No shit, go see a decent therapist. This is literally the core of what they do as a profession. If they aren't helpful, just want to babble about the weather for 45 minutes, whatever, find a different one. PhD > Masters but I've met bad PhDs and good masters clinicians.
Also, if you're struggling with getting things done because you're always dopamine seeking, get checked for ADHD. There are some extremely effective treatments that can make your life way easier if that turns out to be the problem.
Most of these managers support some form of 2fa. I use a yubikey with mine such that if my master password is compromised someone would still need to obtain my security key. You can enroll multiple and keep one in a safe and one or more on your person. It's not perfect, but it prevents the vast majority of huge dragnet style malware attacks and a lot of the targeted ones until you get to the point where someone is trying to hunt you down on the street.
This still leaves a case where someone manages to get the final key out of memory but you're pretty hosed at that point anyway. I'd prefer a system where the yubikey itself is doing the final credential decryption instead of the CPU, unfortunately most people aren't that paranoid though.
The pilot likely heard "I think 24E is acting suspiciously, he tried to mess with the entertainment system, can we boot him?" and responded by saying "yeah go for it" before resuming checklists.
The way it works is if a flight attendant feels a passenger is somehow a risk they will notify the captain who has the authority to boot them. The captain has a locked door to hide behind and doesn't want to deal with whatever's going on so will almost always just tell the flight attendant they can boot the passenger without any further investigation. The problem is the captain is the one with the regulatory training and the flight attendants are generally fairly poorly trained on anything beyond the emergency landing and evacuation procedures on the card. As such they tend to not really be very well versed in FAA regulations, airline procedures/policy, or security/evaluating threats, hence why weird shit like this happens with some regularity.
I've had them lose their absolute shit for putting tape over a broken strobing seat light on a night flight and got to watch them attempt to improperly deplane a flight without a tail stand risking a tip over. On the continum of aerospace professional to barista the training they get is much closer to the latter unfortunately. This follows the general trend of airlines doing everything in their power to avoid investing in their employees.
Here's a good one: the FAA categorically prevents any pilots from taking any psychiatric medication (minor caveats but the point holds in practice), in particular for depression, anxiety, and ADHD, all of which are extremely common in the airlines. As such, everyone just hides their diagnosis and waits until they snap because the alternative is permanently losing a job they took out hundreds of thousands in loans to get. Others pay out of pocket for treatment under false names so the FAA is currently trying to hunt them down.
Before anyone says the usual stuff about not wanting their pilots on meds, the medications are safe to fly on and much safer than the alternative, the FAA just hasn't updated their psych guidelines since Freud was the standard because any change would open whichever bureaucrat up to being hauled in front of Congress for the next accident regardless of culpability. Additionally the medication standards are also inherited from ICAO so even if we wanted to change, we'd need to convince the likes of China and the Saudis (both major stakeholders) that they can come out from the rock they live under and accept modern psychological science.
Seems like the solution is to change the regulations (if warranted), not say "oh it's bad when data is used to flag pilots who are violating regulations".
>we'd need to convince the likes of China and the Saudis (both major stakeholders) that they can come out from the rock they live under and accept modern psychological science.
Giving how overwhelmingly worse the mental health is of people, especially young people, in America, I can see why the Chinese and Saudis are so reluctant to accept western psychological "science".
We're talking about two different things: the cause of mental health issues and the treatment of mental health issues. The US is pretty modern at treating them and pretty outstanding at causing them.
Yes but it seems like the treatment is addressing the symptoms and not the outstanding source of them as you say. We are slapping band-aids on an open wound
As a person who experienced both the symptoms and the treatment in the US I can assure you that it’s better to receive band-aid treatment than nothing at all.
Treatments could be—and should be—better, but comparing US to countries where psychological issues are being ignored and stigmatized is not to the benefit of the latter.
Ha, it's like saying there are no gay people in Saudi Arabia. If having psychological issues is extremely stigmatized by the society don't expect the stats to reflect reality in any trustworthy sense.
I would hope that the Chinese and Saudi's realize the youth in America's mental health is largely due to America's unique flavor of corporatacracy and the climate crisis. If you think this is wrong you either don't know or understand American youth or you're being willfully ignorant.
Seconded, though I'd add that with the current concerns about climate change and resource utilization, we need to think a bit more about product lifecycle and this is a reasonable way of illustrating that.
If the embodied environmental impact of a product increases 10% to make it last 100% longer then we need to think about making that change rather than producing twice as many to replace the broken ones.
one thing about some of the shitty products out there today is we got MUCH better at making things out of less material. So they break easier and wear out faster, but we've been able to reduce material usage along with price.
If you're a person who loses pens or holds onto them so long the ink dries up, it'd be better to waste an object made as cheaply as possible than one made to last.
The easiest way to clean it up significantly is to better tax industry such that energy, resource usage, and transportation are all represented in the price such that the economy actually reflects the environmental impact of production rather than just the business costs of the moment.
Indeed, and I think we should be thinking about pricing the recycling or disposal costs too (even if that's difficult or inherently imprecise), as well as giving incentives for products with effective recycling supply chains (or simply low disposal rates! i.e. longlasting products). I think it's worth not being too heavy-handed about this, because low income people would be hit the hardest most likely, but I think something like this would help significantly.
On average they didn't (oh no, that repair costs more than the "car is worth" as if that's a metric that actually means anything) but it was far easier to keep one running indefinitely. You could take an engine to a small machine shop and get the head and block resurfaced, valves reamed and cylinders lapped. Without any electronics to fail it was just a block of metal that was slowly losing material and a quick hit with a file could even out any imperfections leaving it like new, just with very slightly more displacement.
Modern engines are way more reliable because they have coatings and materials that will last nearly indefinitely in most parts of the engine but they're built on proprietary sensors and electronics that need a steady stream of replacements and secret software to debug.
We could make cars last indefinitely from a supply chain perspective, but commoditizing software and electronics would make them very marginally more expensive. We absolutely can't have that because, drum roll for the 1000th time, 99% of the population doesn't give a flying fuck and wants cheap shit at all costs.
It’s the old fuel injection vs carburetor debate. Do you want something that usually runs for 200k miles without a single problem, but takes a fancy shop to fix? Or do you want something that needs a complete rebuild every three months and needs to be retuned for your ski trip, but can be repaired by a high school boy with a tongue depressor, a q-tip, and a hammer?
The rapid exodus of carburetors shocked and dismayed many right-to-repair folks, but I think we now see with laptops and cell phones that all else equal, consumer preference strongly favors trading repair headaches for the otherwise more compelling product (thinner, faster, lighter, more powerful, etc)
I think you can have it both ways honestly. A TBI setup with a wasted spark ignition is at least as easy to work on a carburetor, with little or no extra complexity and way less headaches, while removing a lot of the problems older stuff had (no points, condensers and caps going bad, no need to mess with the jets, etc.). You can have it both ways, the manufacturers and consumers just have to give a shit.
One thing I suspect has tipped the scales in favour of less repairable products is the massive decline in social capital.
30-40 years ago, if your lawnmower broke down you'd ask Dave from two doors down to come and have a look at it.
Now, you'd either take it to a professional repairman (and get it back 2 weeks and $100+ later), try to work it out yourself via online tutorials, or just throw it in the bin.
Either way, it's far more painful for a product to bee temporarily out of service these days than it once was.
There’s clearly some of the baumol effect at play. The small engine repairman hasn’t gotten much more productive, which is part of why it’s so expensive to hire out repair.
My backup commuter vehicle is a inexpensive (but modified) off-highway motorcycle for exactly this reason.
Sure, you have to have a small 'bug-out bag' (in this case a belt pack) with spare parts (bolts, belts, master links etc.) and some critical sockets if you want to take a ride without fear, but beyond that the thing is a tank. Even the most critical of problems can be fixed for minimal expenditure at Harbor Freight and/or a local motorcycle parts shop.
Aside from being fun, and confusing people every time they see it in the parking lot next to the Tesla/Rivian/Mercedes AMG crew, it is serious peace of mind that I've always got motorized transport that won't fail me.
IMO the reason we need better right-to-repair laws is because it's pretty hard to think about repairability at buy-time instead of at "when-it-fails"-time. Even more since companies that used to be good in the repairability front aren't necessarily still.
As someone who drives an “old” Honda 2006, I’m surprised that this machine is still running very good. I could just take it to my local shop and had it fixed in 1-2 days. Based on my logs, I took the car for repair on average of 3-4 times a year.
I am looking to purchase a new family vehicle in the future but with all the softwares, screens, and fancy stuffs I am not sure if I liked it. Anyone feels this way?
Repair 3-4 times a year or oil changes/consumables? How many miles does this honda have, age is not a good indicator over miles.
If you are really having this car repaired 4 times a year for 18 years (72 repairs) this doesn't sound like a reliable machine. A modern Toyota or Honda can go many years with 0 repairs, just consumables.
This isn't specifically about Honda quality, but I think it's a nice Honda anecdote.
My wife bought a used Accord before we got married. Eventually it died on the highway and we had it towed to the dealer. The engine needed to be replaced because of the failure of a part that had been recalled (when it was owned by the previous owner) had not been replaced. Since it was due to a recalled part, Honda replaced the engine for the price of the oil.
We bought Hondas for the next 20 years after that. We still own a 2012 Accord that my son is running into the ground. Our current car is a Volvo, lots of nice features, but I think our next will be a Honda.
The engine of my 2006 Honda hasn’t had any major issue besides from oil leaks, and busted air coolant pipes, etc., minor stuffs. I guess the most important stuff is that to have its yearly complete maintenance.
My Acura (up line Honda) was nice, but Honda has been really slow with the EV transition, so I left them for my next car even though I liked their quality. Hopefully they make the EV transition eventually.
My 2017 CRV started bricking itself, of course right at the 5 year warranty mark. something was wrong somewhere and the electronics & sensor system didn’t know where so it was designed to shut all the electronic systems off, like cruise control, emergency braking, road departure mitigation, etc. etc.. about 20 different sub-systems, each one got it’s own separate loud annoying beep in succession every time the car started.
We took it to the dealer many times, and they couldn’t figure out what was wrong either. That didn’t stop them from trying, by replacing whatever part was their best guess and charging us for the new one plus labor. During our final visit to the dealer, only a few blocks away, the car broke down. It limped, smoking, to the dealer where they found the AC compressed had seized causing the timing belt to melt, which then took out the alternator and several other components. After a $5,000 repair and assurances the problem must be fixed, we took it home and had a nice month’s worth of driving, and then it started bricking again. We couldn’t sell it fast enough, what a nightmare.
To their partial credit, Honda later reimbursed half the repair cost, and the dealer admitted the vehicle failure was design flaws that were out of our control. We also found out after the repair that the AC compressor had been recalled, but unfortunately the new one didn’t fix the problem.
Tl;dr I did before I bought it, but I personally no longer believe Honda to be more reliable than any other brand. One major problem across the industry now is that they know how to make good reliable engines and powertrains, but none of them are any good at computer software reliability, and computers have very suddenly taken over all critical systems in the car.
There's a few tricks to know for each model. I got a mid 2000s ford with a by all accounts unbreakable engine (600hp possible on stock internals) but the radiator and trans cooler is the same unit and often cracks pushing coolant into the trans. First thing i did to it was to buy an aftermarket external trans cooler for my specific model and install it.
I really wish there was a new car that I wanted to buy, because my 1998 Jeep isn't getting any younger. But holy crap is the modern car a dumpster fire of shit from a UI perspective. Although it looks like at least some manufacturers are starting to take note: https://futurism.com/the-byte/car-touchscreens-buttons-back
My car has physical buttons for climate control, volume, lights, etc but also a nice sized touch screen for CarPlay. I got the last year before VW took away the steering wheel buttons with capacitive replacements, though it sounds like they too are waking that back.
Yes that article sums up my feelings on the modern car. But my main concern are the repairs 5-10 years from now. It’s crazy to think that a car would be recalled by just some software glitch if that’s what I read is correct.
You can have that level of quality and care for the entire car, not just limited to the drivetrain and electronics, and it's probably even in a showroom right now waiting for buyers, just at your nearest Rolls Royce dealership.
That's only if they don't QC every single part, for every single car, coming from new suppliers.
Which RR would do to avoid the obvious problem, only after a supplier has been verified to be sending only the highest quality product, would they ease off.
The simplest thing is that the supplier charges double or triple the unit price such that they can accept half the parts failing inspection and getting sent back.
It's more than just QC. When you make 3M cars per year, you get a lot of data points about what fails, and you you feed that back into new designs. You also nail manufacturing tolerances. When you make 4,000 (and a lot of those won't see the same mileage as a Honda), there aren't as many opportunities to find these issues.
Or another way: you an QC a bolt to death, but that doesn't tell you if it's undersized for the design.
Yes it does when there are several stages of prototypes and engineering builds before the actual production vehicle is shipped to customers... and the hundreds of other mechanisms and systems that major automakers use nowadays. I mentioned QC because it's the first screening for arriving parts, not the only thing that occurs.
Do you not know how car manufacturing works?
Anyways you don't have to take the quality of RR parts on my word if you still think it's impossible, just go a showroom and inspect it yourself.
Design iteration is typically a long tail phenomenon - new issues keep coming up as the system (car) faces new scenarios.
Even a high-resource prototyping program can only go so far with scenarios like - wear and tear/part fatigue, adverse environmental conditions, local peculiarities (e.g. regulatory requirements for uncommon configurations), unintended but common maintenance mistakes etc.
For example, a Fiat car my family owned suffered a cascade drivetrain failure after about 9 years on the road. I don't think a prototyping program could have captured that ahead of time.
The fact that the showroom RR parts look fine only indicates that the parts are ok immediately after manufacturing; it does not promise they'll work fine after several years even if treated will.
> Design iteration is typically a long tail phenomenon - new issues keep coming up as the system (car) faces new scenarios.
Even a high-resource prototyping program can only go so far with scenarios like - wear and tear/part fatigue, adverse environmental conditions, local peculiarities (e.g. regulatory requirements for uncommon configurations), unintended but common maintenance mistakes etc.
Which is why automakers typically recommends a maintenance schedule that catches the vast majority of potential failures before they occur on the road.
How does this, or anecdotes of your family's Fiat, relate to engineering and verification practices of parts coming in from suppliers?
Why is everyone worked up about the software? The hardware is where all the time and effort is and Prusa just hasn't been doing much there. They could be using ball bearing rails or more rigid structure but instead they're just lightly iterating on their existing system of low precision plastic parts.
And the list of genders decided by a government. Individuals make that list, not the government. One party understands that, the other claims they can define that list. Which one sounds like Big Government to you?
“Illegals are gonna take my job” is a caricature by people who don’t want to engage legitimate concerns of people who care about stopping illegal immigration.
The biggest concern is the pressure on social safety nets, the cost put on taxpayers, and the resulting crime many get forced into precisely because they can’t get legitimate jobs.
They don't qualify for social security but are paying into it and other than that there aren't any real social safety nets in this country anyway so I still do not understand this logic in the least.
They are not refused medical care and they receive food from local food kitchens. We pay for their survival whether or not it comes from typical SSN, EBT, etc.
They do not pay into social security if they are completely undocumented because they can’t get a traditional paycheck. The jobs that they do get are paid under the table which avoids taxation on both the payer and the payee.
> According to New American Economy, undocumented immigrants contributed $13 billion into the Social Security funds in 2016 and $3 billion to Medicare. Three years prior, the Chief Actuary of the Social Security Administration, Stephen Goss, wrote a report that estimated undocumented immigrants contributed $12 billion into Social Security.
That’s irrelevant when you don’t have any per capita contributions. Just because some use a stolen SSN (which I’m sure you’ll assure me they only use for taxes and not benefits) doesn’t mean the majority do or that it’s a net contribution.
I think it's a case of people only caring about their specific short term individual interests in the narrowest way possible. They're not really a rational thing in any other domain.
Basically, if you have a zero sum game with two companies and one has better IP than the other, it makes sense for the time span through which the company without can't reverse engineer it. In every other case it means the groups of companies under the umbrella of non-competes will slowly loose to groups of companies in jurisdictions without non-competes.
To expand on that, if you objectively have some special sauce that you don't want leaked to your competition then it's a net gain for you and a loss for the rest of X industry (where X is finance because they're the ones who want this, not tech). In reality though, it's extremely rare to have sole control over an incredibly strong piece of IP that defines a market. In reality, everyone thinks they do because they don't know what anyone else has. Everyone has something that gives them an edge, hence being competitive in the market, but sharing those secrets within their local area can make the whole industry way more performant.
The law applies to everyone so if you can't have non-competes, neither can your competition. At a local level it will make groups of companies much stronger than their more distant competitors because they can share knowledge under the table at a much higher rate.
Also, if you're struggling with getting things done because you're always dopamine seeking, get checked for ADHD. There are some extremely effective treatments that can make your life way easier if that turns out to be the problem.