For now, he creates the problems for me to solve later. I say huzzah!

Once the girl and boy band formulas were perfected, I don't see much difference in the 'real' popular music anyway. I won't mourn for the Taylor Swifts of the world and the millennial - whoop - inspired stuff on repeat everywhere. Real music seems to have stopped about 15-20 years ago. There are a very few outliers, but you need to buy their album and T-shirts, not listen on Spotify.

I agree this is a bad look, but throwing out all subscription/service contracts is not the way. Also, this is a terrible look for the contractor and the Navy. Some things need this type of treatment (complex missile and warhead maintenance would be 2 examples). However, connected ovens are not a tech the Navy needs. And ovens used to be considered part of the ship. This should have been killed at the review stages, but will be fixed now. I don't think this is the smoking gun for R2R. A bullet to support the cause, but this is going to be like the McDonald's icecream machines. Another blip.

Just because a machine wrote the code doesn't mean we can't use our standard static analysis tools on it to spot problems and enforce organizational coding inspections. This would necessarily include making sure your imports and includes are valid and allowed from license, performance, behavior, and sanity perspectives. Or are we just throwing everything out and letting an undergrad with a chatGPT account do it all now? Coding standards, tools, and inspections are more important when the input mechanism is faulty.

So, the app is from DJI... and has lineage traceable to china. So, you are essentially running Chinese code for your chinese drone. Anyway, that's how the logic works for the potential ban. Be interesting to see the impact on the market from something like this. I would look for DJI to engage a US company to get 'us-created/maintained' code for their new drones... and let the old ones stay as-is or be locked out.... you know, to encourage upgrades. I don't see the 'lose' here for anyone but existing consumers. Gov't gets to claim action, DJI sells new drones, and we get to bankroll the whole thing.

Chromebooks/phones (Android and appley), Linux, windows. And depending on what we consider 'desktop' these days... maybe that order? I do a lot of 'hybrid thick-client' computing these days so I generally just need a display and KB/Mouse that can access both the data I need to manipulate and a compute resource. Things really have changed over the last decade or so for me. I am become Cowboy Neal.

What you are describing is a standardized test/calibration regime that would need government regulations and support... Essentially a test/inspection process and apparatus that every shop could use.. sort of like the obd ports. There is precedent for this in the obd systems, can busses, light bulbs/aim patterns, glass, etc... These systems need a standards to verify functionality... I mean, how do I know that my systems are functioning correctly now? After 10 years has a sensor failed? I know my truck's ambient light sensor failed and the only way I knew was that the lights seemed to stay on all the time.... I swapped the sensor and they stopped doing that? Am I supposed to periodically let my emergency brake system stop the car a couple time a month? Um, no. So what do I do? How do we inspect these cars without requiring techs with decades of experience and 10's of thousands of dollars worth of electronic tools per vehicle type/year to service. This is a lot more than a parking spot ot test track.

There is no way to certify any of this is functional after a repair right now. They can only attest that they performed the work and calibrations to what they think is the manufacturer requirements. There is no recognized, standardized inspection for these systems. Each car is unique and what shops provide is only attestation that the workmanship is of a certain quality... Not that the system is actually operational/functional. We need standardized tests and calibrations that work across brands/lines. The tech is mature enough for that now.

So, outside the warranty period, how do we ensure these systems are still functional and we benefit from them? Current safety inspections do not test these as there are no standard, non-destructive, tests.

This, like bumpers themselves, is going to require standardization -- likely at the government level. Standard sensors and standard calibration processes... And why are these not getting periodically checked for functionality? So need inspection programs too. All of these will require government regulation. The software inside these computers needs to be certified and standardized too. The adaptive cruise in my hundai should operate as the adaptive cruise in my toyota or Mazda.. yet they are all completely different in how I have to operate them and how they behave---even though they all have the same capabilities.

A.I.

So, when I see made up, unverifiable statistics... Like "note that 100,000 repetitions likely wouldn't reproduce the flukish second MAX crash and everything that followed from it.".. That's the tell of a corporate information warfare piece that should be ignored and not amplified. The comments are nearly all negative, but the amplification has occurred. We have to find a way to do better and the WSJ does not appear the be ready to help.

The real problem is they don't want to pay maintain this skill set, or any other. THEY don't want to pay to reimplement and THEY don't want to pay skilled market rates to attract talent to do the work. Sorry, not sorry. They've banked this technical debt and now they need to pay it down. Accountants and bad leadership doom best practices.

Overcharging has never been against the law in the states. But i don't think you can 'dump' services. I am all for the airlines acting crazy like this. Just one step closer to tighter regulations that actually stand a chance at stopping this clown-show in the airline business.

In the hotel industry, if I rent a room, get a cheap rate and then check out early, they can't rerent the room unless they refund the days. But really, they are happy they don't have to turn the room... Either way, they can resell or not, their choice. The airlines sold the second/subsequent seats at a rate they accepted. It is not the passengers fault they have no way to be notified that the subsequent legs could be refunded and resold at higher rates. (I would be surprised if they didn't sell a standby--essentially selling that seat twice).... So, they are really just upset they can't make you pay more than they agreed at first? And all this is predicated on some sort of "thought crime" where you plan to not get into a metal tube at some future point because it is cheaper not to? Ahhh?