gfo

You use standard pressure (29.92 inHg) above transition altitude, which, in the United States, is 18,000 feet. Pilots wouldn't be changing the altimeter after climbing past this point, and would start using local values once descending through it again.

Of course, your initial point is still correct: there could be slight variations if using those local settings and getting different values, but you'd only see that below transition altitude.

Most employees at tech firms, Microsoft included, are awash in their employer's stock. It's not in their best interest to intentionally tank the stock.

This is almost the entire thesis of Zero Trust Networking principles. Somehow, the user AND the device need to attest to validity during the authorization process.

"Validity" for a device can mean many things (latest patches, is running anti-virus software, among other things).

A general user probably doesn't need to attest to these things. I would argue that anyone trying to access a corporate or some other organization's network SHOULD be required to attest to these things given the cyber threat landscape. The caveat: those same entities should provide or heavily subsidize the platforms they require (work computers). It's their IP at risk. I'm not so naive to think they would actually do this with BYOD initiatives, unfortunately.

For personal users on personal devices, I agree this might go too far (but some principles like MFA are best practices).

Yikes. Despite loving this album, I really thought there might be merit to this lawsuit.

And then... this article. Smells like a money grab to me as well.

I see the point as well, but it seems like a lot of theatrics at this point.

For example: the rainbow flag has always been for the LGBTQIA+ community. Now the flag has the added triangles with white, brown, aqua, and magenta for... black and trans folks? If that visibility makes folks feel included then by all means, but the rainbow colors on that flag weren't meant to specifically represent each aspect of that community to begin with. Maybe I've missed issues of representation in that community but I also don't think of LGBTQIA+ as an organization, just a sort of flag to represent non-cis folks.

And then there's Latinx, which is interesting because >98% of folks actually from Latino countries loathe that and don't recognize it. It's purely an American appropriation of another culture's terminology by the same folks who generally raise issues of appropriation.

I'm trying my best to be an ally but I have trouble keeping up with a lot of these things, even those which are a bit paradoxical. The best course of action I've found is to just treat everyone with kindness, respect, empathy, and an open mind.

What law would you propose to block private companies from deciding who they do and do not want to serve?

I see the obvious slippery-slope argument being made all over the place but the comparisons to the bakery refusing service to a gay couple are apt.

The concerns are over people who clearly want to leverage the platforms to induce violence (read: QAnon). If there are legitimate concerns over imminent violence, there is no legal obligation to halt service but there is absolutely a moral one.

And the free market allows others companies to continue providing service if they want. If the concern is over companies with massive market share then wouldn't your concern better be addressed by antitrust laws?

One of my favorite games growing up, and somehow always kept going back to it despite already knowing how to solve all the puzzles.

Seemed like a natural pivot to become a movie someday as well, though I could never see it being a smash hit at the box office.

Makes sense. With respect to the environment, I don't pay much attention to racing so I don't know if that would stick out as much to me personally.

I think shadows are more prevalent and even color is not as vivid as many videos we see today either. The image is sharp though!

The quality is impressive, and I've seen this before with older footage which has been re-scanned in higher quality. Still, there's some characteristic about old footage which sort of tells me it was shot a long time ago.

I want to say it's that the footage seems darker, and you can obviously make a case for classic brand logos being a giveaway.

I noticed this as well: the 'exodus' is comprised (so far) of companies which haven't innovated in a long time.

At least according to the linked article, three companies so far have moved to Texas. The word 'exodus' seems to be doing a lot of heavy lifting.

The bigger 'exodus' might be the glut of folks who temporarily moved away from the Bay Area at the start of the pandemic and have made those moves permanent. I don't have hard data to back up whether that would qualify as an exodus (and not sure what number is required for that classification either - just that it's greater than three), other than anecdotal evidence and personally knowing a few folks who moved back to their hometowns permanently from that area.

This might be the wrong forum for my question. Please direct me to the correct place if that's true.

I don't use the coax connection in my home at all. Meanwhile, there is a coax jack on my roof in case I ever wanted to put a TV there and use actual cable.

I assume it's possible to mount an antenna on my roof and use the existing coax wiring to connect to the dongle FlightAware offers? Has anyone done something similar?

I haven't seen this, but I do run a PiHole along with uBlock Origin and rarely visit Facebook's site directly.

Can I assume you aren't using either of these tools?

I want to say no. It does sound close, but at least with what you've cited it gives the appearance of choice.

Possibly, but advertising is one of the first things companies cut in a down economy. I want to believe these companies have good intent, but it could also be construed as opportunistic: "we were already cutting our advertising budget, so this just gives us a way to capitalize."

To show they believe in what they're doing, they should donate what they would have spent on Facebook ads to causes which promote voter registration and improving minority representation in tech.

Isn't this the same risk anyone enlisting in the military also runs?

Still, I agree - it would be a lot easier to avoid these awful posts if people had to pay to be on the platform. It wouldn't be perfect of course, but it at least provides a barrier to entry and a slightly harsher consequence if you forfeit your membership fee when banned for inappropriate content.