slededit

2007 was In the shadow of the post 2000 crash. People were still debating with me if going in to Computer Science even made sense (aren’t they sending all those jobs to India?). The financial crisis would happen just a few months later and take almost 10 years to recover.

There’s a bias when looking at the past. We tend to assume the future was both inevitable and easily predictable. Not like these uncertain times today.

Now pre-2000s was a little different. VCs were taking to me on the phone about my “robotics” company. I was 10.

Fixed is much too strong a word. Mitigated is more descriptive. From your link:

> This fix is widely seen as a stopgap measure, as it only makes the attack up to 65,536 times harder. An attacker willing to send billions of packets can still corrupt names.

He is in the style of Larry King, who famously doesn't do research so he can put himself in the shoes of the audience and ask questions that would be on their mind. It's a valid technique and works well with a laymen audience. What you are describing is a totally different type of show that goes more in depth on fewer subjects.

Because the FTC only needs to look at it once for them to give you a big fine or put you out of business. They take time but they do get around to these things. I was watching an old taped documentary on YouTube, and when I looked up the products in the commercials a good number of them were taken down by the FTC.

They don't completely solve the problem, but it would be much harder to evacuate the cities without the highway system in place.

> You don't vote for the prime minister. You vote for the party representative in your area.

The MPP in my riding gave that line when she came by. We got Ford, and this particular MPP is the least responsive in the entire provincial parliament. Whatever sympathy I had for that line of reasoning is now lost, the fact is your MP or MPP has very little individual power. Much less than a representative has in the USA.

I'm almost certain "expense of human lives" didn't come up as a factor on any of the merger pitch decks. Frankly its a huge leap to see that a merger of two successful and relatively safe aircraft manufacturers would be intentionally at the expense of human lives.

Reliability (ETOPS regulations), as well as the fact long hauls are usually fewer larger flights meaning they use larger aircraft.

Regulators should not pressure a companies unrelated business lines to effect change elsewhere. If the company is doing something illegal then target that specific activity.

You don't see a problem with them threatening even their non-Libra business lines with "additional scrutiny"? The letter directly threatens malicious investigation.

How many KM remaining depends on the terrain, traffic, driving technique, weather and a host of other factors. Nobody is expecting 100% accuracy just a rough estimate. They are already mentally doing the conversion anyways.