2) You have to be an idiot to visit currently. The rule of law is now nothing more than guidelines and Trump and his ilk have publicly stated they alone can decide what's right or wrong.

Edit: Somebody fucking explain. She tried to cross the border on the 25th, 5 days after Trump's presidency started and after he started rounding up and deporting people.

It's easy to look at studies and say "this shit doesn't work" (despite there being plenty of studies that show they're clearly effective and they're one of the best treatments we have). But when you talk to people taking it, clearly there are way too many that benefit from them to just say we need to stop prescribing them. That's just deciding due to your own biases that countless people need to suffer unnecessarily. Why? Why would you want to do this to people? Or do you not actually care about the suffering or wellbeing of the people affected and you just have this vague idea of "SSRIs bad"?

I spent a lot of time reading studies before going on SSRIs to decide whether it was worth it. The literature unambiguously said that SSRIs are absolutely a valid form of treatment that can help (even though it won't help everybody). Who are you to say they're horseshit?

How do you read a book effectively? You skim the table of contents. You skim the contents of each chapter and mark interesting paragraphs. Then you go through the book another 1-2 times, each time getting deeper into the text and cross-referencing information between different parts of the book.

What tools like this will do is allow us to apply this same workflow to videos, which can greatly enhance our understanding of videos we're interested in and help us contextualise it with the rest of our knowledge.

I've already been doing this and it's helped me expand my knowledge and understanding in ways that wouldn't have been possible without an unreasonable investment of time and effort.

implies that Airbus and Boeing should be treated similarly. When the issue isn't necessary the automation or software, it's how each company behaves in situations where there are serious faults or deficiencies with their designs.

You realize that the difference between this incidence and the one in this HN post is that the FAA made a recommendation in a report (IN 2023) for how to resolve the smoke issue, and it still hasn't been implemented by Boeing? That couldn't be the issue, it must be a conspiracy.

> Although it got off to a rocky start, the A320 went on to achieve a better safety record than most traditional aircraft types. And although there have been a couple of close calls, no Airbus has ever crashed because of the sort of computer failure that skeptics so deeply feared.

Airbus didn't just fight the need to improve their designs. They just kept improving on their designs and fixed what needed to be fixed.

I'm not sure why Boeing and Airbus are being treated equivalently by you and the other commenter. Especially since the two situations are nothing alike. Boeing hid MCAS to avoid a new type rating. The Airbus A320 just had new types of systems that would continue to be iterated on over time and were simply new.