My understanding of Cloudflare is that they're a reverse-proxy. So I think the issue is that due to these particular sites using Cloudflare, a legit DNS lookup still resolves to Cloudflare's service.

These websites have chosen for Cloudflare to be the middleman between themselves and all their users.

Turning them off and landing in an empty field or on the Hudson, or rolling off the end of the runway may be preferable to the plane burning itself up in flight. It's extremely unlikely it was entirely unforced error and the pilot/copilot did something malicious.

Obviously it wouldn't be preferable ever at this airport, but there is an assumption that the pilots arent actively trying to down the aircraft.

There are thousands if not millions of ways a pilot can actively sabotage the aircraft. They are the one group on the plane that is trusted not to. It's nearly impossible to prevent it without removing them entirely from the plane. And all the passengers too ...

Sometimes, not very often ... the pilot is a problem.

Those have already been deployed. They are flown to the front by the operator, who will in most cases also designate the target, after which the drone will engage it autonomously. Jamming is most effective at close range, so that's when you want the AI to take over.

And have the presence of mind, and the giving-a-fuck (you have something to lose!), to actually bother using them.

AFAIK I've never slipped one past the goalie, but the times I risked it, is when I was poorer and life was generally worse and I was overall (not just sexually) less risk-averse. The more comfortable my life, the more I've maintained safe practices.

No.

No breaks or excuses.

You cant bolt security on after the fact. The entire protocol and application MUST take security into account from the start.

Trying to add security on after the fact is how we ended up with ActiveX on web pages and VBA in documents and NEVER WERE ABLE TO MAKE IT SECURE.

To make web browsers secure, they pretty much all started over (website, firefox) because trying to strap it on was impossible.

I figured the "tastes like chicken" comments were inevitable and then you throw in Peter Jackson, and obviously everyone is thinking about Bad Taste. But then I couldn't think of any really good ones, so I'll just punish the world with the Jackson jokes that I did come up with.

The moas died because they were feeble. As the Feebles, get it?

Um, what did the moa say to the kung-fu catholic priest? "Oh yeah? Well I kick ass for The Lord of the Rings!"

How many moas does it take to prepare ear-pus-custard? Moa than you would believe!

Done with the gain-of-function research, Chang is assigned to clean out the cages. But why throw out the live animals when he can get a few yuan for them down at the market?

Hijinx ensue!

This could be a good comedy movie. Chang should have some amusing [mis]adventures along the way!

I would at least pirate this movie, and then eventually watch it too.

You dont typically use avgas in fuel trucks at large airports like this as most ICE engines are on small aircraft that dont fly in large airports for all sorts of reasons.

You dont fly your little Cessna single engine into an airport with 787s landing or taking off. Thats a nightmare/disaster in the works. The Cessna would be like a leaf in a hurricane.

They drive to a gas pump AWAY from the jet wash that will destroy them.

Larger prop driven aircraft are powered by turboprop engines - they use jet fuel as well, not areas.

It's not impossible of course, but pretty unlikely.

Nope, you can absolutely roll off the end of the runway at any speed except full stop. Take off is always a choice.

The landing in the other hand is governed by physics, mostly gravity. If you dont leave orbit, landing is mandatory, its only a question of when and what it looks like. The aircraft will be on the ground eventually.

It may be a good landing, it may be a fiery crash, but you absolutely are going to land.

The dollar being the reserve currency of choice is one thing, what really matters is that oil is traded around the world in dollars. That effectively expands the dollar economy by trillions, and is what allows more dollars to be printed without affecting inflation. Once countries stop selling or paying for oil in dollars, that's when the currency will crash and burn for real.

Productivity did soar, by rather quite a bit. But companies did not use that increase in productivity to offer the same stuff with fewer employees, they used it to offer ever more complex products and services, while keeping them affordable.

Industrialism has added decades to the average human lifespan. We shouldn't be blind to the ill effects, and be open to improving things, but let's not focus on only the downsides.

Musk certainly is overly optimistic regarding timelines, but "move fast and break things" (for lack of a better term) has been proven to work in space, by SpaceX. It gave us a launch system that was cheap to develop and cheap to operate. Everyone in the business was laughing at Musk for keeping "breaking things" and crashing rockets while trying to land one. Then he did. And got good at it. Now they only make the news when one of their (many many) boosters fails to make a soft landing.

As for Starship, I've no idea what kind of data they have and how they are acting on it, but from a distance it does look like there are some major problems to overcome, and making a few changes before sending up another one might not be the right approach. The idea about "move fast and break things" is not to design and test until you are 99% sure, you spend a lot less effort in getting to 90%, and hoping that a failure will point to the error(s) you missed. But Starship smells like it's at 70% right now (or whatever the number are, for illustrative purposes only)

Then why the eye-wateringly high bills for SLS and Starliner? They got to build on the exact same body of knowledge available to SpaceX.

Another great example of garbage behaviour being the result of employees gaming garbage metrics.