do with it? Can people trust you? Who do you serve and who do you fight?

If the answer to that last question is that you serve Wall Street corporate interests and Silicon Valley and you fight against labor and wage earners then you're not on my team either.

You're almost there.

Now see if you can figure out why self-destructive choices can be rational at times?

Can you formulate a hypothetical where smoking is a rational decision? I can.

How would you describe a belief that says that technology and technology companies will improve people's quality of life and that the people who run them should be given more power and authority within our culture as a result?

What you're saying is just factually incorrect. They had a Biden presidency and a Trump presidency. Prices went up much faster and more painfully under Biden than under Trump.

So they voted for the candidate who had a track record of lower inflation.

Turns out things didn't happen that way but that's a different criticism. You're assuming a forward-looking omniscience of some kind or prediction skill that just doesn't exist.

Now do the other guys. That's the problem here. We have two competing elitist political parties. They unite on their agreement that capital should rule everything and everyone, and disagree on a bunch of other stuff.

There's no truths or untruths here. Just preferences and values. Some people care more about some things than others. People vote based on if their life is getting better or worse and who seems most focused on changing that if it's getting worse.

A problem many people have with Democrats is they think that they're condescending, smug assholes who think they're better than them, talk down at them, and think they're stupid.

Perhaps the many, many comments in this thread, going on and on about how people are misinformed, ignorant voters who vote against their own interests, could be understood for what it actually is, which is that.

There's no such thing as people voting against their own interests. People vote based on what they think will make their life better. The quality of a person's life has a massive number of interrelated variables that are hard to tease out.

Someone might decide that their quality of life will be improved by having better jobs or doing something about the extractive corporate sector that makes it almost impossible for normal people to thrive. They might also try to improve their lives by trying to make other people besides themselves feel humiliated and outcast in society since they are sick of being those people. In fact they might decide that's only thing they can change since that first thing isn't on the agenda of either party.

In all cases people get to decide what they care about and what they think their life improvement chances are by whatever metrics they pick. They are right about their preferences by definition. That's inherent to democracy.

> I do not live in the USA and don't have experience with the credit card dispute system

Obviously.

That's not how the burden of proof works. In a credit card dispute the merchant needs to have there be no ambiguity that you did, in fact, authorize the transfer of money to their account and that the authorization is still in effect. The absence of evidence means you win.

Typically, the way it would work is that they would say, "You authorized it," and you would say, "Actually, I didn't authorize that payment. I only authorized the prior payments. I never authorized the subsequent ones because I logged in to their site and attempted to cancel, but they did not provide me with a means to do so."

To which they could say no your initial authorization should also apply to these subsequent charges because that cancellation method is not one we accept. In the past, that defense could work. Your NEW counterargument would be: Sorry, but they cannot rely on and profit from unlawful behavior.

Surely we agree that clicking to cancel will not produce cash in your hands, and that, by definition, you physically were in a location when you paid the cash, and going back there to collect the cash is no longer unreasonable.

Have you ever actually submitted a credit card dispute? It's like a little miniature arbitration. You can submit whatever documents and justification you want.

My point would be that the argument would be clear. It stands to reason that a business cannot consider an unlawfully collected payment to be legitimate. If you can demonstrate that you attempted to give them notice of cancellation and they ignored it unlawfully, then that's your justification that the payment wasn't authorized. You can, of course, revoke authorization to collect payment anytime you want.

This is a really common kind of dispute that businesses have with credit card users. Typically, their response is that the user did, in fact, authorize it because they agreed to a variety of terms that mandated this and that for cancellation, and so on and so forth. In essence, if they can get the user to admit that they gave the original authorization, their argument would be that it was never withdrawn because the user previously agreed to some T&C buried definition of how cancellation would be defined.

The counter to that, of course, now, is new, which is to say that those terms are unlawful and thus negated. It seems completely sound to me as a strategy.