I'd like to know what planet you live on where a single time over the last 50 years a company has done one solitary thing that was good for the consumer without having the gun of regulation against their head.
If you read the first line as “make a handsome profit”, I get it, but if you read it slightly more charitably to mean “this service [permanent backup] costs real money to operate, so you need a way to fund that somehow”, it seems perfectly reasonable to me.
Servers, storage, power, networking, and cooling aren’t free; therefore neither is reliable indefinite storage of family memories in digital form.
It is a way to make money. Provide service in exchange for money. I'm not sure what's wrong with that.
If he could figure out how to do it without ever spending money, that would be amazing and I would fully support it. As it stands, I saw what he was asking, did some math to sort out how he could manage it full time, and made a recommendation.
People are tired of SaaS, I get it, so I suppose you could ship an app to do something similar; wire it to talk to every possible imaging/recording device and then automate the 'download all pictures from this device'. But it still takes time. And potentially money.
It's not just finding bugs, QA people are the people who actually USE the product, every part of it, every single day. They find pain points and things to improve and things that don't make sense constantly. But yes they're also really good at finding bugs.
This is something I've put a lot of thought into the past couple of years, and a few little soundbites I've come up with during my imaginary shower interviews are:
1. If you don't have Quality Assurance, then you have Quality Uncertainty.
2. QA is a full time job. If you offload the responsibility of QA to the engineers, then you're giving them 2 full time jobs. So unless they're working 16 hours days (even if they are tbh), you aren't assuring quality, you're compromising it.
Maybe. Lets see what the NTSB recommendations say.
However despite the downvotes I still haven't seen evidence that they were running understaffed at that moment.
What I do know is that the developing emergency on the tarmac due to an apparently hazardous smell in another plane is likely the cause of the confusion that led to this incident. That's a trigger that could have been exacerbated by fatigue but we don't have any evidence of that yet.
> I still haven't seen evidence that they were running understaffed at that moment.
I think the disagreement you see is based on the definition of what "understaffed" means. Having one ATC to do ground and air control simultaneously seems like an under-staffing situation to begin with, regardless of whether it's a common practice.
There is also the angle of: even if there is an appropriate amount of controllers in the tower at a given time, how they do it can also hint at the issue. Being an ATC is a taxing job, mandatory overtime and 60 hours work weeks screams understaffing to me.
It is possible for ATC to be understaffed as a profession, LGA to be understaffed as an airport, individual controllers to be overworked, and for it to be 100% reasonable to have a single controller at LGA in the middle of the night.
> Having one ATC to do ground and air control simultaneously seems like an under-staffing situation to begin with
Do we have evidence that one controller did all ground and air? The only evidence I've seen was the NY Times said that, according to a source, two controllers were working and two more were in the building.
In situations like this there is as lot of disinformation. The best thing to do is not add to it - a pile of bad information is not improved by piling more on. The best thing is to patiently find reliable info and stick to it.
> That one controller was handling both ground and air ...
Why do you (or why does anyone) think that? My point in the GP was, I have yet to see evidence that there was only one controller, and I have seen evidence that there were two.
Does someone say there is only one controller working? Just because that particular recording has only one controller doesn't mean nobody else is working.
I'm more than happy to be a test case. I'm pushing 40 but I will do every single thing in my power to give false information to the surveillance machine.
If I get arrested for lying about my age, when I'm of age, then they could probably get me on a whim already anyway. No point in trying to fall in line.
Another one I just thought of is when they arrest a parent for setting their 17 year old kid’s age to 18 (again under CFAA) because said parent thinks the kid is mature enough to access whatever the hell they want to. Easy to imagine in a red state, especially if the kid tells others about their 18+ access.
Fast food service is one of the most dehumanizing soul crushing jobs a person can do. I'm speaking from first hand experience that you're clearly lacking. On top of the abuse the workers deal with from all sides every single day, to have a robot giving you demerits based on specific language is fucking disgusting.
1. You assumed I don't have fast food experience and did not care to even know. It was more important to try and make a point, even if it was in a dishonest way. That says a lot about you.
2. Fast food is NOT one of the most dehumanizing soul crushing jobs. Yes, you deal with a lot of rude customers. But if you go into fast food unprepared for that, that's on you. It is part of the job (also part of hospitality) and it all comes down to how you respond and handle it.
3. If you're working fast food and willing to accept, or are stuck with, a low-wage job, that means there's other readily-available low-wage jobs that you can switch to. Working fast food is voluntary.
Since you have so much fast food experience, why did you not address how egregious customer service can be at places like Burger King? It's a problem. I've lost count of the amount of times a bunch of young employees slammed drive through windows on me, had an aggressive attitude simply because something wasn't right in their day, etc.
As a customer, I report it, but then feel like nothing gets done. It's my word against theirs. These systems allow management to actually know what's happening, who said what, if someone is disrespecting customers, etc.
Based on what you think is disgusting, I suspect you lack a TON of life experience and exposure to the world. My first-hand experience has led me to believe that a 5-year having to be on the streets selling candy full-time is "effing degusting".
Your definition if disgusting sounds very first-world.
To your first point, have you worked counter or kitchen at a fast food restaurant? Choosing to attack the other person instead of clearly answering the question that you decided to highlight surely says alot about you too.
Yes, private enterprise is far worse than governments. Governments are accountable, the royal centrally planned communist dictatorships that are private enterprise are not.
I don't even know how to respond to your comment. It's so royally detached from the reality of the world that I don't even know where to begin.
So there's only one group that has the power of the sword, and that is the government. There's only one group that holds a monopoly on violence, and that's government. There's only one group that can steal your home, along with anything else they want, using the state powers like eminent domain, and that's the government.
You say governments are accountable. Tell that to every Jeffrey Epstein victim and ask them how much accountability there is right now in government as it relates to the integrity of their investigation.
I say this with all due respect, but your comment is so far from fact that I think you may be trolling.
I'm not trolling, private businesses are mostly centrally planned economies and we know how terrible those are for humans. Acting like workplace democracy is a bad thing is beyond pathetic. Liberating the workplace from tyrants is the final frontier of democracy, any entity that can controls one's life without consent from all the workers doesn't deserve to exist.
I can honestly think of maybe two business leaders that would survive a vote by their workers to stay in power of the company.
Private enterprise enable some of the worst forms of human collaboration (monarchies, oligarchies, centrally planned top down enforced initiatives). Democracies are more efficient and far, so why not legislate their existence in workplaces?
I have to jump in the car soon, so to end on a good note: I now know you are not a troll, but I did start thinking that for a bit.
As an employee, we take part in charting the course for the business, but businesses have owners, and they have the ultimate say. A nation does not have owners. A nation has citizens, which is why democracy makes sense in a nation, but not a business; although loosely speaking, putting things to a vote when it's appropriate is not a bad thing. But no employee is entitled to that unless it is directly related to the scope of his or her employment.
Ultimately, you are conflating two different worlds: private enterprise and politics. They are two separate things; two separate animals; with two separate natures.
Boo hoo, I took 3 - 5 minutes to report an aggressive employee at a fast food restaurant I go to daily for coffee that is in my community.
Read the room, guy. You're taking time to type out a response to me, a complete stranger. And here you are, trying to portray me in a negative light because I put a couple minutes towards something that for me, was worth it.
If I was a business owner and had a long-time loyal customer that was getting treated poorly, I would want to know about it.
If I'm going to the same place every day, I don't want to continue experiencing the same poor service.
> Don't you have better things to do with your limited time on Earth?
reply