I interpret "unilateral market power" to mean that the suppliers have asymmetric power over the customers. There is little competition once you are locked into an ecosystem.

Sure, you can rent some compute from another company, but you have all these networks and firewalls and databases and data stores you've set up within one company's borders. The competition has similar services, but they're not quite drop in replacements, so you can't just pick up and move to take advantage of better pricing. It can take years to rebuild your infrastructure if you want to escape.

They are also an oligopoly, which limits the need to compete. The customer has very little power to negotiate better terms when there's only one, maybe two, other serious players in the field.

That document is about a defective or incorrectly-installed part. Sure, if that's a problem then they should be repaired. It's not clear whether that's related to this crash at all.

You're moving the goalposts from your original suggestion that they shouldn't have a way to shut down the engines in flight at all.

That configuration - a switch placed immediately behind each engine's throttle lever - is almost universal in every jet designed since they eliminated the Flight Engineer position.

A320 (basically every Airbus looks similar). 737-300. 747-400. Embraer is weird: they put the start/stop controls immediately in front of the throttles.

I could go on, but the point is: this isn't some poorly-considered design fluke in the 787. This is how it is done, and for a good reason: there are many situations where it's necessary to shut down the engines for safety reasons. Having these controls readily accessible saves lives.

Maybe you should take your own advice.

To prevent or stop a fire. That needs to be a fast and uncomplicated procedure.

You could add interlock logic: If the aircraft is below $altitude, inhibit the switch. But that ignores use cases like "we're going down and about to crash in a field, let's cut off the engines to reduce the risk of fire."

It's tempting to keep making the logic more complicated: If the aircraft has been airborne for less than $duration and the we're below $altitude, delay shutdown for $x seconds while blaring an alarm, except if this temperature sensor reads high suggesting there's a fire, or excessive fuel flow indicates a leak. This introduces new problems: more bugs due to ever-increasing edge cases; more systemic failures due to a broken sensor; etc. This also means the pilots' mental model is more complicated: you don't want them to flip a switch and then wonder "wait, why didn't that work?", and waste time trying to remember some flowchart from their training.

So the current best-practice solution, used wherever possible, is KISS: Each control does exactly one thing, and it does it in the most immediate and direct way possible. You don't find out about your mistake only after some additional set of conditions are met. It does what the label says, and if you don't like the result, you flip the switch back. It should only be more complicated to prevent a recurring problem.

For the most part, that turns out to be the most safe and reliable design.

I get it. The problem is they didn't put much thought into objective criteria for non-weather categories when they rolled out the system.

I think they should just roll Silver and AMBER together into "missing persons" and it would solve 90% of the problem.

Unfortunately, they don't have a separate category for "Silver Alerts". Around here they keep sending them as "Extreme Alerts", which ought to be reserved for flash flooding and other things which put large numbers of people in danger, not just one Alzheimer's case.

You need a problem which is difficult to compute, with predictable difficulty, where the answer can be quickly verified. Few real-world problems meet all of those criteria. Most scientific calculations have to be completely re-run to verify the result, which would make it easy to DoS the server by submitting bogus answers.

USDC isn't decentralized. It is not permissionless: USDC can be frozen by Circle (the issuer). Per TFS, the Shopify/Coinbase transactions are reversible so you're going to have fees for counterparty risk. What exactly is "everything that crypto stands for"?

This just makes me think Europe must be doing something right.

Some measures would be good. These measures are a mess.

We need a coherent, long-term plan to rebuild domestic industry and ensure our independence. Instead, everything is being abruptly disrupted and it's going to throw us into a terrible recession. That's exactly the wrong environment to increase domestic investment.

A great many of us have opposed this kind of surveillance regardless of who is in charge. Yes, including under Clinton and Obama. It doesn't matter who is doing the collecting. Once the database exists, it's inevitable that it will eventually be misused. The problem is fascism, and both the Democrats and Republicans are culpable.

It's faster and cheaper than an MRI. Cancer? Eh, that's your problem, not theirs.

Check out Kagi. You can raise/lower/block domains.

It's pretty neat what happens when you pay a few bucks a month for search. Suddenly you are the customer, and they want it to work better for you.

NASCAR hasn't used production cars in decades. The cars are a single chassis design, made by a single manufacturer. They use decals for the headlights, grilles, etc, to create a superficial resemblance to production models. The mechanical differences are only in minor tuning changes, suspension setup, etc, to meet each driver's preferences. The expensive R&D is long gone.

Troll, really? I'll own that it's a somewhat spicy opinion, but it's sincere. I'm not just trying to start shit.