Most of the second guessing of the pilot seems to assume the pilot could press pause and work out the alternatives on a chalkboard for an hour or two and then resume real-time with a solution in hand.

The fact is, it all happened in a handful of seconds. I doubt the pilot even had time to fully assess the problem before hitting the ground.

But the courts are paying more attention now because it's ai and it's bad press.

But I would bet money if you did a exhaustive analysis of court filings you would find plenty of made up citations that nobody ever looked into.

Then again lawyers are famous for their honesty and decency so maybe I shouldn't make assumptions.

The problem is in the solution. Rationally, those Herdsmen need to hash out an agreementfor the fair use of that land to keep it just below it's carrying capacity.

But what really happens that some 'nobleman' declares the entire commons to belong to him and sends a goon squad to wipe out any herdsman who disagrees. He then 'allows' the herdsmen to use the land in exchange for a painfully large share of their productivity. For some reason he expects gratitude for that arrangement.

Alas, we've moved beyond even that. Now the 'nobleman', seeing that the herdsmen are making do with a smaller commons over the hill but unable to grab control of it sends his goons to salt the earth overnight so the herdsmen will have to 'rent' land from him.

But even that isn't enough for some. They want more 'rent' than any herdsman can pay while still making a living. So they leave the field fallow while trying to grab even more land. For some reason they think they can squeeze blood from a turnip.

If you find that unbelievable as an analogy, explain why there are entire blocks in NYC that haven't seen any space rented in over 10 years, yet the asking price hasn't budged even as the neighborhood has been given over to rats and junkies.

The most prolific poster on my Mastodon feed is a retrocomputing enthusiast who uses a decades-old (pre-Intel) Macintosh PowerBook G4 as their daily driver.

GCC has tended to support more historic instruction sets than LLVM. If a device's instruction set is supported by GCC and not by LLVM, it can run programs written in C, C++, Fortran, and other languages supported by GCC. It can also run programs in an interpreted language whose interpreter is implemented in a language supported by GCC, such as Python and PHP last I checked. It cannot build programs written in languages supported only by LLVM and not by GCC, such as latest stable Rust. What keeps gccrs (the Rust front end of GCC) from entering production is that the Rust language is still a rapidly moving target, with popular programs routinely requiring features added to the language or the standard library less than six months ago.

The service worker API is explicitly designed to avoid downasaurs in "offline-first" use cases. It acts as a proxy to serve the shell document, style sheet, scripts, and stale data, even without an Internet connection. That's why I asked what obstacles there are other than a downasaur.

I have not presented my ideas to Grab because I am not a user of Grab. I would imagine that most readers of Slashdot are likewise not users of Grab.

Don't reply to trolls. He wants you to reply because your comment gets modded up and that keeps his comment visible. Without your plus three comment keeping his comment visible the idea is he's putting out disappear because his low-modded comment doesn't show up on most people's screens. The mod system hides his comment as the low effort troll post it is.

Wait a little bit and let the mods do their job. Now sometimes the mods failed to do their job and sometimes sock puppets mod things up anyway. If that happens that's when you want to step in.

And remember, DEI is woke which is sjw which is PC which is desegregation.

Bankers in America at least don't really do that. What you're thinking of are large investors. People with net worth over 500 million.

Bankers just loan money. These days they don't give a shit who they loan it to as long as the loan is big and they can justify the loan to shareholders and the government. Which of course is remarkably easy because we don't regulate things properly anymore.

The banks don't care about the quality of the loans because they have set themselves up so that if they go down they take the entire world economy down with them basically meaning we are all in a hostage situation.

The same is true for those ultra wealthy investors by the way.

Thanks though are an institution rather than individuals. That's an important distinction because Banks are, or at least should be, heavily heavily heavily regulated to force them to be run safely and intelligently. The problem is we've gotten so obsessed with free market bullshit that we don't regulate things that we need to be regulating anymore.

Getting back to AI bullshit though that's going to be investors and big shareholders demanding limitless returns and line go up.

That's funny I thought they only did that in there Arcady games like NHL hits.

Boogie Woogie? AI can't beat this or this. Not yet.

IT can provide a tremendous amount of slop.

You were clearly replying to a troll. Proof, he/she said this:

There wasn't any time TV shows had heart, but definitely not in 2005.

The Bell Curve is filled with bad math.

And you can play it on mame. It didn't get released because they couldn't figure out a way to make baseball profitable in the arcade.

The problem was baseball doesn't break up into easily monetizable chunks like football and especially basketball. So it's hard to get the pacing right where you're getting a user is done before ordering every few minutes. I think older arcade baseball games could be profitable because they were much simpler, usually just boiling down the home run fests. But by the 90s people expected to play a full game.

It's also possible that those older games weren't profitable but operators didn't really notice as much. I won't say that I didn't see the ball games on the floor back in the daydidn't didn't go to arcades very often. Still it was usually football in the '80s and basketball in the 90s

OK, this is an interesting topic.

If money is just on the ground, or gold found in the earth, most of us would pick it up.

If you had $10k in your wallet, most of us would not take it from you, and especially wouldn't take it by physically harming you. A few people would.

An even smaller percentage of the population would actively kill you to take the $10k from you.

'Greed' isn't a problem if it doesn't cause harm. There is a small percentage of the population (griefers) who will happily enshittify things. Bankers only see things in terms of dollars, they don't consider the harm they cause (although they do usually try to follow the law).

Probably not majorly, their capitalization is too low.