>> Captain Leul Abate (42), an experienced pilot with over 11,500 total flight hours (including 4,067 hours in the Boeing 757/767), was the pilot-in-command. [...] Prior to the crash, Leul had experienced two previous hijackings. The first occurred 12 April 1992 on Flight ETH574, a Boeing 727-260. [...] The second occurred on 17 March 1995, flying a Boeing 737-260. [...] In both cases, the aircraft were undamaged and no one was injured or killed. [...] Leul and Yonas both survived. [...] Both the captain and first officer of the flight received aviation awards, and both continued to fly for Ethiopian Airlines
(flight 961: 125 died, many by drowning from inflating life-vest too early)
I either want Captain Leul Abate to be my pilot -- in-case of a highjacking -- or don't want him to be given his track record with having his flights hijacked...
Anyone have stats on pilots involved in multiple hijackings? 3 in a career seems unreal and doesn't appear to be something tracked based on light searching
> It's not only "The Eyes of Texas" that are upon this.
Referencing the University of Texas (Austin) school song in a reply to an Aggie, them fightin' words
More related, with A&M generally being traditionally conservative* and also being a research university that values higher learning -- yet still a public school -- they are going run up on these issues given the current state of "conservative" (maga) politics. UT is getting the same pressure, but being a traditionally liberal leaning school with a rich history of protest leading to change, they are able to resist a bit more -- which I always respected (except for Thanksgiving rivalry games) -- but even they are slowly caving-in. Texas use to mind its own business, scoff at whatever ideology the federal government was pushing and, for the most part, let people and institutions be. How we became a maga lapdog is truly baffling.
*Has the George H.W. Bush library and a Corps of Cadets (student military organization) that deeply intergraded into school tradition, for starters. Also, oil money.
npr.org collected a database that "tracked every federal criminal case stemming from the events of Jan. 6, 2021" for anyone interested in details of the cases brought against the participants
I think this is the telling statement in the article wrt Cuba relevance:
...Secretary of State Marco Rubio, a Cuban American who as a U.S. senator was famous for his longstanding antipathy toward Havana. Mr. Rubio has long signaled his belief that a change in Venezuela’s government would weaken Cuba, which he has said would be a welcome outcome.
Providing food, clothes, health and shelter? My parents weren't ready. I interrupted my fathers dream he was on track for, but only later learned about by doing the math in his rare moments of nostalgia after a cancer diagnosis and given a handful of years to live. My parents did a hard pivot and worked 3-5 jobs between them at any given time to make ends meet because his sense of duty to the family he wasn't ready for. I rarely saw or interacted with them, but gained valuable experience in navigating the world independently and being responsible for myself. I had good parents -- I was fed, clothed, housed and healthy enough to make it to adulthood and move out on my own after high school.
This part stuck out:
There are good reasons to wait, [...] My children have not had to live with parents who are working 15-hour days, the way we worked in our 20s, or who are financially desperate, as we might have been if we’d been paying for children on the salaries of our 20s. Our professional standing allows us to skip work for pediatric appointments or parent-teacher conferences. [...] I got a promotion [...] when it was time to buy a piano. We all sit down together for home-cooked meals most evenings and talk about things.
That must be nice, but I wouldn't know. My youngest sibling does though, their grandchildren knew that with them when they were younger too. My parents finally built up the stability that gave them time -- as I was on my way out. I have no idea who they are, nor they me, that was not our relationship -- I had that with my grandfather, but only briefly. And I would not trade that decade for anything in the world, except maybe to have had that with my parents, even if only for a few years to get to know as a child should. My youngest sibling got the great parents because they were ready to be by that time.
You get to be a great parent because you can spend time with your kids -- whether you "felt" ready or not you were, but maybe consider that's because the time you waited gave you the time to spend with them. You're looking at it in terms of maximizing years. Having more years doesn't mean anything if they can't be quality years.
Correct. As its sole purpose is to prevent the Government from restricting speech for viewpoints it does not like from anyone living under that government. Any laws restricting Free Speech have to be narrowly defined and/or viewpoint agnostic; military secrets, sedition, etc. And those restriction can only be created by law, not a mayor's or governor's or president's whims.
Advocacy or speaking to others, including business owners, with viewpoints the government doesn't like is allowed.
It's the main point of Free Speech -- to prevent the government, and only the government, from censoring or interfering/restraining the expression of opinions. Especially if those opinions are not in alignment with, or favorable to, any sitting government.
This applies to both citizens and those who reside in the US. The person in the article is a US permanent resident.
>> The Center for Countering Digital Hate founder was among five people denied US visas ...
Has a link to an earlier article about the "five people"[0]
>>Imran Ahmed, an ex-Labour adviser who now heads the Centre for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), and Clare Melford, CEO of the Global Disinformation Index (GDI) [...] Ahmed from the CCDH, which says it advocates for government action against hate speech and disinformation online, has links to senior Labour figures. He was previously an aide to Labour minister Hilary Benn, and Sir Keir Starmer's chief of staff Morgan McSweeney has served as a director of the group he founded.
Along with more details about the people, the trump side claims and other information about this on going event. The info was referenced in this article to a more informationally relevant article that establishes who he is. The article you are commenting on is a follow up to that one.
The earlier article has a brief mention of CCDH's Labour links, and none of the other information in my post. It does cite the US govt. accusations, but makes very sure that's all it cites - painting a picture of he-said she-said, as if those accusations were not easily verifiable.
It also parrots UK govt. talking points on how much they value free speech and how denying visas is equivalent to censorship and witch-hunts, but neglects to mention the UK has banned, among others, Renaud Camus and Martin Sellner, from entry, based upon their speech.
It does give information about "former Labour strategist [1,2], the CCDH he leads was founded by another Labour strategist and current Downing Street Chief of Staff" not in your exact words, but clearly disclosed connections and work:
has links to senior Labour figures. He was previously an aide to Labour minister Hilary Benn, and Sir Keir Starmer's chief of staff Morgan McSweeney has served as a director of the group he founded.
> but neglects to mention the UK has banned, among others, Renaud Camus and Martin Sellner, from entry, based upon their speech.
This event isn't about whatever broken system they have in the UK about banning people. It's about the US taking action against a US resident, which has clear free speech protections from the government doing what it is doing.
As I would expect of any reporting, that it not go off on tangents that are unrelated to this event. They have included or invite to comment from all parties involved. It's a mistake to read a subject's quote that is un-agreeable as biased reporting from a news outlet when the bias is coming from the people involved -- either the UK govt, the US govt, or the people at the center of it.
They quote UK govt officials making their UK talking points the same as they printed the US govt officials talking points. The "witch-hunts" and other claims are quotes from the people directly involved.
As for the "goal" or "tactics" that you found on some substack that is full of scare-quotes with an emotionally written bent -- is subjective at best. It has no relevance to real-world reporting, it doesn't meet journalistic standards to take every random one-sided internet theory as fact -- nor are they obligated to investigate and verify every substack posting on the internet.
> It does give information about "former Labour strategist.."
That's what I wrote? From my post: The earlier article has a brief mention of CCDH's Labour links, and none of the other information in my post.
> This event isn't about whatever broken system [..] As I would expect of any reporting, that it not go off on tangents that are unrelated to this event.
When a government complains about something, I would expect of any half-competent journalist to mention that they are guilty of the exact same thing. Just repeating statements of the parties involved is not journalism, but stenography. Naturally I disagree that it is "unrelated".
> They quote UK govt officials making their UK talking points the same as they printed the US govt officials talking points.
You don't notice propaganda when it's right in your face. The first three paragraphs of the BBC article:
The Center for Countering Digital Hate founder was among five people denied US visas - not "he claims he was denied"
after the Trump administration accused them of seeking to "coerce" tech platforms into censoring free speech. - but here it is a mere 'accusation', despite the CCDH's well-documented tactics [1] of deplatforming and going after the finances of media they dislike.
The move brought a backlash from European leaders defending the work of organisations monitoring online content. - they mention the monitoring, but not the deplatforming campaigns. Again, not a he-said she-said, but in the journalistic voice of stating facts.
> As for the "goal" or "tactics" that you found on some substack
The tactics are directly from the wikipedia page for the CCDH, as cited in my post.
> It has no relevance to real-world reporting, it doesn't meet journalistic standards to take every random one-sided internet theory as fact -- nor are they obligated to investigate and verify every substack posting on the internet.
It's not a "theory" but documents leaked by a whistleblower. Maybe it's false, but it's not random, but by Matt Taibbi [2]. Please don't ignore half my post, and misrepresent the other half.
I find it sad that you think stenography is journalism, but investigating or providing context is irrelevant and sub-standard.
[2] In 2021, Ross Barkan of New York wrote, "Taibbi is—or was, depending on your view—one of the most celebrated investigative journalists of his generation." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Taibbi#Assessments
It appears we are talking about two different things.
I am discussing this article as news reporting, which it is, and it meets the journalistic standard for such. You are wanting an investigative report or exposé on a follow-up news event that happened this week. They are simply not the same and I would question anyones ability to publish a reliable investigative feature in that time.
> I would question anyones ability to publish a reliable investigative feature in that time.
The BBC are not naive babes born yesterday. All of the context I gave is more than a year old. They would not create a new investigative feature, but simply reference old ones, by themselves or media they trust. The equivalent of writing "North Korea borders South Korea, and they share a history of hostilities." in an article about Kim's latest missile test.
>As for the "goal" or "tactics" that you found on some substack that is full of scare-quotes with an emotionally written bent -- is subjective at best.
There's plenty reason to suspect BBC is partial, particularly after the recent exposure of their awful edits on Trump's speech[0].
Having spent some time in outbound sales (after tech burn-out), the most important aspect (as many comments say) is "relationships". The best training for that is to go out and make them. We had sales training every single day, so it's really not something you can pick up a book or go to a weekend class and walk away being effective. That said, books and classes are a good way to find your footing.
Never Eat Alone - Keith Ferrazzi (networking & relationship building)
Never Sit in the Lobby - Glenn Poulos (sales & relationships)
Getting to Yes - Roger Fisher (negotiation, particularly "principled negotiation")
The Joy of Selling - Steve Chandler
The Psychology of Selling - Brian Tracy
In one of our quarterly division training, our office manager gave us Dale Carnegie How to Win Friends and Influence People and were told if we learned nothing else, to study that book.
It's been over a decade since my sales time, but the 2 sales techniques I haven't forgotten are: "selling ins't telling" and "feel, felt, found". As you can imagine, they are about relating to people, not giving technical/spec speeches.
It's something you have to practice everyday, make sales a part of your job title -- not simply something you do on top of running the company. An integrated layer no different than other software maintenance task, except the maintenance is the relationships with people you want to sell to.
For any other tech types that may someday find they need sales skills, I highly recommend actual job experience in outbound sales (with a company that provides frequent sales training). It was a massive culture shock that gave me the professional people and relationship skills I struggled with.
It's also not just about the juries. I recall when the "stingray" fake cell tower thing was first spreading across police departments there were articles about how some decided not to prosecute because the defendant had good lawyers that would require the whole setup being exposed. Now there is a lockdown mode on apple that disables 2G. (maybe also, but not sure about, android)
>> Captain Leul Abate (42), an experienced pilot with over 11,500 total flight hours (including 4,067 hours in the Boeing 757/767), was the pilot-in-command. [...] Prior to the crash, Leul had experienced two previous hijackings. The first occurred 12 April 1992 on Flight ETH574, a Boeing 727-260. [...] The second occurred on 17 March 1995, flying a Boeing 737-260. [...] In both cases, the aircraft were undamaged and no one was injured or killed. [...] Leul and Yonas both survived. [...] Both the captain and first officer of the flight received aviation awards, and both continued to fly for Ethiopian Airlines
(flight 961: 125 died, many by drowning from inflating life-vest too early)
I either want Captain Leul Abate to be my pilot -- in-case of a highjacking -- or don't want him to be given his track record with having his flights hijacked...
Anyone have stats on pilots involved in multiple hijackings? 3 in a career seems unreal and doesn't appear to be something tracked based on light searching
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethiopian_Airlines_Flight_961
reply