Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

US regulator considers stripping Boeing's right to self-inspect planes

on.ft.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 367 posts

Re: US regulator considers stripping Boeing's right to self-inspect planes

#341

Post by jeffrallen »

yyyfb wrote: post #107
cromka wrote: post #105

Can someone explain why the focus is on FAA, while there's also EASA and others? Do they also allow Boeing to self-inspect and self-evaluate themselves like FAA does? Can FAA and Boeing be really the only ones to blame here? If Boeing was in bed with FAA that much and they were dropping the ball on safety, shouldn't EASA's own process take note of that and extra-scrutinize Boeing planes during certification for Europ…

I don't know if that's at play, but the specific door configuration that Alaska 1282 had is apparently not that common in Europe. I'm sure EASA will take note though.

Pretty sure airplanes in Europe have safety critical bolts in them, and pretty sure they need to be torqued right and double checked.

So the doors are kind of a distraction from the apparent fact that Boeing has forgotten how to make airplanes which do not threaten the lives of all those in and below them.

Re: US regulator considers stripping Boeing's right to self-inspect planes

#342

Post by verve_rat »

int_19h wrote: post #279
verve_rat wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like South Carolina follows a Westminster style government. Look at the UK, NZ, AU governments (and I assume Canada, don't know for sure): A King, or Governor-General, with the theoretical power to override parliament. A Head of State which can issue decrees and makes important decisions "on the advice of the Prime Minster". Basically a figure head and a bunch of legal fictions wrapped up in the concept of "Th…

Westminster system is not a particularly good example of checks and balances, though, given that whole parliamentary supremacy thing. A Westminster-style Parliament is essentially unanswerable to anyone but the voters; and even then it can unilaterally change election laws, so it can circumvent the voters as well. If the courts deem some act of Parliament unlawful, the latter can just pass another act explicitly decl…

Yeah, parliament is sovereign, the checks and balances are (meant to be) internal to parliament.

That may break down a bit with modern parties and modern elections, I guess we will see if these systems still work in another couple of hundred years.

Re: US regulator considers stripping Boeing's right to self-inspect planes

#343

Post by pi-e-sigma »

Tesl wrote: post #315
pi-e-sigma wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you think anyone can get their trades reverted on the stock exchange if they ask nicely? Oopsie, I clicked the wrong button, now please revert the trade that lost me some money. If some get such preferential treatment it's clear cut case of corruption, you don't need to catch them with the proverbial smoking gun to know it

Still waiting for all this evidence of yours. Much easier to just go by gut feeling though isn't it.

https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2018-31

What now? I'm sure you are going to say that they settled because they were innocent, right? And that they halted trades 'by mistake', not on a purpose

Re: US regulator considers stripping Boeing's right to self-inspect planes

#344

Post by roenxi »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #338
roenxi wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's not in your interest for them to pollute the air... Not at all a settled point. There is a strong correlation between air pollution and rapidly improving quality of life. I think it probably is in my interest. The best salary I drew in my life was when I lived in the region with the worst air pollution and that wasn't an accident. I think the evidence suggests governments have crippled society's capability to…

> There is a strong correlation between air pollution and rapidly improving quality of life. There is a strong correlation between air pollution and industrialization and a strong correlation between industrialization and quality of life. That doesn't mean pollution improves quality of life, it means you want industrialization without pollution. To take a specific example, the ban on leaded gasoline was Good. Lead is…

> it means you want industrialization without pollution.

If we have the option of industrialisation without pollution, why are the corporations polluting the air in your example? Nobody pollutes for the sheer joy of annoying their neighbours. The issue we face in the modern world is nobody knows how to do industrialisation without pollution. Governments banning pollution has just stifled industrialisation. Industrialisation and pollution is a better equilibrium point for all of us than the slow choking out of industry.

The natural market equilibrium is typically fast improvement. Moving away from the equilibrium because the elites are inconvenienced by the side effects is rarely a good idea. I'll give you leaded fuels were a mistake, but by and large the anti-industrial policies have been more harm than good.

Re: US regulator considers stripping Boeing's right to self-inspect planes

#346

Post by [deleted] »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #309
mulmen wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is another failure mode. The prosecutor can refuse to prosecute a guilty party. This can happen for several reasons. 1) corruption, don’t prosecute your friends. 2) ideology, the law or punishment are “unfair” or the defendant is “misunderstood” or “disadvantaged” according to the prosecutor. 3) politics, to advance their political careers prosecutors want an unblemished record of successful convictions. It is…

> The prosecutor can refuse to prosecute a guilty party. But this is intended as one of the checks and balances. If the legislature passes an unjust law or one with unjust applications, the prosecutor can exercise their discretion and not enforce it, acting as a check on the tyranny of the majority. You could remove prosecutorial discretion and require prosecutors to proceed against anyone someone wants to file charg…

[deleted]

Re: US regulator considers stripping Boeing's right to self-inspect planes

#347

Post by philistine »

gottorf wrote: post #103
wanderingmind wrote: post #101

As an aside, For all those who talk about corruption and getting money out of politics I suggest reading Federalist 10 by Madison. Its a deep analysis of a need for a republican democracy. Any government that depends on human virtuousness will fail. The only way to have a sustainable government is to have strong checks and balances and putting multiple factions with different interests against one another.

> Any government that depends on human virtuousness will fail. The only way to have a sustainable government is to have strong checks and balances and putting multiple factions with different interests against one another. Absolutely! Any form of government that depends on an unbroken line of "good people" in power will fail, and fail much sooner than anybody thinks. Modern China has already reached the end of their…

Every Westminster-style democracy by your logic should have turned into a dictature. There is nothing stopping a governor general from seizing power but tradition and expectations.

Re: US regulator considers stripping Boeing's right to self-inspect planes

#348

Post by wegfawefgawefg »

zmgsabst wrote: post #287
wegfawefgawefg wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know countries are different, but there are many people who are pro severely minimal government in the USA. And it does not seem so unlike the initial intentions for the country either. If you frame it as anarchy it sounds like screaming chaos. But consider for a moment that the vast majority of laws that exist that are enforcable now only recently came to be.

There’s also real trade offs: I had fiber to my condo a decade ago in Thailand, but still don’t reliably in the US. Regulations and government monopolies on poles and conduits slow development at the same time they reduce fires and clutter on the poles. (Whoa are there some real tangles in Thailand.) There’s a reasonable debate on where and how much we should regulate things.

I'm not concerned with slow development and the occasional fire. I'm more concerned with rampant over-regulation. Being required to have a license to put up a non load bearing wall in my own house... The homeless in the US that cannot afford the minimum ordained "humane" dwelling size. Minimum parking lot size requirements. Minimum wage. The fed modulating the currency value with the goal of INCREASING unemployment. Homes being required to have running water and electricity, be above a certain size, or you aren't allowed to live in them (Even if they are way wayy out in the middle of the woods). $20,000 driveway concrete keying fees intended to hurt companies that prevent basic individual rights on personal property.

Regulation raises costs, and raises price floors. Generally you gain some quality, but don't see the ghost it unleashes.

I understand we need building codes in cities so fires don't burn down all of New York, and train, plane, drug inspection laws. But I think overall, non-violent crime in the world is absolutely over-regulated.

For some reason people usually assume there are no costs to regulation, and only benefit. I think its a just psychology. Regulation is a thin line that requires dancing on. Always assume there's a ghost cost behind a decision, even if it seems harmless. Even something as well intended as banning candy from the front of grocery stores to cut childhood obesity could unroll into a huge problem as each actor solves their local issue, and generate an emergent behavior. I'll function as an annoying representative of this concept.

Re: US regulator considers stripping Boeing's right to self-inspect planes

#349

Post by AnimalMuppet »

krapp wrote: post #274
InTheArena wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Supreme Court itself wasn't really defined by the constitution - they conveyed a need for it - but not how to structure it, given the lack of historical data. They also foresaw the problems with parties but didn't take enough steps to retire them. This is why things like Roe V. Wade are (/were) so controversial. Does the Supreme Court have the right to imagine new rights to abortion with no textual basis in the C…

The Supreme Court's power of judicial review isn't defined in the text of the Constitution. It was applied by the Court to itself not by interpreting the text but reading between the lines and deciding it should have been there. It seems to me that if we can accept that then we've already accepted that the Supreme Court can imagine new rights with no textual basis in the Constitution. After all, the Constitution isn'…

Not the Bill of Rights, either. The Declaration of Independence.

No, there's another question on abortion. Is abortion a right that anyone should have? Bluntly, is it murder, or not? If it's murder, then it's not a right that anyone should have, whether or not that inconveniences the mother.

So do you regard the fetus as human (and therefore entitled to the same protection as other humans), or not? That's not a question that you can answer by law, or by constitution. That's a religion/philosophy/worldview question, on which there is no consensus. Which is why the abortion question is such a mess.

But nothing short of resolving "is it human, or not?" is going to solve the question. If it's human, then killing it is murder, and compromise is completely unacceptable. You just don't compromise on murdering people.

Re: US regulator considers stripping Boeing's right to self-inspect planes

#350

Post by krapp »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #349
krapp wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Supreme Court's power of judicial review isn't defined in the text of the Constitution. It was applied by the Court to itself not by interpreting the text but reading between the lines and deciding it should have been there. It seems to me that if we can accept that then we've already accepted that the Supreme Court can imagine new rights with no textual basis in the Constitution. After all, the Constitution isn'…

Not the Bill of Rights, either. The Declaration of Independence. No, there's another question on abortion. Is abortion a right that anyone should have? Bluntly, is it murder, or not? If it's murder, then it's not a right that anyone should have, whether or not that inconveniences the mother. So do you regard the fetus as human (and therefore entitled to the same protection as other humans), or not? That's not a quest…

> Is abortion a right that anyone should have? Bluntly, is it murder, or not? If it's murder, then it's not a right that anyone should have, whether or not that inconveniences the mother.

You're oversimplifying the argument, because not every case of killing another human being is considered murder. "Murder" is a legal construct. The right to kill another human being does exist in certain circumstances, such as in self defense, warfare or capital punishment, but the right to commit "murder" does not. The US has an entire Constitutional amendment to protect the right of people to kill other people "in defense of a free state."

Even if one does concede that a zygote at the moment of conception is fully equal to human being, it still doesn't follow that abortion is murder. Especially not when the health of the mother is threatened (which would arguably make abortion in that case a matter of self defense.)

And it's honestly weird to me that shooting a person will be defended to the ends of the earth by Americans as sacrosanct, while in numerous states it's now a crime to even search the web for a morning after pill, and women are forced to carry even stillborn fetuses to term. Let's not pretend there is even an objective definition of "human" in regards to American jurisprudence, there never has been.

As to whether someone should have that right, it exists whether anyone wants it to or not. The question at hand is whether government should be allowed to abridge that right, or made to respect it. I believe there is no argument that the government should be allowed to abridge the right to abortion if the test is strict constitutional originalism, and the intent of the founders relative to their culture. When the Constitution was ratified, abortion was seen as a personal choice, shameful in the way that everything related to women was shameful, but not illegal. Rightly a matter left to the people.

Post reply on HN