I worked for Boeing designing aircraft parts. I am not a pilot. I worked at the direction of my boss, who was a pilot. He was the gatekeeper of my work.
He'd also take me up flying, and would let me try the controls a bit. I trusted and valued his pilot's judgement.
Many other engineers at Boeing were also pilots. Friends of mine are pilots. My father was a combat pilot in two wars.
Airplane mechanics have very little decision making power. They go strictly by the book. I worked on writing instructions for the mechanics who would be maintaining and checking my gearbox design. It went into excruciating detail.
I would wager that the better mechanics were ones who were pilots, as they'd know in their bones how important their job was.
I have some patents, and I worked with patent lawyers to file them. The patent lawyers didn't understand diddly squat about my inventions. They knew how to fill out the required forms, though.
Depends on if you're referring to experience defrauding the American public, or protecting the American public. That can have different answers depending on what which side of the transaction you sit.
For a specific group of people in the world anything but "USA nr1" is hard to image, I understand. Can the nuanced take be: Europe does it better sometimes? Not the best slogan but you're not in marketing
If it is operating mechanically, then it is following a process chosen by the developers who wrote the code. They work for the company, so the consequences are still the company's responsibility.
The car is following a process chosen by Mercedes' engineers (to go forward when the user presses the accelerator.) The newsfeed is likewise following a mechanistic process driven by user input (they wouldn't be showing misinformation if users weren't uploading and sharing them.)
Shouldn't all sites have some kind of bandwidth / cost limiting in place? Not to say that AI crawlers shouldn't be more careful, but there are always malicious actors on the internet, seems foolish not to have some kind of defense in place
The big three cloud providers (AWS/GCP/Azure) have collectively decided that you don't want to set a spending limit actually, so they simply don't let you.
The big three cloud providers are the most expensive by a factor of 10-100x, and shouldn't be used under any circumstances unless you really, really need specific features from them.
It's harder to do right then you think. The first dynamic bandwidth (and concurrent connection) limiter that I wrote was to protect a site against Google in part!
> We have IP-based rate limiting in place for many of our endpoints, however these crawlers are coming from a large number of IP addresses, so our rate limiting is not effective.
Do you have something else in mind? Just shut down the whole site after a certain limit?
I'm not sure how to separate this mindset from one that would have commercial buildings not be required to include elevators and wheelchair ramps. Do you also think that's an unfair burden to put on the roughly-90% of people who are not mobility-impaired? (Not implying any judgement either way, just curious if this is a consistent viewpoint).
I think one difference is that there isn't a great alternative option in the case of commercial buildings -- if you have a job in a given building that doesn't accommodate your disability, you can't just go find a different building. But insofar as food is concerned, you could pay more for more carefully-manufactured food, or just cook for yourself
Exactly. It's like insurance, even if you have no sympathy, you're probably ok paying a little for other people's accidents because you could just as easily have one. Allergens are different, though.
This sort of thought implies not believing in insurance of any kind. Why should people pay into a common fund when only a small percentage of them will ever use it.
People can develop allergies during their lifetime, it's not just something that you're born with. There's also ongoing studies trying to desensitise people's allergies so that they can deal with foods more easily. So a person's allergy status can and does change during their lifetime.
But my message was about the general principle of insurance being the very thing your comment was against. The situation where the vast majority of people pay some cost of which only a few need to utilise.
> People can develop allergies during their lifetime, it's not just something that you're born with.
Sure, but the likelihood of that is low enough that insuring against that isn't worth it for most people
> But my message was about the general principle of insurance being the very thing your comment was against. The situation where the vast majority of people pay some cost of which only a few need to utilise.
No, the principle of insurance is that people pay to hedge against some event that has a reasonable likelihood of happening to them at some point. Whether it's a majority or a minority paying for it is not central to the concept of insurance.
Nope. Assume you have insurance with a one-time fee of $X. It insures against a single kind of event that happens with 60% probability, and pays out $1.6X. So the majority of people are likely to have the event happen to them. The EV of the cost to the insurer is then $1.6X * 0.6 = $0.96X, so the books are expected to balance.
Obviously I'm ignoring variance in this calculation, but you can easily adjust the numbers to give a margin of safety.
You have an insurer which insures you against an even that happens 1% of the time, but you are its one and only customer. The event happens to you, so the insurer has to pay you out. Since it doesn't have any more money than what you paid into it, it goes bankrupt and you do not get paid.
For insurance to work more people have to pay into the system than people who receive payment, otherwise the insurer will go bankrupt.
Yes? If the government can find a better way to help people with disabilities, great. But small business being sued because a booth is 6 inches too small, or universities having to take down lectures because they lacked close captioning seems to clearly go to far to me. People seem to have a terrible time understanding diffused societal costs and opportunity costs.
I don’t think either of those things is in the spirit of the ADA. ADA requires reasonable accommodation. So if it would be unreasonable, the law says the accommodation isn’t necessary. What I see in those two instances is judicial overreach and a college not wanting to appear insensitive.
Some day if you find yourself with limited mobility you will be thankful the ADA requires the things it does, because you would find it challenging to live in society without it. The market of “disabled people wanting to shop in a store” is vanishingly small and totally unserved without at least some regulation. I’m sure it offends your free market principles, but the free market isn’t the best thing for all of us.
reply