I would fight this kind of legislation too, and I'm just a regular consumer.

Think of the complicated layer this adds on that the carrier has to keep track of now. Who counts as a firefighter, how does their info get added to some list? Which phones of theirs are allowed to qualify? When does the emergency start and end, who updates that info? How fast does it have to be updated? How does this get enforced?

Clearly the carriers want this to not be their problem. It would be much simpler just for the state to pay for unlimited bandwidth plans for those people it identifies.

But of course takes money, while it's much easier for legislators to require others to spend money to solve ambiguous problems.

So, how does this work?

Because from all I can tell, Facebook (and others) are now choosing to block things that enough people outcry about or are in the news about. Racism, anti-vax, how do they choose?

What principle is being followed here? Or do you just have to get something in the news for long enough for it to be blocked? Is that an acceptable way of deciding?

How does this work for important but not-national-attentionworthy topics that are similarly violent / untruthful? In other countries?

As with so many matters that involve money, arguments fly around left and right that claim to be on principle, but really aren't.

When you see ESPN and Comcast argue over showing the World Series, don't buy the argument that one of them is "trying to prevent loyal customers from being able to see their favorite game", or when your local hospital group withdraws from your employer health plan that "the other side is trying to deprive you of consumer choice".

Each side is wanting to make a share of the money, and they're disagreeing over the price (or often the royalties share). No one is entitled to any particular provision of service in *any* of these cases. Except in regulated industries there's no law governing the "fair" share that someone has to offer, or someone has to accept. And in most cases, each side could choose to compromise what it's asking for with no damage to its model of business (not talking about $, just the principles they claim).

Spotify wants a lower $ charge. Apple owns the platform and controls that access and $ charge. That's it.

This is a private contract dispute and only of interest because you care about listening to music. There's no public right to have a music app be charged a certain amount that's called "fair". Spotify could charge nothing to consumers, and be charged nothing by Apple. It's their choice. It's Apple's choice.

Don't be fooled into "principles" when there's money involved.

Why "should" Apple do any of the things you want? Who determines "should"?

Last I thought about the issue, access to an app store and the terms of such access (which by the way didn't even exist almost 10 years ago) wasn't a public utility or good with an expectation of fairness of pricing or in modification of terms.

Under what right does one claim that Apple (or any ecosystem platform) has to do anything beyond what is regulated in the payment and terms of operation?

I think this decision is controversial because there is not enough evidence either way to say that grounding the fleet is right or wrong. China/Indonesia could be right, or the US could be right.

If the FAA believes that the AOA sensor issue was properly addressed with clarified training, then this incident adds no information at present to change that status. If the plane went down because of the same issue, they have resolved the issue in their judgement.

If though, something emerges from this investigation that provides new causal factors then we're in new territory. It is worrying though that without this new active training, this plane seems to confuse pilots. That alone should give carriers pause who do not emphasize or train enough on the new procedures.

Facebook angry at its developers who used the system they designed to its full extent? Surprised? Is this not like Dr. Jekyll yelling at Mr. Hyde for things that the split personality does at night?

"Why are you letting people take advantage of our users' personal information??"
"You said we could do that!!"
"No I didn't!"
"Yes you did!"
"I didn't mean it!"

This is ridiculous, and an attempt to shift blame from the rotten core.

Unfortunately, the SimCity designers forgot to code the module for old rich people (and their counterpart, misguided pseudo-liberals) who accuse you of gentrification any time you try to make enough room for new people to move into their cozy neighborhoods.

For your information, there is nothing in the US Constitution that provides for a "right to privacy".

I don't know if anyone else saw the movie and would like to discuss it here. I watched it about 2 weeks ago in the theater.

I was pretty impressed with the first opening scene, and the final scene where the dad [plot spoiler, etc]. Those scenes had the music, pacing, narrative that seemed like it was to the quality and emotional sophistication of like Ridley Scott or someone similar.

However, much of the middle of the movie was low brow explosions, unbelievable story line, and cheap humor like it came out of the ass of Michael Bay or something. Such a schizophrenic movie production. Worth streaming though I think.

This article didn't butcher it too badly. But still there's a layer of education opportunity that was missed.

It wouldn't take more than 2 sentences to include an explanation about ground speed versus air speed. Not even talking about the differences in airspeed at different altitudes and densities, mach, etc. But I guess even that is too much for our technical details-allergic media.

Airline planners would likely have the routes deviate in the opposite direction to not be flying in the strongest part of the jetstream, so it's not an equal advantage / disadvantage for both directions.

You may be interested to see the jetstream maps for how wide it typically is: generally several hundred miles wide

Yeah, good luck Microsoft employees. Microsoft never claimed you were going there to change the world or "do good". Google invited its own problems by claiming to do such, and caused itself to hire people who would eventually debate politics at work, object to customers, and believe that business has morals above and beyond those imposed by regulations.

Microsoft employees know what they signed up for. A boring corporation that sells its product to whomever will pay. And mediocre applications that do their job just enough. It's not going to change out of its niche, and I have no expectation that it should.

All systems have bugs. The difference with Apple is that generally, the bugs get fixed and the hardware gets supported. As much as you hate their prices and controlled environment, can you say the same of other hardware manufacturers?

In general, both the legal system and legislative record suffer from a really stupid attachment to testimony being recorded in long form prose only.

Just think of all those congressional records and court transcripts / decisions with numbered lines and "whereas", "notwithstanding subsection 1)b)IV.." and "15% of the subtotal of appropriations designated..." or "a line defined by the coordinates 42d23'11"N, 73d45'04"W to the point 44d..."

So many words (and minds) would be clarified by the ability to show simple figures and charts that explain a topic so much better than words. It almost biases the system to be asking for legalese and prose rather than equations, diagrams, and diagrammatic precision (to the extent that someone takes the time to think through and present those ideas properly).

I have a real easy way for companies to care about privacy when they say they "care about privacy":

Penalties:
-- $2 for each name + password
-- $5 for credit card number
-- $10 for social security number
etc.

And multiply for combinations of the above. You'll see companies start fixing their processes (or simply refusing to store unnecessary data, right quick.