If only we had a CIA that specialized in precisely this kind of dirty tricks. Oh wait, we do! Good thing they don't listen to traitor Trump, he would have told them to stop. He's already trying to force a Ukraine surrender to Russia.

A YouTuber? Seriously? We Americans trust the experts. For those who don't know, the rsilvergun account was recently exposed as being a Malaysian, complete with screenshots of zir other social media. Only foreigners think random YouTube channels are more trustworthy than experts. We Americans went through this during covid. People were eatating horse paste! And refusing life saving vaccinations. Oh, how we all laughed when Herman Cain died.

Investment is a tricky one.

I'd say that learning how to learn is probably the single-most valuable part of any degree, and anything that has any business calling itself a degree will make this a key aspect. And that, alone, makes a degree a good investment, as most people simply don't know how. They don't know where to look, how to look, how to tell what's useful, how to connect disparate research into something that could be used in a specific application, etc.

The actual specifics tend to be less important, as degree courses are well-behind the cutting edge and are necessarily grossly simplified because it's still really only crude foundational knowledge at this point. Students at undergraduate level simply don't know enough to know the truly interesting stuff.

And this is where it gets tricky. Because an undergraduate 4-year degree is aimed at producing thinkers. Those who want to do just the truly depressingly stupid stuff can get away with the 2 year courses. You do 4 years if you are actually serious about understanding. And, in all honesty, very few companies want entry-level who are competent at the craft, they want people who are fast and mindless. Nobody puts in four years of network theory or (Valhalla forbid) statistics for the purpose of being mindless. Not unless the stats destroyed their brain - which, to be honest, does happen.

Humanities does not make things easier. There would be a LOT of benefit in technical documentation to be written by folk who had some sort of command of the language they were using. Half the time, I'd accept stuff written by people who are merely passing acquaintances of the language. Vague awareness of there being a language would sometimes be an improvement. But that requires that people take a 2x4 to the usual cultural bias that you cannot be good at STEM and arts at the same time. (It's a particularly odd cultural bias, too, given how much Leonardo is held in high esteem and how neoclassical universities are either top or near-top in every country.)

So, yes, I'll agree a lot of degrees are useless for gaining employment and a lot of degrees for actually doing the work, but the overlap between these two is vague at times.

The degree isn't about "getting a high-paid job", it's about knowing what the hell you're doing once you get a job. Although, fair enough, it's quite plausible that not many degrees would meet that standard either.

There is a possibility of a short-circuit causing an engine shutdown. Apparently, there is a known fault whereby a short can result in the FADEC "fail-safing" to engine shutdown, and this is one of the competing theories as the wiring apparently runs near a number of points in the aircraft with water (which is a really odd design choice).

Now, I'm not going to sit here and tell you that (a) the wiring actually runs there (the wiring block diagrams are easy to find, but block diagrams don't show actual wiring paths), (b) that there is anything to indicate that water could reach such wiring in a way that could cause a short, or (c) that it actually did so. I don't have that kind of information.

All I can tell you, at this point, is that aviation experts are saying that a short at such a location would cause an engine shutdown and that Boeing was aware of this risk.

I will leave it to the experts to debate why they're using electrical signalling (it's slower than fibre, heavier than fibre, can corrode, and can short) and whether the FADEC fail-safes are all that safe or just plain stupid. For a start, they get paid to shout at each other, and they actually know what specifics to shout at each other about.

But, if the claims are remotely accurate, then there were a number of well-known flaws in the design and I'm sure Boeing will just love to answer questions on why these weren't addressed. The problem being, of course, is that none of us know which of said claims are indeed remotely accurate, and that makes it easy for air crash investigators to go easy on manufacturers.

It's far from indisputable. Indeed, it's hotly disputed within the aviation industry. That does NOT mean that it was a short-circuit (although that is a theory that is under investigation), it merely means that "indisputable" is not the correct term to use here. You can argue probabilities or reasonableness, but you CANNOT argue "indisputable" when specialists in the field in question say that it is, in fact, disputed.

If you were to argue that the most probable cause was manual, then I think I could accept that. If you were to argue that Occam's Razor required that this be considered H0 and therefore a theory that must be falsified before others are considered, I'd not be quite so comfortable but would accept that you've got to have some sort of rigorous methodology and that's probably the sensible one.

But "indisputable"? No, we are not at that stage yet. We might reach that stage, but we're not there yet.

Thanks for speaking up and throwing cold water on what the racists in this thread are trying to push.

As a friend once said, "You don't penalize people for doing the right thing." But it's a legitimate concern that the system of funding roads from fuel taxes is going to collapse due to EVs. So the solution is to apply the new fees to all vehicles. This will encourage the transition instead of slow it. Also, they can start with the fee being much lower, so the estimated revenue matches the estimated loss due to reduced fuel sales, and they can phase it in over time as fuel sales continue to drop.

The workers tried overthrowing the government. Jewish Bolsheviks seized power and ruled the country. They then murdered ten million Christians in Ukraine.

This genocide was covered up by the New York Times, who won a Pulitzer Prize that they still proudly display today.

Why do you think Big H was so fixated on invading Russia and eliminating Jews?

The Bolsheviks openly declared their intention of conquering all of Europe. They tried, too, only to be stopped by the valiant Poles at the Vistula.

Everyone knows about H and the six million, but nobody has heard of Yagoda the Jew and the ten million. Make Yagoda famous!

Who even uses it? The world has been using editpad since Windows XP. You don't? Wow.

Look, it's not just that iOS 26 has bugs. Bugs are fine. All software has bugs.

But iOS 26 is incoherent. It makes the system less intuitive and harder to use. It reneges on design principles laid down in Apple's Human Interface guidelines. I don't even mind how flashy it is--the glass effect really IS cool sometimes. But touch targets are worse, information bleed-through is confusing, and it does the EXACT OPPOSITE of the claimed design intention to show you more of your content. The UI is bigger and more in your way at every turn. You can see less of what you want to see at any given time in a measurable way. (Seriously, people have measured it.)

Try this out: take a screenshot. Go into the screenshot interface. The control to delete the screenshot is under the checkmark, not the X. The X dismisses the screenshot but also deletes it, though it doesn't give any indication that it's going to delete the screenshot. Now if you take a screenshot of THAT screenshot, it adds a second one, fine. But if you go into the checkmark, your option is to delete BOTH. If you tap the X, NOW there's a control to delete just one.

Apple's stuff really did used to be simpler and more usable, based on tested and measurable design principles. Design wasn't just a look, it was also a science that included usability and interaction.

Alan Dye has ruined every interface he's come into contact with. I was on board with the iOS 7 flat-design revolution even with all its flaws, but we're in a whole different, unusable space now. Bring Scott Forestall back.

This may well be one of the dumbest questions ever asked on /. as it ignores the entirety of human history.

You poor TDS sufferer. A post about how science advanced by admitting new information and you go off ranting about Trump and Christians. Have you considered that America isn't the country for you? We are a Christian nation and our constitution s fit for no other. Leave us. You do not belong here. We desire neither your arms nor your counsel. Go now and lick the hand that feeds ye, and may history forget ye were our countrymen.

Again, you're being willfully obtuse by taking a "very loose definition" of what (or, rather, does not) "probably" constitute "ultra processed" and attacking on the details. Everything on your list (again, other than coffee and tea, along with some spices) has been "produced at home" for millennia, and the things on your list that haven't don't have anything to do with whether they could be, but only the geography of where they could be. Just like your follow up "but I don't have land" bullshit.

"Milk" is not an ultra processed food (or, rather, it doesn't have to be). Something containing "red dye #5" is. You need a factory and a complicated supply chain for the red dye #5, but not for the milk. See how easy that was?

With regard to your follow up WRT cheese, come the fuck on. Cheese is nothing more than a way of preserving milk. You can make some in your home today, and the knowledge required to do so can be obtained by watching a five minute Youtube video. Really, five minutes. That's all. Will you have Le Grand Gruyere? No, you'll have farmer's cheese, or ricotta, or mozerella, or maybe a nice gouda if you're feeling frisky and want to wait a bit.