Didn't say those are more inspired. At least Rust is long enough to not get ignored by the search engines. And some of the older ones have being older than the internet as an excuse.
In commercial aviation the vast majority of tragedies are Swiss cheese failures, at this point. The system has worked very hard to optimize out the possibility of any one individual failure leading to catastrophe. But the explosion of potential combinations - along with the extremely low odds of them ever occurring - makes preparing for one of them much less feasible.
I'm surprised that a catastrophic runaway oxygen leak is possible on an aircraft in todays day and age. Aircraft design is dominated by strict safety regimes that take into account even far fetched scenarios. Putting one valve in the rubber hose sounds sub optimal. Gas station pumps, for example have a valve that closes if the hose gets torn away. (which does happen when people forget about the pump and drive off). From the article it sounds like a button closes the oxygen tank but a pilot sitting next to a flamethrower might not remember to press it. One obvious solution is that the oxygen tank should be activated only in an emergency instead of being on by default during the flight but i assume the current procedure exists for a reason.
The article says that a risk analysis was done for the system and the risk was found to be “extremely improbable,” meaning between 1 in 100 million to 1 in a billion flight hours.
This flight may have been extremely unlucky, or the risk analysis may have been wrong. This is why the behavior of the Egyptian authorities is so frustrating; the purpose of the accident investigation is to see if there are problems that should be addressed.
Also, even if the risk analysis was right, it didn't justify an "extremely improbable" conclusion. If the global airline industry operates a total of about 50 million flights per year, and the average duration is about 2 hours, then we stand a good chance of seeing an accident like this every few years.
Reading up a little on the regulations, the FAA defines “extremely improbable” as less than one in a billion per hour, with the goal that a given type of airplane should be unlikely to ever experience a catastrophic failure during its service life.
Of course, there’s more than one type of airplane in the world, so you do have to wonder if that standard is adequate. I didn’t see how they quantify “unlikely,” but if it’s, say, 1 in 10 then the wide range of aircraft types means many of them will experience a catastrophic failure.
I’d expect this stuff to be gradually tightened. The current standard would have been ridiculous and unobtainable some decades ago. As technology and experience advances, there should be room to improve it further.
The rarity of such events (as outlined by TFA) is probably a major reason, even more so as they seem to generally be caused more by maintenance and from places with less than stellar incident reporting.
While there is some amount of proactivity in aircraft safety I'm not sure there are people with enough free time that they can make up failure modes or trawl through every minor incident report until (again as in the case of TFA) prompted by an actual failure, unless one of the minor incidents is itself proactively raised as a major risk avoided by blind luck.
instead of being on by default during the flight but i assume the current procedure exists for a reason.
Suppose it fails the other way --- pilot needs oxygen but the valve refuses to open. I think they definitely did a risk analysis and came up with the current design, reasoning that the increased risk of an oxygen fire would be less than the risk of a pilot suffocating if the system failed the other way.
Weren’t concepts supposed to fix this? Apparently they made it into the 2020 standard. I haven’t touched the language in many years - did they not help?
Concepts are in C++20. I don't know the specifics but it's my understanding that the version we got is stripped down in comparison to the original proposal.
A verbose enough type - and C++ has plenty of those - is indistinguishable from line noise.
There are places where having an explicit type annotation can improve readability, places where it harms readability, places where it doesn’t make much difference one way or another. Giving us the option has been a blessing. All programming calls for good taste, C++ programming calls for it more than most.
There's a cultural problem in the TypeScript ecosystem, I find, where people are impressed (with both themselves and others) when complex interfaces can be expressed in the type system, and tend to embrace that instead of settling for simpler (and often admittedly more verbose) ones. Maybe that's because they're an ex-JS programmer who wants to use the exact same interface they'd use in JS with no compromise, or maybe it's just because they think it's cool. Either way I think it's really detrimental to TypeScript as a whole.
> Maybe that's because they're an ex-JS programmer who wants to use the exact same interface they'd use in JS with no compromise, or maybe it's just because they think it's cool
That sounds a little reductive and gate-keepy. Maybe an advanced type system allowing for complex types to be expressed easily actually allows you to write simpler, more effective code.
Most cases I've seen with more complex interfaces is due to the fact that it is what the interface truly expects. Usually making it simpler tends to mean it's actually wrong or incomplete.
This is hand-wavey, but that can't be true: less complex type systems manage to express all kinds of interfaces correctly all the time (sometimes at the cost of verbosity, but that that’s usually a good trade-off is the point).
You're asking me to tell on my coworkers, and I'm too loyal to throw them under the bus :)
Well, OK, here's one, but I'll keep it as blameless as possible. We had a thing where we wanted to register some event handlers. The primary use of these event handlers was to run a selector, and if the selected data changed, trigger an update, passing the selected data along. The initial implementation used existential types to store a list of callbacks, each returning different selected data. The "driver" then did the equality checking and update triggering. We later changed this, so that the callbacks - as far as the driver was concerned - all returned `void`, eliminating the need for an existential type. We just had to move the equality checking and update triggering to inside the callbacks.
Some features are straightforward translations: anywhere you have overloading and/or optional arguments you can (and often should) simplify by refactoring into multiple functions.
For a concrete, public example...well, I remember the Uppy library had a lot of stuff like this. A lot of work goes into making it's "Plugin" interface look the way it does (start at [1] and keep reading I guess) for instance, and while I haven't sat down and re-engineered it I don't think it needs to be this way, if you're willing to give up some of the slickness of the interface.
I think there’s a difference between ideal library code and ideal business logic code.
The more you lean into crazy ass generics in your library, the simpler and more error-free the user can make their biz logic code. Really nicely typed libraries almost give you zero chances to fuck things up, it’s amazing.
But then again most of your devs wont be able to understand all those generics, so you need to keep your biz logic types relatively simple.
It’s an established practice in journalism to describe accused who haven’t been convicted as “alleged” criminals, regardless of how damning the evidence is.
The legal basis of this is a fear of libel lawsuits. But I think even when a libel lawsuit is extremely unlikely the practice is still followed - out of an abundance of caution, out of convention, or perhaps out of principle - that is, out of deference to the presumption of innocence on a fundamental level.
the article cites a study that says: "5% of practitioners reported anesthesia times greater in total than what would be expected across university, community, and specialty hospitals. Furthermore, it was found that the greatest differences in expected anesthesia times were in specialty hospitals compared with university hospitals.8 However, the authors have stressed that their findings should not be interpreted to indicate fraud because fraud involves intent, which could not be determined. Because this study was a retrospective study, the authors could not rule out the alternative but unlikely explanation that the practitioners could be rounding down. The reason for caution by the authors is that the CMS has differentiated fraud from abuse by emphasizing that fraud is intentional, whereas abuse is the result of poor medical practices.2 This differentiation is important because sometimes the rounding in digits ending in 0 or 5 minutes in anesthesia time is part of the organization culture of operating rooms in which rounding is performed systematically by the operation room circulating nurse along with the anesthesia practitioner. Sun et al8 recognized this issue as being related to institutional factors, which was one of the reasons they performed a 2-step regression analysis; long anomalous times were not sufficient to establish inappropriate discretion.8"
So Anthem based on the article it might be overpaying for at worst 5% of the operations BUT the big but is that in some hospitals it is routine to round digits. So paying less workers for some rounding operations? It doesn't look as bad to me. It might be because of reasons, or might be due to media backslash.
I think it's safe to assume we definitely need more research into healthcare companies rules after healthcare companies ceo related killing
IANAL but I'm not sure if this is accurate. You're, of course, allowed to consume PressTV but AFAIK I don't think there's any First Amendment protections for non-citizens outside of the US.
You’re flatly wrong, and so is vkou. From the text of the 1st amendment: “Congress shall make no law […] abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…” (cut the establishment clause for clarity).
It doesn’t say “congress shall make no law for citizens” or “within the US”.
The Constitution derives power from and applies them to the "People of the United States"[1], excluding everyone including even Americans who do not physically exist within US sovereign jurisdiction.[2]
That is to say, some guy in not-Americaland does not enjoy First Amendment nor any other Constitutional protections.
> The Constitution derives power from and applies them to the "People of the United States"[1], excluding everyone including even Americans who do not physically exist within US sovereign jurisdiction.[2]
No, I think that "People of the United States" (having "of" rather than "in") can include US citizens physically present outside of the borders. The US government can punish me for illegal things I do outside of the US. If I, a US citizen, go to Britain and kill another US citizen in Britain, I will be subject to murder laws in both Britain and the US, and the US could call for extradition. If I go to Britain and defame a US citizen, the person I defamed can sue me. Likewise for rights, I don't lose my First Amendment rights to criticize the US government when I'm abroad, although the US government would question my allegiance if I send my criticism from Russia.
If you read the links I cited, you would have known that SCOTUS ruled that the full authority of the Constitution only applies as far as incorporated US territories and only to US nationals and citizens (colloquially "Americans").
Unincorporated territories and anything beyond that (ie: foreign countries) does not (and cannot, both legally and practically in the case of foreign countries) enjoy US Constitutional protections.
You are certainly welcome to your opinions, of course, but where legality is concerned the courts clearly say otherwise.
The first section you cited [1] interprets "People of the United States" to mean "nationals and citizens". I don't stop being a citizen when I leave US borders. I previously read the first section but neglected to read the second section, and I have decided to mentally autocorrect "People of the United States" to "United States citizens and nationals who are within US borders".
Now I agree with you almost completely, but I have a nitpick.
The US Constitution protects me from the US government. The second section you cited about losing constitutional rights (such as the right to a jury trial) when leaving US borders suggests to me that formally all of the Constitution's protections go away but informally some protections remain. Consider this excerpt from the second section you cited [2]:
> The court held that, since his trial was conducted by an American court and was, by American standards, basically fair, he was not entitled to the specific constitutional right of trial by jury while overseas.
Legally, why does it matter that the defendant got a "basically fair" trial? To me, it means that defendant still has a right to a "basically fair" trial. So where does that right come from? I think that it comes from the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution: mostly diminished, but not completely eliminated, for US citizens outside of US borders.
Suppose that I go on vacation to Mexico and send a letter to the White House with the message "Joe Biden can suck an egg. hn_acker, from Mexico". Upon receiving it, Joe Biden signs an executive order declaring that "If hn_acker sends an insult to me from outside of the borders of the United States then hn_acker will be an enemy of the state". Then I send another letter with the same message I sent before. I return to US soil and Joe Biden orders the military to shoot me. The military refuses the order and documents having done so. During any point of my hypothetical scenario, did Joe Biden violate any of my constitutional rights? I think that the answer is yes, Joe Biden as the head of the military violated my First Amendment right to free expression by retaliating to my second letter.
Idk if that’s the case either, but a shell corp which is incorporated in the US easily gets around it.
Though the first amendment does not protect calls to action. Especially if that call includes violence or treason. (Unless you’re specifically Donald Trump)
The ruling suggests that a shell corp might not be quite enough, even though TikTok as a US operating entity is sufficient.
> The Government suggests that because TikTok is wholly
owned by ByteDance, a foreign company, it has no First
Amendment rights. Cf. Agency for Int’l Dev. v. All. for Open
Soc’y Int’l, Inc., 591 U.S. 430, 436 (2020) (explaining that
“foreign organizations operating abroad have no First
Amendment rights”). TikTok, Inc., however, is a domestic
entity operating domestically. See NetChoice, 144 S. Ct. at
2410 (Barrett, J., concurring) (identifying potential “complexi-
ties” for First Amendment analysis posed by the “corporate
structure and ownership of some platforms”). The Government
does not dispute facts suggesting at least some of the regulated
speech involves TikTok’s U.S. entities. See TikTok App. 811–
12, 817–18 (explaining that promoted videos are “reviewed by
a U.S.-based reviewer,” that an executive employed by a U.S.
entity approves the guidelines for content moderation, and that
the recommendation engine “is customized for TikTok’s vari-
ous global markets” and “subject to special vetting in the
United States”).
> Nor does the Government argue we should “pierce the
corporate veil” or “invoke any other relevant exception” to the
fundamental principle of corporate separateness. Agency for
Int’l Dev., 591 U.S. at 435–36. We are sensitive to the risk of a
foreign adversary exploiting corporate form to take advantage
of legal protections in the United States. Indeed, the
Government presented evidence to suggest the PRC intention-
ally attempts to do just that. See, e.g., Gov’t App. 33–35
(describing the PRC’s hybrid commercial threat and its
exploitation of U.S. legal protections for hacking operations).
Under these circumstances, however, we conclude that the
TikTok-specific provisions of the Act trigger First Amendment
scrutiny.
Shell corps would have to register as foreign agents, and be surveilled and regulated as such. In the United States, and in most countries around the world, the speech and spending power of such agents is carefully monitored and curtailed.
Any social network should be assumed to be an agent of the government in which it operates from. Facebook, for instance, has a special relationship with the Pentagon, VKontakte with the Kremlin, TikTok with Beijing, etc.
If a foreign rabble-rouser, seeking to disrupt our harmonious society can be banned from entry into the country, why should their ideas be let in through a social network?
I'm a bit lost here. Shouldn't the blame fall more on the people who used someone else's name without permission and acted like jerks when asked to stop?
Why are we holding the victim to a higher standard now?
It's possible for someone to have the legal right to demand something and still be a butthead for demanding it. Noting that fact doesn't make you a jerk.
As I mentioned earlier, I was not here to debate the legality of his (or Apple’s) actions, but from the moral perspective.
In my view, what the Apple engineers did was inappropriate, especially when they doubled down after being asked to stop. It’s not unlike typical bullying behaviors seen in high school ("it's just a joke, why so serious?"). Jokes on someone else are only funny when they approve them.
If he had called Apple “a butthead fruit company”, it wouldn’t make sense to hold him to higher standard.
But a legal response to some light hearted rudeness? That was him taking things to a significantly lower standard.
If instead, he had used “Butthead Astronomer” to refer to himself on occasion, that would have only added to his (already significant and well deserved) legendary status.
Googling "Fstar programming language" works fine for me.