I think your points on Obama are good. I'd like a more clear explanation of what the senate would be without the 17th.

(I didn't like Obama, because I'm a screaming liberal and he was pretty darn conservative, turned wars into something run by lawyers and did a lot of killing of people with neither a real declaration of war nor due process which included them -- you can make all the practical arguments you like, but the evolution of that is Trump murdering people in the Gulf of Mexico with impunity. Biden was much better. I suspect Michelle Obama would have been a much better president than her husband. It's fantastic that we had someone brown as president, and embarrassing that we haven't had a woman.)

If the idea is that the party in power in the state should pick via a smoke-filled room the two senators... that doesn't seem to represent the interest of the state, either. The senate has two roles. It's the house of lords for the US -- intended to advise. The do NOT run as "I'm a smart guy and an elder statesman" which is clearly part of your point.
But the other role is just to get votes for the constitution 200 years ago. We wanted Rhode Island's vote, for example. The were worried about being dominated by Massachusetts, for example, because of the population size. The senate no longer is needed in that capacity, because small states are in enough numbers to work together, and that was not really fair in the first place.

It would be better to give all states 10 reps in the house plus more based on population than to make a whole house where every state gets the same weight.

The idea that states as governments need representation at all exists because before the civil war we were not a country -- we were a collection of tiny countries "The United States in America" -- after the war we became "The United States of America" (not official phrases, but look in document searches before and after the war). We don't have to protect fiefdoms. I am worried that repealing the 17th is aimed at strengthening fiefdoms.

Probably. Their software is getting worse and worse and everybody hates being pushed into AI use. The last thing they need is a global security catastrophe from Win10 users.

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

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.

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.