It may be auto-updating by default, but that can be trivially disabled. Likewise, their cloud connectivity/management is optional. I'm running without issue multiple air-gapped Ubnt networks using their self-hosted controller software.
Perhaps there is some new watered down usage (like what happened to "literally" or "bricked") but that is precisely why people use the term "air-gapped" - to denote networks with PHYSICAL separation from other means of access.
(Of course, if you connect an AP, it's no longer air-gapped."
All your computers are plugged into the mains for electricity... Always, always the thing that's ubiqutious is the perfect entrance for the oppressors, since noone suspects anything about those innocent things.
Yeh but it is still closed source, no?
I guess if it is air gapped that could be fine, but we are talking mid level network gear here, so for 99% of its use, it isn't air gapped. It is enabling broader connectivity.
So you would have to trust the closed source software at some point.
FWIW Google Workspace is indeed a subscription - it’s their business-focused offering, whereas Google One is consumer-focused. That said, there’s nothing preventing individuals or families from using Google Workspace - I do, and have for over a decade.
Workspace allows you to use your own domain and provide email/collaboration services for a number of people under the same domain.
Amazon rightly is very careful about closing accounts. This is why you have had a hard time thus far. When you say “invalid email accounts”, what do you mean? Are they perhaps addresses on a domain that you control? If so, it’s a very simple fix. You just re-create those addresses, then go through the “forgot password” process to regain access to those accounts.
If the addresses are on a domain that you do not control, well, that’s a lesson learned for you I think. In this case, you’ll need to continue working with support to explore what can be done.
We faced a similar problem with consultants on an old AWS account that had become obsolete. A week of back-and-forth with support ensued as we tried to figure out how to close the account. The process seemed excessively complicated since the only way to remove the consultants, who were merely members and not admins, required them to add a billing method first. It felt unreasonable.
Ultimately, we were able to close the account with the consultants' cooperation.
I get your point that it's wise to remove consultants promptly after their contract concludes, and I agree. However, this doesn't take away from the fact that AWS's account closing policies appear to be less than user-friendly.
No they’re not. I once had an unpaid bill of something like $1.36 from AWS. They shut that down and banned the whole account. I can never again use AWS with that email address lol.
It's certainly a lesson learned about who to hire and how to wind things down. I wasn't aware there was any issue until I started seeing these charges keep rolling through and had to roll up my sleeves and do my best to resolve it. Just as magazines and other services are not (now) legally allowed to make it difficult to cancel a service - I don't know how AWS can get away with this. If I establish that I am the legal owner of the business entity (who is not technical enough to deal with the problem), which could reasonably be done, it seems perfectly reasonable that there should be some kill switch available. What if I had a rogue employee who setup a run-away process in order to rack up charges? I can appreciate there is a risk management aspect to it for AWS - but this in my view rises to the level of deceptive business practice.
I think perhaps Hashicorp sees terraform as a loss-leader, at least partially intended to be an on-ramp to their other, much more costly tools like Vault and Nomad.
In situations where there many diversions, sometimes secondary airports either get too busy to accept additional A/C or run out of space or crews to deal with them.
Sure, that makes sense. Does that likely mean there were other flights with even less fuel that had to land ahead of this plane, or how do they triage that situation? It seems like a failure to triage properly if one plane has to glide, but maybe I'm naive about how close all of the other planes are to gliding.
Planes diverted to Columbus until they couldn’t accept any more diversions, at which point the rest diverted elsewhere. If any planes had a genuine fuel emergency where Columbus was the only option, other planes with more fuel would have been rediverted elsewhere.
Your intuition is correct. The story as told by the parent is likely just due to a misunderstanding (or just lack of knowledge) of 1) the pilot's words over the PA and 2) standard procedures used in commercial air travel.
Especially in emergencies. Lights are turned off so passenger eyes can get used to the dim light and see the exit lights (which are not bright) better.
There's no possible way the story is true as relayed by the parent. If the flight was indeed forced into a situation where there was an unpowered glide into landing, that airframe and crew would both be grounded for some time, not turned around and put back out for the continuance of the flight.
