Which bomb would advertise itself as such.. this is something I’d expect in the movie Airplane!, not something to happen in real life.
Bomb threats are a thing.
United Airlines 767 returns to Newark after Bluetooth name sparks alert
211–220 of 1001 posts
Re: United Airlines 767 returns to Newark after Bluetooth name sparks alert
#212I once consulted on some aviation-related software (not the safety work prominent on my resume), and a company announcement came through, that you must never use a few specific words commonly heard in software development. The two no-no words I recall were "crash" and "bomb". Don't write them in code or documents, don't say them on the phone or videoconf, etc. Those terms have senses that people in aviation take extr…
This is trying to sanewash totally insane levels of risk aversion. Do you think terrorists are really going to name their Bluetooth speaker "bomb"? Do you think this behaviour has any meaningful true positives? This is the kind of brainworms thinking that has people throwing our their 150ml liquids out at TSA and taking their shoes off.
[dead]
Re: United Airlines 767 returns to Newark after Bluetooth name sparks alert
#213Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is trying to sanewash totally insane levels of risk aversion. Do you think terrorists are really going to name their Bluetooth speaker "bomb"? Do you think this behaviour has any meaningful true positives? This is the kind of brainworms thinking that has people throwing our their 150ml liquids out at TSA and taking their shoes off.
What if it is not the terrorists naming them? What if it is a good samaritan trying to warn the pilot but this is the only way they can get a message out?
> What if it is a good samaritan trying to warn the pilot but this is the only way they can get a message out?
Then you quietly divert to the nearest airport. Asking for the speaker to be turned off on PA and then chugging all the way back to Newark makes it plain nobody was acting seriously.
Re: United Airlines 767 returns to Newark after Bluetooth name sparks alert
#214I once consulted on some aviation-related software (not the safety work prominent on my resume), and a company announcement came through, that you must never use a few specific words commonly heard in software development. The two no-no words I recall were "crash" and "bomb". Don't write them in code or documents, don't say them on the phone or videoconf, etc. Those terms have senses that people in aviation take extr…
This is trying to sanewash totally insane levels of risk aversion. Do you think terrorists are really going to name their Bluetooth speaker "bomb"? Do you think this behaviour has any meaningful true positives? This is the kind of brainworms thinking that has people throwing our their 150ml liquids out at TSA and taking their shoes off.
1. Are super-organized, highly-capable, fully-sane terrorists the only threat? Or does the threat model include mentally-ill / personality disorder people, who might make mistakes, or taunt those whose job it is to stop them? Or include people of either kind, who create diversions? Or include people who make a statement in an unexpected way?
2. Did the captain, flight control, and everyone else who needed to decide, have definitive information that the report was only an innocuous Bluetooth advertisement for an innocuous consumer device, and somehow knew that no other threat was going on? If not, then I'd commend whomever decided to follow protocol, and err on the side of inconveniencing a lot of people, rather than risk tragedies that the protocol was designed to prevent.
Re: United Airlines 767 returns to Newark after Bluetooth name sparks alert
#215Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, it means none of that. It's code. No one that matters looks at it or cares. Making unnecessary changes to code does zero in solving any societal ills.
[flagged]
> it's fine to name all your variables slurs then?
Hyperbole. Renaming “master” directories was a total circlejerk endeavor by the same crowd that came up with Latinx.
Re: United Airlines 767 returns to Newark after Bluetooth name sparks alert
#216Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s not just the beating and killing of people. That seems bad enough, but the recent episode of ‘settlers’ torturing a dog is horrific. https://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/22/world/middleeast/settler-...
[flagged]
Discussion around it quickly turns into a ‘yes but look what they did’.
It baffles me. A rich, powerful democracy should be held to a higher standard. But… yes, both sides have been terrible.
Which side is going to work towards a peaceful coexistence?
Re: United Airlines 767 returns to Newark after Bluetooth name sparks alert
#217Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Totally different situation. People are removing those words as a sign of respect and a very small number of people are chasing down those that don't because it implies an open lack of respect.
My personal experience is also that some of the more extreme noninclusive language policing in some circles has faded away to a significant degree.
Re: United Airlines 767 returns to Newark after Bluetooth name sparks alert
#218Re: United Airlines 767 returns to Newark after Bluetooth name sparks alert
#219I once consulted on some aviation-related software (not the safety work prominent on my resume), and a company announcement came through, that you must never use a few specific words commonly heard in software development. The two no-no words I recall were "crash" and "bomb". Don't write them in code or documents, don't say them on the phone or videoconf, etc. Those terms have senses that people in aviation take extr…
I read somewhere years ago of panic ensuing when a pilot greeted a colleague on the radio with "Hi, Jack". Whether it happened for real or not, the idea of a simple word causing fighter jets to scramble is just crazy although fully understandable in the world post 9/11.
Re: United Airlines 767 returns to Newark after Bluetooth name sparks alert
#220Which bomb would advertise itself as such.. this is something I’d expect in the movie Airplane!, not something to happen in real life.
I completely agree from a logical perspective. However if the plane blew up and it came out that some passengers had posted online that there was a “bomb” blue tooth device and they didn’t turn around… the court of public opinion would be pretty harsh. This was more or less their only choice from a liability perspective.
Would it though? I'm unconvinced.