[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9Nz1y7Sj74

Correct. I think it's also a bit of a shibboleth now, like not wearing a suit. In former days the lower ranked employees wore jeans, t-shirts, hoodies, etc. and the bosses all wore suits and ties. Now it's the opposite at least in tech. If you see someone in "business" attire, you know they're middle management or sales and have no power, where if someone is in a tshirt and jeans they're probably a founder or executive. It's a flex to dress casual.

[0] https://simpleflying.com/air-france-boeing-777-serious-incid...

A lot of states in the US also require safety inspections (including North Carolina where the author teaches) but often make exceptions for antique cars.

[0] https://www.vegvesen.no/en/vehicles/own-and-maintain/eu-mand...

...

> With that said, I'm trying to understand why this article isn't met with a response like "it is extremely unethical to operate a vehicle in this condition..."

Because it's not bragging or boasting. I don't even think it's meant to be taken literally. Especially seeing that the author is an engineer and professor. It's like a car guy pastiche of folk tale/tall tale. Just like I wouldn't respond to a story of Paul Bunyan to criticize him for eating 50 pancakes a minute I don't feel the need to point out that this car sounds unsafe.

I'm fairly zealous about Free Software and I don't think this is even against the spirit of the GPL.

Many of the writings and talks from RMS on gnu.org talk about how it is perfectly fine for a company to modify GPL'd software for internal use only and not be required to redistribute those changes because you're not redistributing the binaries. If it is fine for companies to do that and not be considered a bad actor violating the spirit of the GPL this seems to me to be in the same moral sentiment. At the end of the day if you have the binary you have source and all 4 freedoms associated with it and you truly control your computing.

An example of an illegal restriction would be if Red Hat gave their binaries to everyone publicly but only their source to people who agreed to not redistribute it, and then if you did redistribute the source they cut you off or brought some type of legal action.

But... Even with using a correctly configured major provider to deliver my mail, it gets sent to spam all the time. Which for personal email, fine. Most of my recipients know to check spam, and mark me as safe. But I know of at least one destination that flat out rejects my mail and if I were a business that'd be nightmare. Also on the web front a lot of proxy and filter providers just block .xyz all together.

When I purchased it I hoped Alphabet having abc.xyz would've helped with .xyz's reputation, but it hasn't. Oh well. Mine is for personal use so I'm willing to tolerate it. Businesses be warned though.

I could see it having an impact on the comment section because rather than just dislike and move on people feel compelled to say what is wrong with the video, but I could also see the opposite effect where instead of just disliking and moving on now people spam the comment section with unhelpful attacks on the video/creator.

I had this exact scenario yesterday trying to remove rounded/stripped lug nuts off my wheels. It would've been very helpful to be able to see if the video I was watching had 1000 likes but 6000 dislikes to know if what I was about to do was advisable or not. Yes, I read the comments and it ended up being a simple fix with the right tools, but the like/dislike ratio is a great way to filter dangerous/dumb/unhelpful videos.