Iirc there were 1 or 2 people who could hold the process up and were not open to persuasion.

I was also young and less equipped to handle that.

I worked in a few other spaces and liked a slightly more balanced approach.

Silicon Valley style approach is not what id strive for at the FAA. I dont think that is the extreme they have swung to either.

You can argue thats not a sufficient third redundancy, I don't have enough context to throw an opinion out there on the safety of this particular infrastructure project.

I am confident that the fallback process was considered and kept in place as the tertiary backup.

Excellent point though. It took me some thinking to put myself back in SRM mindset and what they'd have considered here.

There were two independent systems.

The SRM board knew the legacy system but much less the modern one. Its hard to compare safety when you only clearly understand one systems safeguards.

I appreciate the process being there but at the time it felt much more like (some) people protecting their jobs than the public.

The risks I felt were overblown (iirc) were around likelihood of catastrophic failure in the system.

I actually loved the overall process and it informed how I look at software, it was the application of the process that bothered me.

I would urge you not to consider this modernization from the perspective you may be familiar, as someone who may work on the bleeding edge and sometimes sees a lack of caution from engineers pushing for change.

The FAAs safety risk management is built around a rigorous process, but that is also a massive slowdown to reasonable progress.

One of the eng I worked with was 80+ years old and just didnt want to retire. He did not understand modern systems at all and the risks we were looking at were not (imo) realistically balanced.

I get the idea that the current administration is pushing safety to the side, but there is another risk where safety becomes a blocker to reasonable change.

When I left that work (more than 15 years ago) it was clearly a blocker.

I know hosts that do this.

The guide for guest behavior is pretty much good guest guidelines like ensuring no trash is left out.

Its past time airbnb standardize the experience here more.

I agree with original comment. I just don't know who to trust to do a deep enough dive to give me good information.

Purely upvoted content is (generally) less offensive to the readers. Purely downvoted content is (generally) more offensive to the readers. Mixed content 50/50 up/down is typically more controversial and so isn't purely offensive, but instead depends on who the reader is. Assuming a wide spread of audience (not a pre-silo'd audience).

I'm speculating here but I guess this is a tool twitter plans to use to reinforce silos, find content that's only "mildly offensive (I.E. Pimple Popping threads) and let people who want that to get it. Alternatively, they could find content that's downvoted by people who have a good "donwvoting trend" and upscale those downvotes. It's just more signal in their learning algorithms toolboxes.

IMO it neither helps nor hurts twitter's users to have downvotes it really depends on how they use it. I suspect people who are opposed to downvotes don't trust that Twitter will use the signal well. For example, the fact that YouTube took away "displaying" downvotes but not actually downvoting takes away power from users. They still get the signal but users don't. You no longer get signal on what YouTube is recommending to you.

It's just additional signal on the content in a world where I just can't read it all.

It's a great 2 for 1 thing that NASA typically does. They'll win even when they fail because they learned something and they won't fail that way again.

Thank you for reminding me.

I totally agree, we hear so much negativity his approach to showing how humanity in general is better off today than any time in the past is encouraging.

I'm going from memory but level 1 was what you describe.

Level 2 is being able to meet your needs but all your time goes into meeting those needs.

Level 3 is having enough extra money to pay for things you don't need.

Level 4 was IIRC basically not having to work.

Most countries have a range of 1-3 or 2-3 or 3-4 or some distribution of that.

Anyway long story short, western countries mostly have 2-4 and don't know what 1 even looks like (on a lived experience level). They've seen pictures of it and there are people living in Level 1 in western countries, they just aren't as front and center. If you've lived near Level 1 you know what real poverty looks like. If you haven't you think that Level 2 is real poverty. Both need to be addressed, but I agree that Level 1 poverty is so much worse for people living there.

My understanding of this is that it's released on a bi-monthly basis. So the active count is not reported. There are people who try to track it based on the outstanding shorts by watching the stock market and predicting what the current daily short percentage is, but I don't think they have verifiable data until the publication comes out. https://nasdaqtrader.com/Trader.aspx?id=ShortIntPubSch

Any short before the surge was probably shorting the price below 20/share. Say there are 100% shorts at 20/share. Then it goes up to 50/share and now it's 80% at 20/share (because 20% of those closed out) and 20% at 50/share.

When it was at 400/share, no one knows if those were shorts at 20/share, 50/share, or 400/share or when they expired. If I was a savvy investor who was being squeezed, I'd have cleared all my shorts at 20/share at a loss and then shorted the stock again at 400/share keeping the percentage around 100% of the market. I have no way of showing this and unfortunately very few people do (to my knowledge). If I'm wrong please show me I'd love to learn more, I find this incredibly interesting.

That's what I mean is not public information, no one knows what the breakdown of the short value is.

>Clearly not. My friend was buying in at that time, despite me arguing with him that he shouldn't. There's also plenty of retail-buys that occurred at $300 to $400: millions and millions of shares bought.

They thought it would go up to 1000. Which it might have, but they thought it would surge up and they could sell off at 1000.

That doesn't mean the price is maintainable. Everyone was passing around the last Short chart and it wasn't a maintainable boost. You can't even see the jump on a 5 year timeline of the market.

EDIT: Sorry I keep saying everyone. Everyone who was on WSB during the mania. I am sure there were individuals who didn't fit this. But I assume your friend thought the price would hit 1000/share and then they'd sell there. Or they were sold on buying the dip. Either way, they had an exit strategy (I assume) and it wasn't 10 years from now it was in a few days or weeks. Which is why I said isn't maintainable.

It doesn't take into account that at 400 shorting GME became a much more appealing idea than even at 20/share. Everyone knew 400/share was unmaintainable.

I think the stock is between a 10/share and 30/share stock but I'm not a professional. Honestly the professionals aren't professionals and that's backed by some studies but I won't get into that right now.

The idea that you can cover this story without mentioning the short squeeze is lazy or dishonest. While it's an artificial boost to a stocks price it's a completely valid boost to that price too.

I use the PS5 as an example. How expensive is it? 500? Wrong. It's 500 if you put in time and energy, but if you value your time and energy over that of the retail price you can get one on ebay for 1000. Is it worth 1000? Only if you are impatient.

What's GME price? 2/share 15/share doesn't matter. If I have 1000 of something and I know that 1400 people MUST buy it by the end of the month, I can be sure that I'll make some money there. Was 400/share reasonable? I don't think so, that was mania and the fact that this short squeeze got mainstream and people had FOMO.

It was shorted to below 2/share at some point which is imo insane given what we've seen EVERY SINGLE CONSOLE RELEASE EVER.

The media saw an opportunity to make this about populist rage, and we all bit it. But this was started as a short squeeze and a very effective one at that.

EDIT: Just to clarify. There was obviously a short squeeze. That short squeeze could have stopped at 20/share and been a GREAT short squeeze. I have friends who got off the ride at that point thinking the squeeze was over. The frenzy that happened that pushed the stock to 400 was insane, and wouldn't have happened if this stock didn't start trending. You don't have a subreddit go from 2m to 8m in 2 weeks unless there's some serious frenzy.

If this were a sports game there would be yellow and red flags all over this incident.

-No talking politics

-No overuse of anonymous accounts

-Be Kind,

-Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive

I really like that last one.

As I'm not a moderator please just consider this a friendly reminder that there is always a human on the other side of the keyboard, even the anonymous ones.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

If we all understand that this is actually (under the law) what MOST people want we'll be able to get along.

>What’s valuable about homophobia? What’s intellectually honest about hating people for their sexual orientation and advocating for discrimination against them?

I just started looking this up to write this comment. I was curious about it and I wanted to be as correct as I can. Ben Shapiro believes that contractually, under the law, homosexuality should be allowed. Full Stop. This is a very libertarian perspective. It's the idea that no matter what I personally believe due to my religion, you can and should be able to legally do what you want as long as it doesn't affect others (throwing that in for the abortion argument).

Personally, Ben Shapiro is a homophobe. Politically, he is not. He's pro-equality of opportunity and recognition under the law.

As someone who grew up really religious, I can understand how he justifies this idea. You are indoctrinated to hate the sin and love the sinner. This does not always come out the way it's supposed to, and leads to homophobia which I believe is evil and a reason I left religion. However, this dualism allows for one to strive for political equality, while still spouting homophobic ideas.

This is a very fine line to draw on a topic like this, but I think it's important for us to recognize if we're ever going to get less divided hateful towards each other. Most people, even bigots, racists, homophobes, etc. want equality. They want the government to give them the same rights as anyone else and to be left alone. They want their rallies, protests, sermons, etc. In order to get that they recognize (at least people like Shapiro do) that they need to fight a cultural war instead of a political one on this stuff.

It doesn't mean that those ideas are ok for people to personally have, but it does mean that we can work together to agree on a lot of shit, make progress.

tl;dr; Don't hate people on the other side of politics, talk to them.