Sully sticking an A320 in the Hudson comes to mind. Thereâ(TM)s also been quite a few uncontained engine failures, but not impacts with the ground.

That regional jet bit is also doing some pretty heavy lifting.

Survivable crashes are the norm. Itâ(TM)s a commonly cited fact that youâ(TM)re far safer in a plane than a car. Whatâ(TM)s much less commonly cited, and even less intuitive is that thatâ(TM)s still true even if you assume youâ(TM)re going to be in a crash.

Letâ(TM)s take a look at this years crashes with more than 20 people on boardâ¦

- May 3. 767 hit light pole on landing, barely counts as a crash.
- Mar 22. Bombardier CRJ-900 hit an ARFF vehicle on the runway. 2 pilots killed, all passengers and cabin crew survived.

The only thing I've found worth bothering with at Starbucks is their "blonde" roasts (what everyone else would probably call "medium"). A blonde americano or a Veranda batch brew (I think they still technically offer a pour-over, but none of the employees are capable doing it) are the only things I'll get when Starbucks is my only option.

Pike Place is worse than gas station mystery brew that's been on the warmer for 6 hours.

”though [Trump’s] public statements and policies [on AI] appear to change week by week”

They don’t appear to change. That would imply the policy is set as A. Then changes to B. Then to C. That is not what happens. It’s just the dodderings of an idiot who hasn’t the first fucking clue but thinks he has. It’s not policy and it’s not statements he makes. It’s drivel, no more and no less, and should be treated with the contempt it deserves.

Free speech includes lying.

they can sell it to the White House team

the evidence suggests that the Peltzman effect partially offsets the benefits of some ADAS systems, but nowhere near enough to cancel them out entirely. The strongest evidence points towards a modest reduction in net benefit, with the size of the offset varying enormously by the type of ADAS involved.

For several major ADAS features, there is strong evidence of substantial net safety benefits, not least from insurers’ claims data, which find reductions in crashes of around 10–50% depending on the system. If risk compensation were fully cancelling benefits, these reductions would not appear in real-world claims data.

Maybe it will be more of an issue with more advanced systems eg levels of autonomy. But maybe not, because a large fraction of active human errors will be eliminated. The issue is that while the number of errors removed by automation is very large, and the number of new errors introduced is much smaller, the introduced errors may be disproportionately severe and attract considerable attention because they are novel and often surprising. But the empirical equation that matters is Net risk = Human errors removed - Automation-induced errors added, with all errors weighted for severity.

Most people substantially over-estimate their own driving abilities. The more that cars help them and the less humans alone are making all the decisions, the better.

Buses are fantastic, when done well. In London, they’re done very well and they’re excellent. Clean, quiet, calm, and there’s still no pleasure quite like being at the front on the top deck of a double-decker, especially now so many routes are now served by EVs and thus are smooth, free of vibration, air-conditioned, and quiet. I have a car, I walk, I take the tube, and I use the bus, depending on the circs. Multi-modal for the win. (I don’t use Lime bikes, but my son loves ‘em).

I’m in Bogota, Colombia at the moment, where almost all the Ubers are these tiny and tinny little stick shift econoboxes, typically at least 10 years old. The traffic is dense and stop-start, and there are hills everywhere, and being driven around in these things is just awful. It’s so herky-jerky and hard on my back and coccyx. They stall on the hills. The engine is screaming half the time. I’ve had the luck to be picked up by one EV in the time here, and my god, the relief for my poor old arse was quite literally palpable. This EV was definitely capable of jumping off the lights at warp speed, but the ample power and smooth acceleration meant the driver didn’t feel the need to do it, and when we hit traffic, it was so smooth by comparison. It was really quite striking. We got the hotel car from the airport on the first day, and that was a big automatic SUV of some sort, and it was pretty much a half-way house experience.

Merit should always consider strictly value.

Wrong. Any progressive tax system is a "wealth tax" and the only thing it's a radical departure from is the steaming pile of shit that Rotten Ronnie left for us in the 80's. Go back a little further and you'll see tax brackets as high as 94% during the 1940s.

A wealth cap is simply a progressive tax system where eventually you reach a 100% tax bracket. Frankly I don't see any reason this is inherently a bad thing, especially when you're talking about the top 0.01% hoarders of wealth. Not that it matters much, since none of the people it would possibly apply to actually take a normal salary income. Part of any effective changes like this has to include capturing the real way that these people acquire and store their money, which will never happen.

Or corporate profits, which have more than doubled in the last 10 years.

Cuba has a mix of domestic, institutional and national level installations, same as everywhere else, as I mentioned above. Why would you think it would be otherwise?

I get the wish to avoid changing your process, and Iâ(TM)m sure Linus puts a lot of thought into how he does things, but I think heâ(TM)s very likely yelling and shaking his fist at the clouds here.

I think anyone whoâ(TM)s worked in a professional setting is going to know the value of code review. Having a tool that can easily give you an extra, high quality code review is incredibly useful. No matter how skilled Linus is (and he undoubtedly is), I think heâ(TM)s daft to overlook such powerful tools.