Well, what did I expect. Obviously you would try to defend a deeply stupid stance with a fallacy.

Unless there is a zebra crossing: the car has priority.

Not in the UK. You ain't the centre of the world, bucko. Some countries don't absolutely prostrate themselves on the alter of the car.

There is a lot of applied stupidity in software design these days. The worst is when they try to force users to use features they do not want.

Sounds like full cognitive surrender by complete morons.

It is just some really dumb people having a circle-jerk.

At this time, they do not even know whether they need to do anything about it. Your question is premature.

Yep. Grounding is done for Being-level bad, not for Airbus-level "maybe there is a problem". Also note that this is less than 10% of the A380 fleet.

Apparently, about 250 are in use. Not so rare.

Complete nonsense. This is an early safety measure which is the result of an abundance of caution. Calling this "casual insecurity" is insightless beyond belief. It is not even clear whether anything needs to be done at all, they just have found a potential problem and are looking at it.

And that the problem is not severe enough to mandate immediate inspection in all cases. Not comparable to the trash Boeing has been delivering.

When discussing political ideologies, it helps to use a common reference frame, just like in relativity. Adjusting meanings of commonly used terms to suit a particular argument is... Fraught. And confusing.

For clarity, try this model:

"Left" and "right" started as literal seating in the French revolutionary assemblies: deputies who wanted faster, deeper change (anti-monarchy privileges, more egalitarian reforms, later republicanism/secularism) sat on the President’s left; defenders of the King, Church, and traditional hierarchy sat on the right. That historical baggage still colors French usage more than the US bumper-sticker version.

Modern American "left/right" is usually a grab-bag of two different questions that often (but not always) correlate:

- Economic axis: how much the state should steer the economy, redistribute, regulate, provide services (more "left") vs. emphasize private property/markets, lower taxes, less regulation (more "right").

- Social/cultural axis: appetite for change and pluralism vs. preference for tradition, order, and continuity.

That’s why "liberal vs. conservative" is often clearer as a separate axis: "liberal/progressive" meaning more open to social change/civil liberties; "conservative" meaning more skeptical of rapid change and more focused on stability/tradition. Also, "liberal" is country-dependent: U.S. "liberal" often means center-left; "classical liberal" is closer to pro-market/limited-government.

Using those common frames of reference will help make your views more clear to both yourself and others.

Regardless, you'll note that neither the original nor the modern meanings of "left" and "right" align well with what you've described in these two comments. And in particular, FDR was very much a "move-fast-and-break things" President, eventually having to threaten to pack the Supreme Court with supporters when they continued to strike down laws that he had proposed, Congress passed, and he had signed before they stopped blocking his radical changes at every turn. Trump, by contrast, is "Reactionary" rather than "Liberal" (when he's consistent at all). That is, he wants not slow change, but a return to a previous era's values and norms. Possibly in his case, a feudalistic era's values and norms.

Imagine, then, one axis like this:

<---- Progressive ---- Liberal ---- Centrist ---- Conservative ---- Reactionary --- >

Where Bernie Sanders is on the left, and Donald Trump is on the right.

Or if you prefer overtly political labeling:

<---- Communist ---- Socialist ---- Democrat ---- Republican ---- MAGA --- >

There are, as previously mentioned, multiple axes. This is an oversimplification to get the point across.

There is always some personal upside for some people when technology becomes "obsolete" but remains critical. No argument about that and I am likely one of those. For example, I already have a request whether I would be interested in maintaining some FORTRAN code when I retire. (Not sure I want to, but FORTRAN is a very reasonable classical language. And I can do C or even assembler embedding if needed.)

Some expertise is both critical and rare. That said, this LLM hype is pretty bad for most people and it must eventually crash back to reality. Anybody dependent on LLMs will be in really deep trouble at that time.

Indeed. The human race is exceptionally incompetent when it comes to selecting leaders of any kind. If we do not fix that (and I do not see how it could be done), the future looks really dark.

You miss the point. LLMs are incapable of finding all the exploits for defenders they can find for attackers. And manual analysis by attackers can still find a _lot_ more that are out of LLM reach.

Says the moron to the expert.