This reads like an attempt to pass the blame to others. Per capita CO₂ emissions in the US are one of the highest in the world, and significantly higher than those in China or SEA. This is despite the US/Europe moving some of our dirtiest/cheapest manufacturing to that region.
Personal choices matter. See the amount of energy used on air conditioning in the US compared to areas of Europe with comparable weather for a banal example. If we want to significantly reduce emissions it will happen through a combination of personal choices, corporate action and government policy.
"Alaska Airlines placed restrictions on the Boeing plane involved in a dramatic mid-air blowout after pressurisation warnings in the days before Friday's incident, investigators say."
Boeing absolutely deserve every single bit of the criticism they get for the Max, but it's worth keeping in mind that in this instance Alaska possibly share some of the responsibility for flying an aircraft with known issues.
The pressurization warning was a sensor glitch unrelated to the door plug blowout. Even if Alaska had fixed the pressure sensors the door still would have blown out. So I don't see what responsibility they share in the incident.
> On Sunday, the NTSB reported that Alaska Airlines had previously restricted this particular plane from long flights over water, specifically to Hawaii, because an auto pressurization alert light that had illuminated during three prior flights, twice in the days leading up to Friday.
> But aviation experts told NBC News on Monday that based on the information provided thus far by federal authorities the light was going off as the result of a computer glitch of some kind and not indicating there was a mechanical problem on the plane.
> "It’s not unusual in the aviation world for there to be issues with warning lights and most of the time the issue is with the warning light itself," Jeff Guzzetti, a former NTSB investigator. "It’s not like Alaska Airlines ignored it. The fact that it restricted this plane from making flights over water while they were looking into this warning lights issue points to a robust safety culture."
> John Cox, who weighs-in regularly on aviation issues for NBC News, agreed.
> "The pressurization system, from what I’ve read, was acting normally," said Cox, who said he flew Boeing 737's for 15 years. "This appears to be more a sensor problem. But Alaska Airlines, being a conservative airline, said this has happened a couple times now and we need to look into, but let’s not do that over the Pacific Ocean."
> Homendy said at Monday night's news conference that it does appear the auto pressurization system and its alerts were not involved in Friday night's accident, although she cautioned that the investigation was ongoing.
It would depend on what the guidelines and other requirements say with regards to such warnings. It definitely is not a good impression for Alaska for most people, though.
Right, which is why air crash/incident investigations look at all causes. It would be absolutely the wrong conclusion from this to say "the problem is solely Boeing".
The problem can be Boeing, Alaska Airlines and the regulatory system under which they operate since an intervention at any level here would've prevented the incident: Boeing should be doing their job properly, but Alaska Airlines could've done more then the minimum with a plane displaying persistent pressurization problems, and the regulations shouldn't have allowed them to get an exemption to fly with a persistent issue like this on their records since the mitigation wasn't remotely safe.
Not fly the specific aircraft which had three pressurisation warnings in the days prior to incident until they've carried out some checks? They were serious enough that they decided it wasn't safe to fly that plane over water.
Maybe the actions of Alaska Airlines were absolutely fine, but the CEO passing all the blame to Boeing before the incident report is understandable, but a little off to me.
Planes constantly have numerous issues. And there are processes in place on how to deal with them. It seems like the followed all the necessary processes and even did additional non-required steps.
Looking on Google the closest I can find to your claim is the NTSB chair saying it might not be related after she gave out the details of the previous warning lights (as you'd expect in her position before the investigation has completed).
but that's because if they flew over water and had a depressurization event then the plane and everyone on it dies. There aren't a lot of airports between the continental US and Hawaii and jets burn an insane amount of fuel at 10,000' MSL, which almost guarantees a water landing. However, over land, the plane can simply divert and land. And at the time of the incident, Alaska believes the problem was with the light/sensor and not the structure.
I’d appreciate it not being at all possible to transfer funds from my bank to a crypto exchange. If my account has any connection with crypto there’s some kind of crime in progress.
I thought the quotes on the BBC article were quite revealing:
> Mr Zuckerberg said keeping the platform "friendly... will ultimately be the key to its success".
> But Mr Musk responded: "It is infinitely preferable to be attacked by strangers on Twitter, than indulge in the false happiness of hide-the-pain Instagram."
If Threads is a fractionally less toxic version of Twitter, it’ll do quite well.
>>If Threads is a fractionally less toxic version of Twitter, it’ll do quite well.
Toxicity is Twitter's moat.
Its like people going to watch UFC fight, or boxing or something like that. Niceties aren't addictive. You need controversies, trolling and fighting all over to attract people.
That's why people go to Twitter. Not to post Birthday and Vacation pictures.
Is that really true, though? All of the social media today was absolutely packed with all the stuff that everybody now says is absolutely toxic during its rapid growth phase. And users today often talk about how much better it was 10 years ago when it was still the wild west.
> If Threads is a fractionally less toxic version of Twitter, it’ll do quite well.
It will eventually be equally as toxic. Twitter started in a calm setting until the ads, politics, outrage filled it up. Threads will have ads soon and will apply the same Instagram algorithms it had before to promote verified outrage.
Trump is also on both Twitter and Threads. As long as he and other Instagram users are on Threads, then the outrage town hall will continue and will be no better than Twitter.
> Trump is also on both Twitter and Threads. As long as he and other Instagram users are on Threads, then the outrage town hall will continue and will be no better than Twitter.
I don't know, I'm in Europe, I follow zero explicitly political people yet US politics dominates my Twitter feed. I don't get that on Instagram which is all I need to make the service more enjoyable and to feel less toxic than Twitter. The outrage town hall will of course continue on Threads, but hopefully with only those who are activley seeking it.
> What will people talk about if Instagram is friendly
Anything that's not the current American culture wars? The same things most people talk about in their lives when not throthing at the mouth on Twitter. (i.e. comedy, sports, tech, food, animals, jobs, cars, etc.)
And, of course, culture wars will still be discussed, but it doesn't need promoting to those not interested in arguing such things on social media.
Can you please stop posting flamewar comments to HN? You've unfortunately been doing it repeatedly. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for, and we eventually have to ban such accounts.
I've banned some of the other accounts who were posting flamebait stuff in this thread, because they didn't have much history and some look like serial trolls. I don't want to ban your account because it's been around for a while, so if you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and use this site in the intended spirit, we'd be grateful.
Stating facts and citing sources isn't "posting flamewar comments" -- the only "flamewar" was the baseless trolling nonsense posted in the first place, so if you could actually bother to note context rather than jumping to making ridiculous threats, I'd be grateful.
"Another anonymous coward registering a throwaway to make baseless claims" isn't "stating facts and citing sources". It's just garden-variety internet attack/flamewar (ditto for "you have mock outrage", "projecting much?", "keep up the baseless drivel and assumption", and so on).
That sort of thing is not allowed here and we ban accounts that do it, so please don't do it again. You can state facts and cite sources while remaining thoughtful and respectful, so please do that instead.
Edit: We've had to ask you about this more than once before:
No anger or "jumping" (projecting much?), no misinformation - and nor a "sir" - but keep up the baseless drivel and assumption, toxic single-comment throwaway...
This is very different though - it completely covers much of your face and there is no comparable device that is used in public, whereas AirPods are more or less the same design that we’ve seen in earphones for decades only without a cable.
Depends on a case by case basis. There was an article posted recently which said that 1 in 4 people earning >$200k live paycheck to paycheck. It's very easy to succumb to lifestyle inflation and not improve financial security despite higher pay.
> outside of the USA if they piss off Mark Zuckerberg enough they can lose the rest of the world because who would want a phone that doesn't have WhatsApp?
We use WhatsApp by default because of the network effects. FB have no power over Apple here because removing it from iPhones would kill the only reason people use it. The switch to (most likely) Telegram would happen overnight.
Okay, what if FB makes WhatsApp slow, buggy and lacking features instead? Are the Android users be willing to switch to other messenger platforms for the comfort of the iPhone users or are the iPhone users consider the messaging quality just as if they consider camera quality when purchasing a new phone?
I agree that the messaging platforms are not all powerful but they do wield significant power. iPhone is famously good for social media because Instagram and Snapchat camera integration sucked and that was something people consider when buying a new phone.
So there must be a point where switching to a different phone to improve communications is less painful than making all your social circle switch platform for you.
I personally doubt it. Most of the markets where Whatsapp is THE messaging app is also where iPhone has low penetration.
At least taking the example of India, if Whatsapp were to stop supporting iOS, then people would still continue to use Whatsapp in their Android phones.
Shifting all responsibility to producers is about as helpful as shifting it all to consumers. Clearly there is responsibility on both sides. Burning gas for cooking or heating is bad for emissions, so it is reasonable for people to avoid doing so for longer than necessary. Same goes for producers burning fossil fuels for electricity, etc.
Personal choices matter. See the amount of energy used on air conditioning in the US compared to areas of Europe with comparable weather for a banal example. If we want to significantly reduce emissions it will happen through a combination of personal choices, corporate action and government policy.