fj39dkf

> Trying to vilify people and attempting to create an environment to produce massive punitive damages and lawsuits, or to bring political pressure to change staffing decisions dramatically decreases safety. The FAA has spent almost a hundred years building up an environment of cooperation with a shared responsibility to understand failures and enable the changing of the entire aviation industry whenever necessary to promote safety. This has been fabulously successful.

346 dead passengers is definitely not successful or acceptable. You think the rating/MCAS problem doesn't merit further investigation?

"Reactionary" doesn't mean literally "reacting to a problem", it's a political term that comes from the French revolution, referring to monarchists who became organized and motivated as a reaction against the French revolution.

It's more or less synonymous with "conservative" and "right wing" which have similar origins, although today it has more of a pejorative connotation in English, or sometimes specifically refers to people on the colloquial "far-right" who advocate for ethno-nationalism, authoritarianism, military adventurism, nativism, etc.

Are you sure this description of an American tourist didn't come from a 1990s newspaper cartoon? Fanny pack? Really?

Interesting to see all the pro-100%-remote comments here. I worked for a company for about two years. One year in, they decided to go fully remote. The goal was to save money (the business was bootstrapped at the time) and to allow one of the founders to move to where his wife was attending graduate school. I don't feel like our productivity changed much. I enjoyed the flexibility but found myself feeling horribly lonely without the normal day to day interaction. So, they offered to get me a dedicated spot in a co-working space. That helped some, but not as much as being part of an in-person team.

So I ultimately left, although for other reasons. Now I work at a place with a generous WFH policy but a central office. I WFH maybe one or two days a week and this is way better.

I think it depends on the job itself sometimes as well. I work on a data science team, and I've never found a good replacement for doing math on the whiteboard with someone. The communication barrier introduced with a network connection is just painful in that case.

However, I also live in Boston, one of the few American cities with (mostly) functional public transit. My commute is a 10 minute train ride where I can read email/slack and think about what I'm doing that day. Or if the weather is nice, it's a 30-45 minute walk. It's no pain at all to make it into the office.

Those "hipster bubbles" are the areas where most tech innovation is happening. Nobody is saying that insurance companies aren't using .NET.

There are many confounding variables here that make it difficult to draw a convincing conclusion. The ethnic disparity can partially be explained by the fact that white men have higher handgun ownership rates than other demographics (my guess is this is because white men also have higher incomes, not because white men inherently like guns), and such access to guns is associated with increased suicide risk.

I'm sure that's not the whole story though. And statistics on suicides are notoriously unreliable, as many communities consider it shameful and are incentivized to rationalize the person's death with another explanation.

Yes, seriously.

For students and researchers. If you're operating a business you still have to pay for VS licenses, or violate the free license and hope you get big enough fast enough that it's not a problem.

People have rightly mentioned the cost and vendor lock-in issues. The other problem is that - for whatever reason - good engineers simply want nothing to do with the Microsoft ecosystem. In this market, they have other options. So tying your infrastructure to .NET means limiting your hiring pool to mostly 9-to-5er enterprise developers who tend to fix problems by asking Microsoft to sell them the solution. Not exactly the attitude you want at a startup.

Every .NET developer I've worked with had to be painfully dragged out of the Microsoft world into the real one. It's just not worth the effort to hire people who solve problems by asking Microsoft to sell them the answer. Better to pick a technology where the talent pool has legitimately competent engineers.

Obviously it would be nice if a crack team of scientists and engineers ordered some pizzas and had a marathon science session that comes up with something that solves all our problems and lets us continue burning fossil fuels as usual.

But that's simply not how it works, no matter how much money you throw at it. And you won't even have money to throw at it in the US at least, because belief in climate change is a political opinion.

I'm surprised this seems to work so well for you. I've had colleagues do similar things and it pretty much always resulted in them being "managed out", outright fired, or mysteriously lumped into a round of layoffs that otherwise didn't affect their department.