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

Ground stop at JFK due to staffing

fly.faa.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 299 posts

Re: Ground stop at JFK due to staffing

#161

Post by SV_BubbleTime »

paulryanrogers wrote: post #63
SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> clean CR So dastardly that no one seems to be able to explain how dastardly it is.

'Clean' CR after they already rammed through their whole agenda in a huge bill that threatened worse cuts if the government shutdown. Yet it seems they cut with or without a shutdown. Republicans have proven they won't follow the same rules and aren't negotiating in good faith. They'll do whatever they can get away with, and if bad things happen (whether they are opposed or not) then it's anyone else's fault.

Rammed through, is an interesting way to write that they had the votes and passed HR1.

When Democrats had the Admin, Senate, and House, they put the ACA provisions on sunsetting subsidies in. How dastardly are the Republicans that they forced Democrats to do that when it was done with almost zero Republican votes?

Your post is just game. “My side is good and their side is evil”… don’t you get tired of that?

Re: Ground stop at JFK due to staffing

#162

Post by collingreen »

SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #48
rogerrogerr wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think if this was the plan, the right would be insisting on something more outlandish than a clean CR.

> clean CR So dastardly that no one seems to be able to explain how dastardly it is.

What does this mean? If youre implying "clean CR" is perfectly fine can you just say that? If you don't think it's perfectly fine what ARE you trying to say?

Re: Ground stop at JFK due to staffing

#163

Post by eszed »

zermelo wrote: post #128
bee_rider wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could be wrong, but IIRC congress has to explicitly approve the back pay. So, who knows if it’ll happen…

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/24 Passed by Congress in January 2019 and signed by Trump. " Employees furloughed as a result of a lapse in appropriations shall be compensated for the period of the lapse on the earliest date possible after the lapse ends, regardless of scheduled pay dates. "

"Furloughed" is the key term, there. Have they been?

Re: Ground stop at JFK due to staffing

#164

Post by tombert »

cwillu wrote: post #76
johnfn wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, if I heard you say that, I would probably think you had a "bad attitude" as well. Yes, getting paid is an important part of your job, but presumably you could get paid at many different places, and you choose the one you work at because it has additional benefits on top of a purely transactional relationship. It's like telling your girlfriend you're dating her because she's really hot. I'm sure that factored…

The company is not family, will never be family, and will chew you up and spit you out the moment it is better on net for them.

I have a friend who's a few years younger than me, and he was a coworker with me at a previous job. He was fresh out of his masters and this was his first job out of school. We became friends fairly quickly, and during lunch one day I mentioned the above "business transaction" stuff, and mentioning that corporations are not your family. It's fine if you like your job, that's a good thing, but just keep in mind that love you show the job will not be reciprocated.

He thought I was being extremely cynical (and I suppose I kind of was) and he disagreed with me.

About a year later, he felt screwed over by the company, and admitted that maybe I was right. I mentioned it is just a conclusion that nearly anyone comes to when working for the corporate world long enough.

Re: Ground stop at JFK due to staffing

#165

Post by Cheer2171 »

whycome wrote: post #126
Cheer2171 wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you can't understand the article, how do you know the LLM did? Delete this unverified hallucinated slop. Then delete your HN account. If people want an LLM summary of an article, they can do it themselves.

All you’re encouraging is for users to not acknowledge when they use an LLM. You’ll get the same stuff added to threads. Even now, humans contribute unverified slop to threads too - have we ever had a way of verifying what someone contributes other than the occasional citation? A solution might be somewhere in the middle. LLMs aren’t going anywhere, and they will only become more invisible.

Good. The shame is the point. If you're going to rely on an LLM, then take ownership over the words you post under your own account. Just posting "this is what the LLM said" with no other content means they take no responsibility for what they say, but still think they are making a contribution.

"Use it as a tool" is always the line from LLM advocates. Okay. If you used a search engine as a tool to find some source, you don't need to say "I used google to find this," you just present the link as your contribution. You found the source. If it is a bad source, you can't get away blaming the search engine. You fucked up the source.

Same with LLMs. If you actually use it as a tool and not an outsourcing of your own role, then you shouldn't need to disclose. But using it as a tool means more than just typing "summarize this for hackernews" and mindlessly copy pasting. If they summarized, validated, and was confident enough in the summary that they felt they didn't need the "I asked an LLM" disclaimer, then that's a contribution. Maybe it is still wrong. As you say, there is a lot of that on the internet.

So yes, we should be shaming those who admit using it to outsource their role. People who want to make contributions when they are completely unqualified to distinguish between a good and bad contribution will learn to hide their use. Good. People who are both attention addicts needing to always make a contribution and who are now cognitive addicts should live their lives in fear over knowing if what they are saying under their own name will get them ridiculed.

Re: Ground stop at JFK due to staffing

#166

Post by [deleted] »

collingreen wrote: post #156
Figs wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If this continues for much longer, local/state governments can, should, and eventually will commandeer the taxes that currently go to the federal government. There is no point in paying federal tax if the federal government is no longer functional. States are already trying to step up with emergency declarations to enable financial support to work around SNAP being unfunded; passing state laws to redirect useless fed…

Is the Air Force still being paid? We've seen a complete willingness to have the military turned against the people and the tech gap between us citizens and the fully equipped military is staggering. A couple drone swarms and even hungry folks will have to take permanent cover and that's just the stuff declassified. It's an interesting time where a very small number of folks can effectively hold off the entire citize…

[deleted]

Re: Ground stop at JFK due to staffing

#167

Post by tombert »

hshdhdhehd wrote: post #105
tombert wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I got in trouble at a BigCo because I said "we all do this for the money", and they claimed that I had a "bad attitude". But I don't think I was wrong. Work is fundamentally a business transaction; I sell my time and expertise and they give me money and benefits. Ultimately for any job I've had, even jobs that I really loved, if they stopped paying me I'd stop showing up [1]. It's nothing personal, that's just the tr…

Bad attitude != incorrect, of course. Actually good attitude often == not honest.

It was one of those things, I didn't even consider that it would upset people. Like, maybe it's something on the spectrum for me, but when I said it I assumed it was effectively a truism and I didn't think I'd get any pushback because everyone already knew and agreed with it.

It didn't occur to me that people would say I had a bad attitude because I did think that literally everyone I was talking to would agree and I didn't see why they'd be bothered.

Re: Ground stop at JFK due to staffing

#168

Post by svnt »

SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #161
paulryanrogers wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

'Clean' CR after they already rammed through their whole agenda in a huge bill that threatened worse cuts if the government shutdown. Yet it seems they cut with or without a shutdown. Republicans have proven they won't follow the same rules and aren't negotiating in good faith. They'll do whatever they can get away with, and if bad things happen (whether they are opposed or not) then it's anyone else's fault.

Rammed through, is an interesting way to write that they had the votes and passed HR1. When Democrats had the Admin, Senate, and House, they put the ACA provisions on sunsetting subsidies in. How dastardly are the Republicans that they forced Democrats to do that when it was done with almost zero Republican votes? Your post is just game. “My side is good and their side is evil”… don’t you get tired of that?

“We passed clean government funding that cost 20 million people their health care coverage.”

You are falling for semantics games.

Re: Ground stop at JFK due to staffing

#169

Post by mindslight »

collingreen wrote: post #158
mindslight wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Impeachment. Negotiations should start with impeachment. The President is not faithfully executing the laws passed by Congress, and the Supplicating Council has decreed that the only remedy is impeachment. It's time to impeach and convict.

The third time will totally be different guys!

It's one of the very few remaining in-system ways for the Constitutional US Government to continue existing. So yes, I would say it's worth banging that drum again. Maybe Susan Collins has even learned a lesson of her own.

Re: Ground stop at JFK due to staffing

#170

Post by Maxious »

collingreen wrote: post #156
Figs wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If this continues for much longer, local/state governments can, should, and eventually will commandeer the taxes that currently go to the federal government. There is no point in paying federal tax if the federal government is no longer functional. States are already trying to step up with emergency declarations to enable financial support to work around SNAP being unfunded; passing state laws to redirect useless fed…

Is the Air Force still being paid? We've seen a complete willingness to have the military turned against the people and the tech gap between us citizens and the fully equipped military is staggering. A couple drone swarms and even hungry folks will have to take permanent cover and that's just the stuff declassified. It's an interesting time where a very small number of folks can effectively hold off the entire citize…

Not the Air Force but forces in direct control of the president like ICE/Secret Service are being paid in advance to ensure their continued service https://x.com/Sec_Noem/status/1978925656785457247
Post reply on HN