991–1000 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
[flagged]
You can't post like this, regardless of how bad another comment is or you feel it is.
If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That is a very, very, very different statement than "I'm calling the FBI." Yes, but on an aircraft the captain is the dictator. They can do basically whatever they want within the confines of law and company policy - and honestly with enough seniority, which the captain on a transatlantic flight has a lot of - they can probably ignore company policy once or twice and get away with it and keep their job. As far as I…
I'm well aware of the law. I was a full-time flight instructor for years, and the relevant regulation is the first one I taught when introducing students to the regs. But I'm not talking about whether the captain has final responsibility and authority for the operation of the aircraft. I'm talking about whether it's sane to escalate directly from something that is very much not an explicit threat of violence, to invo…
It was for ignoring captain's orders.
They were asked politely once to shut off their device, and chose to ignore that order.
This is a bit of a signal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, I do not see that. The captain is not a dictator on the plane. They can act according to reasonable and credible threats but their power is not infinite. They do not have the power to kick everyone off of the plane that's, say, wearing a yellow shirt. If a fight breaks out then arrest the person that started a fight. But if your argument is "we can't let X happen because it might start a fight" then maybe conside…
I'm always confused as to why there's such a trend on the internet of romanticizing pilot's judgement and whatever they arbitrarily decide to do when flying a plane. Like videos of some pilot refusing to fly the plane because something feels off. And everyone in the comment praises the pilot and says that whatever maintenance said must be wrong and the pilot's instinct is some sort of all-seeing, all-encompassing ent…
Think about this whatever you want. This system works, and the rules were written in blood.
Captain having the ultimate authority is the case on the high seas as well. We have centuries of this being in place.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know what the right answer is to people doing weird stuff in enclosed places with a captive audience is. The wifi name probably should have been ignored. But the incidents of people airdropping profane pictures to randos on planes...
> I don't know what the right answer is to people doing weird stuff in enclosed places with a captive audience is. Punish the people who act. Seriously, think about the fear here. That someone's trivial to ignore tacky political statement causes what problem? That it causes a fight to erupt? Arrest the person who actually starts the fight . Do not police the actions of reasonable people just because they might upset…
If it was seen by nobody, it wouldn't be named that way.
And it wouldn't be brought to captain's attention.
Also: there are 300 people on a large flight. A lot of people put their phone in airplane mode, and then have to reconnect their Bluetooth headphones.
>You don't have to see it again.
You don't have to see it once.
The airplane isn't a place for political rallies, and the captain figured that one person seeing this is enough.
>Anyone that is upset enough to start a fight over such a little thing should absolutely be arrested
I agree, and that's what the captain said.
The captain asked for the person to shut that device off.
They didn't. They were willing to start a fight over it.
Whoever reported the stupid Bluetooth name wasn't starting a fight. That was a non-confrontational act.
The captain wasn't starting a fight. He gave an order.
The edgy passenger decided to fight and not comply with the captain's directions.
>That is a person who is mentally insane
Indeed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
A few thousand pagers went off, quite a few in the hands of kids. Terrorism by definition.
Citation needed for "quite a few in the hands of kids".
What kind of kids get to hold very specific communication devices that Hezbollah leadership uses?
I smell bullshit.
>Terrorism by definition.
Says the person who's never read the definition.
You can call the op that targets military leadership whatever you want, but the mere fact of military leadership being targeted makes it not terrorism BY DEFINITION.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. The captain has the authority, by law, to remove anyone (or everyone) for any reason. There is basically nothing the captain is legally barred from doing while the plane is en route.
> There is basically nothing the captain is legally barred from doing while the plane is en route. This is pretty wide of the mark. They have a lot of authority, yes, as it's the flipside of the flight's safety being their responsibility. They still aren't allowed to assault a passenger, say, or commit tax fraud, or needlessly break the air laws. Also, while the plane is en route ? As in, the captain throwing someone…
And yes, the captain's authority is greater while the plane is en route compared to on the ground. En route the captain can divert pretty much anywhere if they think it's the right thing to do. They can dump fuel over the ocean or even over houses if they believe the alternative is worse. When the plane is on the ground realistically all they're going to do for anything is deplane everyone, either at the gate or via an evacuation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sometimes I see my BT speaker broadcasting BLE info when it is turned off. Most things do not really 'turn off' these days.
Which is actually really useful, in this case – this lets me turn it on from across the room from my phone without having to get up!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Risk is not a synonym for the likelihood of something happening, but the likelihood and its possible effect . For example, the risk of not wearing your seatbelt on the motorway is high because, even though most journeys will not require a seatbelt to stop any negative effects, if something bad happens it will become very high risk without the seatbelt. Without the negative effect there is no risk, so it's not just pr…
What are the risks? That people die. Do you know how many people died of preventable things just today? Or it's scary because it means we're going to go to war? Then why aren't we scared sooner? Be scared of the thing that causes people to want to blow up planes. It's not like they just wake up one day and a country decides it's going to blow up a plane. Our government spies off so many people and the result is we're…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That would not solve the problem. On a radio, you could have a moment of interference and only receive 'crash' when someone broadcasts 'good crash'. It is better to avoid certain words entirely. There is also no reason to use those specific words when you could describe, e.g. a software crash as a software problem, error, issue, etc.
If the communication medium is made ambiguous by high entropy, then the language needs to reduce that entropy somehow. The entropy we are taking about is temporal, like packet loss. The solution is for the speaker to be redundant and for the listener to be uncertain. What you are advocating is silence, which implies confidence in the communication stream, which is the opposite of what we want. We already knew that si…