Breaking news: people with jobs don't tweet every 14 seconds
Breaking news: people with jobs don't tweet every 14 seconds
VBScript. Yeah, I know. Not the prettiest of languages, but you know, she was there and ready and willing. I really didn't know what I was doing, and I'm sure did quite a bit wrong, but I generally knew what to put where to get the job done.
Your argument still makes no sense. Americans only put up with overbooking because they don't know there is a better way, yet you yourself point out JetBlue doesn't overbook.
Americans want airlines to overbook. They won't ever say it like that, but the evidence is clear. The benefits of overbooking to the consumer are large and the negatives are almost non-existent, because the airlines have become really really good at overbooking. Just look at the FAA stats for IDBs.
But, yes, I have zero illusion that you are ever going to understand this because of your personal preferences, which you have expressed repeatedly now. So I think we can move on.
Wow. You proved my point and you think you destroyed me. This is why these discussions are pointless. You are living in a world where you assume all the methods make logical sense and don't even bother to proces the logic of the experimenter's (I use that term loosely here) train of thought and what assumptions he or she is knowingly or unknowingly just kind of waving away. And I can't get there. I'm stuck here pointing out that in every case we are simply modeling case A vs case B, and one of those cases never existed and could never exist because we are dealing with the alternative histories problem plus climate timescales. So it's impossible to know that your model for the null is correct, and it's quite debatable whether anyone has successfully modeled the climate that does exist, too. What you are hanging your hat on is exactly the bullshit I was referring to in my original reply.
You can choose to believe it. Lots of people believe plenty of things without compelling scientific evidence. And in cases where there is a risk of ruin (fat tailed), that's prudent. But what's perpetually annoying is that people like you pretend it's science, and your side does it so much you have lost all memory of what science really is, and lost all ability to think critically outside the groupthink.
Look, you keep complaining about what Americans want and keep citing how much better service is in the rest of the world. It is clear you just aren't representative of the bulk of the US market. That's ok. As I explained before there are tons of options, including paying a bit more for domestic first class. Meanwhile, you should realize your view on this differs from the majority of US customers, so if I were you I would hesitate before asserting that I am wrong about US customers wanting airlines to overbook, especially since every airline does it and innovation in the US airline industry is almost exclusively focused on price. So you can keep replying and saying the sky isn't blue. But it stopped being interesting quite a while ago.
I'm seeing a pattern with you. No, one does not need to look into methodology when a topic is unknowable. If the method is rigorous, then it is misapplied or the results don't actually show what TFS says it shows.
Did you read my reasearch paper showing how I create energy from nothing, or did you just assume I'm wrong?
You cannot know this was caused by man made factors of climate change.
It's fun and easy to mock these cases in hindsight. What a bubble! Fake company! No revenue! Etc. And, I'm with you in the mocking. But what gets lost is that before the crash, really smart people bet on this company. I'm not talking about investors. A friend left his home city and great director-level job to take a higher level position in a new city at this company. He is a smart guy. He was excited. He truly believed he was making the clearly right decision.
My point is that if all we do is laugh, we don't recognize that we could have been my friend. We should be learning from this, not mocking it as a stupidity we could never run into ourselves.
For the millionth time on record, entities abuse the language of science to make unscientific claims to push a political agenda. The good news is this story can serve as a self assessment. If you find it remotely plausible that through science we have found evidence of this so compelling to overcome alternative explanations beyond tolerable error, then you now know you do not understand science. Metaknowledge is difficult to obtain, so this really is a uniquely valuable opportunity.
Use a different airline. Every experience I have had in first class has been wonderful.
It's worse than that. The second doctor likely knows it's a second opinion. And you likely picked a doctor that might not give you the same diagnosis (otherwise, why waste the money to likely hear the same thing again?). Tons of biases here. My question is always: do journalists repeating this know the these things, which are pretty basic, and just don't care because it fills pages and gets clicks? If so, there is something evil about taking advantage of Average Joe's lack of statistical/logical knowledge to make money by making them come to the wrong conclusions. If not, wow journalists are dumb.
As usual, journalists and
So what does this rate tell you? Not much. It certainly doesn't suggest the second opinion is correct. And it doesn't tell you much if anything about the base diagnosis error rate.
I have no idea what you're talking about. Almost every airline allows you to pay an extra $500 to ride in first class, and it's a much better experience. But most people are not willing to pay that, so first class seats are mostly filled by people getting upgraded in exchange for loyalty, which generally means paying an extra $50-100 per ticket to stick to one airline rather than picking the cheapest for your route. We have tons of options if you want to pay more for comfort, flexibility, and certainty. Airlines have like 20 fare classes where you can choose the rules you want to abide by. So whining about the rules and pretending you don't have full control over those rules by paying something more than the lowest available fare class is either your ignorance on how airlines work or just willful denial because you want to blame "that corporations!!!!" for only being able to fly anywhere you want for next to nothing using under whatever rules you desire. Ok...
And maybe first class isn't good enough for you. Maybe you want an even nicer experience where your short girlfriend is massaged in her seat. Well, there are only about a gazillion charter and private airlines in the US. For most people this isn't an option, because it turns out planes are expensive and operating them is expensive and maintaining them is expensive and landing fees at airports are expensive and security is expensive and paying commercial pilots is expensive and keeping them current on their type ratings, medicals, sim time, etc is expensive and complying with FAA regs is expensive and they end up in a totally different league cost wise compared to the highly efficient large commercial airlines.
So it's clear to me you have no idea what you're talking about and have onidea how good you have it and how amazing it is that $300 gets you anywhere in the US on a safe plane.
But I will give it one more shot. Suppose you get your own pilots license (to fly a small single engine plane). And you rent a Cessna and want to go somewhere, say, 500 mi away. Because it's you, you don't have to pay a pilot. You can leave from a regional GA airport, so no fees. You can even land at a regional GA airport, so likely no fees. All you're paying for is gas and plane rental. It will take you about 2-3x longer to get to your destination, plus 90 mins or so for preflight planning and inspection, but ignoring all that... you will still pay at least twice the cost for the round trip than if you bought a commercial airline ticket.
Perhaps that gives you some remote idea of how efficient commercial airlines are and how much you would need to pay to have the experience you are imagining...
This is more proof that our cities must build more bike lanes
The way to make a small fortune in the commodities market is to start with a large fortune.