Landfills seem like a bad idea in general, to me. It seems like doing something most would not do, dig a hole and toss their trash in it, scaled at country level. But I'm biased, since we phased them out last century I've never really "known" them. We recycle what can be recycled, food waste is used to produce bio fuel, and whatever is left is incinerated and the heat generated used for water borne heating or electricity production depending on season.

Apparently, landfills produce more potent greenhouse gases (i.e. methane), so even without CO2 capture incineration is supposedly still a climate win.

I was thinking something similar. If it's not US soil, then US officials have no jurisdiction there and no basis for complaining about what anyone does there.

It's been a while since I've flown, but isn't it usually on the same panel as the fasten seatbelt sign? If so, you'd need a new panel just without the no smoking part.

Heck, even replacing the whole sign with a placeholder would probably be a process. Those wires go places, connects to electronics, ending up in a switch in the cockpit, probably has redundancy. I'd be wiling to bet the list of "what's involved in making any change, even just removing the wiring for a single LED" is mighty long.

And then there would be changes in procedures for the crew as well. A whole new sequence of steps to document and make changes to training. You can't very well have someone fail their exam for not flipping a switch that no longer exists. And the same for, as you mention, inspection items.

Anyway, I'm just speculating. Perhaps it's just everyone being lazy and not bothering and it wouldn't have been a big deal.

I wouldn't be surprised if the expense and bureaucracy of getting anything approved for use on airplanes is the reason for that. They'll just keep using what was approved at the dawn of time until they really need that space for something that's worth the cost.

Either that, or it's a requirement in some document that will probably take another few decades to be revised.

I have no particular knowledge of global markets or which metrics are being used, but it's what I've heard repeated for a very long time. Perhaps it's wrong,or perhaps it changed when the UK left and everyone's just parroting the old reality. But either way, it's a huge market.

Let's imagine Ali Express has no local representation in the EU and thus a fine cannot be enforced. They can then choose to not pay. And the EU can choose to not allow any merchandise shipped from Ali Express into the EU. That's the largest single market on the planet they'd be kissing goodbye. Somehow, I figure they care.

I was about to post a glib hypothetical question about which millennium this story was from, but I think you got it just about covered right there.

> Also, remember that NATO pushed Ukraine to start having civilians manufacture drones in their homes.

Dude.. Take your meds.

That may be true, but I have seen no evidence this is a routine thing (or a thing at all) like it seems to be for Russia. So far no Ukrainians have been indicted for such war crimes, whereas multiple Russians have been.

There's also the optics of it. If it were to be discovered that Ukraine's e.g. intentionally leveling residential areas around Moscow, support would instantly dry out. It makes no sense for Ukraine to waste ammunition on targets that hold no military value. It would accomplish nothing _and_ they'd lose the support of the rest of Europe.

>> Collateral damage is sadly unavoidable.
>Remember that when you see the next Ukrainian news that Russia bombed a random civilian building ... maybe that were not the target, that surely is not disclosed to not help the other side, but simply a collateral damage

I have no doubt that some of Russia's damage to civilian structures is accidental. I also have no doubt that the majority of it is intentional. There are currently 6 officials wanted by the ICC for war crimes in the Russia-Ukraine war, all of them Russian.

>so who do you know that is "intentional bombardment"?

See above.

I have no idea what you're trying to comment on. Did you click reply on the wrong post?

Striking production facilities, military personnel and supply lines in an invaders own territory is absolutely fair game. Collateral damage is sadly unavoidable. Not all drones will reach their targets, some targets will be based on invalid intel, and civilians might come in harms way as a result. That's a far cry from Russia's intentional bombardment of civilians and related infrastructure, though. One is a war crime, the other is not.

Considering reports now are that Russia's finally on the back foot, it seems Ukraine is doing what it needs to do. If they were wasting munitions on apartment complexes instead of strategic targets, that would not be the case.

A pull request is not "downloading the source code," it's "submitting a suggestion for a change to the source code." It's someone requesting the project "pull" their changes into the project.

..of removing actual intelligence in order to replace it with "intelligence-native" AI, which is all A and no I.

Apparently Block deals with financial transactions. I see no reason to worry at all. /s

Take code written in a time when people writing code actually knew what they were doing, because it was so bloody annoying to do that only people really interested in doing it well were actually doing it.

Let's make it code that handles money transfers, an area even the most ignorant would likely agree requires code of high quality.

Let an LLM rewrite that in a modern language, using training data from a whole lot of really low quality code scraped off the internet, and with no one competent in the original code available to ensure the result is anywhere near sensible. Sounds like a great idea.