Why the use of scare quotes? It's not their fault. The airline arranged for flight crew, had the plane available, yet something outside of their control is preventing them from doing the deed. It's no different to the airline if a sudden bit of weather came along preventing the flight from taking off.
I think the frustration comes from airlines not being able to accurately predict what the impact of a delay will be for the schedule for the remainder of the day, following day. They always hope they'll be able to recover some of the schedule with fast turnarounds.
On a recent trip (when I encountered issues on every leg — cancellations, delays, missed connections, you name it), it is clear that airlines are incentivised to not communicate delays until it is clear the delay can't be recovered. In one case, at the airline's hub, the airport displays were showing a 2 hour delay and their app showed on-time departure (to the point I had to go and ask which source to trust). Having been a frequent flyer in the past I was able to determine that the delay was likely (but airlines can swap in equipment at hubs and mitigate the delay).
Once you do have a delay the ripples are complex to handle. You have some passengers that were meant to connect to other flights. You have some that won't travel at all die to the cancellation. You then have 100+ people who you somehow have to accommodate in the coming days when flight loads are hopefully already 90+%.
To be fair to my airline, their app was actually great at offering me a rebooking option the following day when my flight was cancelled. Unfortunately, the option I selected resulted in a non-direct flight with a transfer time that was impossible in reality (shouldn't have been offered in my opinion). I was literally rebooked 5mins after they declared the flight cancelled, skipped the queues back in the departure area (I don't think the local service agents even knew about the app) and drove home to my family for an extra night.
Because making prediction and being wrong is way worst then not making one.
Plus, imo, they dont know what exactly will happen. There is likely whole bunch of negotiations and replannings going on in background with unsure results.
Because nobody in this situation is accountable. I agree the airline may not be to blame for the cause, but SOMEONE is... but NATS do not carry the same responsibility.
It blows my mind that consumers have lots of protection from the airline, but we have no protection from ATC failures.
As it happens, flight just got cancelled.. so airline is responsible for hotel and rebook. Which is also unfair on them.
Why do you claim it is an Americanism? The term 'scare-quotes' was coined by a British philosopher, Elizabeth Anscombe, who references her use of them in a 1956 essay. This would imply that they were in use in British English at least by the 1950s, with no indication as to whether they were imported from US English.
Whatever. The first time someone's complaint makes its way to Nadella's desk, he has the power to stop it. Since that hasn't happened, he's clearly not that concerned OR he's so not in charge that little fiefdoms exist that choose to ignore senior management. Neither is a good look for Nadella.
> I hope some day we’ll take this as seriously as environmental protection. Which granted isn’t perfect either, but a lot more than we do about all the mental toxicity being spewed at scale by large tech firms.
The problem is that, as we are currently seeing, that any administration can reverse any policy previously set. So any regulation is not a permanent solution.
> The problem is that, as we are currently seeing, that any administration can reverse any policy previously set. So any regulation is not a permanent solution.
Depends on what you mean by "can". You're right in that any administration that successfully abandons the rule of law can do anything they want, but that's not a problem inherent to regulation as a concept. Regulation is a good solution, but it won't work when a corrupt, lawless regime is in power. It's kinda like saying we shouldn't vaccinate because being forced to drink toilet water can kill us.
As for not being a permanent solution, that's okay. No regulation is meant to be permanent. Regulations are supposed to change, but there's supposed to be a process to follow and that process is supposed to ensure that the change happens for the good of the society and is governed by the will of the people.
The fact that none of those prerequisites are currently satisfied does not imply that regulation doesn't work.
This administration has gotten SCOTUS to agree that many of these agencies are under control of POTUS and not independent agencies. That means the agencies work at the whims of POTUS or else POTUS will replace the agency leadership with people that will. That will see an exodus of other people that would potentially put up any resistance.
So I'm not really sure where you seem to think an abandonment of rule of law is at play
The rule of law means that everyone, including the administration, has to follow the laws. When an administration repeatedly ignores or defies court orders, they have abandoned the rule of law.
>If you're only using it as a screen for the AppleTV, why connect it to the network at all?
Not GP, but I do so to make sure my TV doesn't try to connect to a different network. I provide specific IP addresses to the ethernet-connected interface and then block those IP addresses.
I suppose I could also move the TV to an isolated VLAN, but I spent months (the device was purchased nearly, or perhaps even more than, a decade ago) monitoring network traffic to determine to where (via DNS queries and packet captures) my TV was trying to phone home and blocked all egress for the TV and ingress from the sites/IP addresses to which the TV tried to connect.
I suppose that newer TVs might be sneakier (with the kind of WiFi surfing mentioned in TFA and/or installing cellular modems) in their attempts to bypass user control and when I need a new TV, I'll burn that bridge when I come to it.
But for now, my TV can't phone home. Or I'd have thrown it away years ago.
> The US has repeatedly proven that ITAR is for them as much of a military thing as it is an economic one, and that they're willing to use it against allies. If we refuse to learn that lesson, it's on us not them.
I'm actually surprised anyone ever thought it was not a military thing.
Maybe I phrased it wrong, it's not my native language ? I meant it "it's not just a military restriction thing when they think there is military danger, it's an economic thing for when they can take advantage over a seller, and who the buyer is doesn't even matter".
I worked in camera department on a low budget feature and one of my contributions was using a ColorChecker. The DP was concerned it would take too much time, and the director echoed those concerns. We compromised by only using the chart on the first take of each new setup. Nobody complained about how long it took to slate/chart once we got into production. I did get a message of appreciation from the director once they went to post. The editor/colorist sung the praise of having that data available.
The ColorChecker is one of those things that once you know its power, you'll never want to not use it again. Of course, you'll not use it for everything unless you're trying to impress. It's just one of those things that have fallen out of favor with digital. Things like light meters, chip charts, etc are just things younger people never working in film seem to not learn about any more
> The DP was concerned it would take too much time, and the director echoed those concerns. We compromised by only using the chart on the first take of each new setup.
How long does it take to hold up a rectangle? It's not like something like a Passport is very big or bulky:
Your link is about the smaller "pocket" version. I would use that for the close up shots for inserts or whatever where the framing is too tight for the full size chart. The full size chart[0] is closer to the size of a slate. So after slating, I'd just move the chart from behind the slate to the front.
It was the first feature length for both the DP and director, and it was just one of the learning things for them from the experience. Maybe they thought it needed to be on screen for longer than necessary?? Either way, neither complain about using one again.
I think True Believer is worse. I would say that if someone is willing to try something while still willing to accept that it might not work but need to confirm they'd be a rational person. A True Believer will not accept that the thing is not working and try to rationalize why others are still wrong.
Which is a little ironic given one of their arguments against DEI policies is that it chooses less qualified people in the name of diversity. If this administration isn't nominating on the basis of merit, what standing do they have to target law firms with DEI policies? [1]
I only use gmail for providing to services. I have a fastmail account that I use for stuff I want. I treat gmail as a PO Box and my fastmail as my private mailbox. It is rare that I actually need to read my gmail other than when services only offer 2FA via email. It makes a huge difference
reply