611–620 of 884 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A death every 100 million miles driven in the US. That's pretty safe.
Not compared to flying.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not compared to flying.
True, but it's not an apples-to-apple comparison. If you compare by miles, then flying wins by a lot. If you compare by hour, it's much closer (though I'm pretty sure flying still wins, yes).
The only remedy at this point is to hold executives financially and morally culpable. Anyone opposed to seeing the entire C-suite and board of directors having their bonuses clawed back and sent to jail? I'm not. Let the guillotine come out, I want to see heads roll.
From FAA.gov: > We're responsible for the safety of civil aviation. https://www.faa.gov/about/mission/activities Maybe the people responsible are the people who say they’re responsible?
Why?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The FAA gets authorized by Congress. Congress is actually the one with the constitutional power to legislate, so can override executive agencies like the grandparent describes.
[flagged]
Only a state can challenge a law based on the Supremacy clause.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sounds like a great way to create an airplane company that no competent people will want to run. Might want to think through the game-theoretic consequences a bit further. For example, instead of ranting and howling about prisons and guillotines, you could point to some successful examples of other companies or orgs that have operated in a similar fashion. That might provide more productive grounds for further discus…
> Sounds like a great way to create an airplane company that no competent people will want to run. Is it your assertion that Boeing is currently operated by competent people? They're getting crushed by SpaceX at rockets. How much more of this incompetence will it take before someone does the same to them with airliners? Relying on being "too big to fail" isn't a viable long term strategy. It only lowers the barrier t…
Is it your assertion that they can't get any worse? Because this sounds like a good way to get worse.
You know, they could be killing more than 0.5 people per ten billion passenger miles, right...?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you could make the argument that such regulation falls under the commerce clause as interstate commerce.
Flying between states is a pretty clear cut type of interstate commerce. There is also the bit about regulating transport for post. It doesn’t literally explicitly contain regulations regarding air travel, because it did not exist in the 1700s.
If only the founders would have thought of that problem and included a method for which the constitution could be amended to grant additional powers to the federal government should the people and the states desire it...
But no it is easier to just invent new powers by continual reinterpretation of the documents than actually amending the document as required
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sounds like a great way to create an airplane company that no competent people will want to run. Might want to think through the game-theoretic consequences a bit further. For example, instead of ranting and howling about prisons and guillotines, you could point to some successful examples of other companies or orgs that have operated in a similar fashion. That might provide more productive grounds for further discus…
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Been there. It's half bad if the "managers" can swallow their ego and let developers lead while only just keeping an eye on any potential troubles. At many big corporations these "management" hires are just political. To fill in the certain quotas and tick the boxes. Problems starts if they put their egos first. Then talented staff quit and projects go down the pan.
And BTW, we have a market mechanism for this: bankruptcy. Preferably restructuring, not liquidating, though both are useful. Just leave the job and maybe one day the whole thing gets rewired.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
I think you could make the argument that such regulation falls under the commerce clause as interstate commerce.
However the actual wording is "to Regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States", the original intent to was to give power to congress to regulate how commerce is conducted between the states, i.e prevent the coastal states from having tariffs against the internal states, and prevent the internal states from having export taxes on gains, etc etc etc
The original intent was not to allow the congress regulate individual commercial transactions by citizens that happen to cross state lines.