Airline pilots are morally and physically responsibile for the lives on their aircraft. This necessitates respect for their authority.

Like other professionals, they must compartmentalize personal beliefs and professionalism.

Playful antics and silly BS, whether it be for the lulz, politics, or anything else, is a disrespectful act of defiance to the individuals you entrust to deliver you safely to your destination.

They are the final authority in flight, and have broad discretion they must exercise prudently with a bias for risk aversion.

I've known 2 airline pilots. They are the most even keeled people I've ever come across. Literally, the coolest and calmest people.

The system (should) weed out anyone who would act unprofessional, like letting their political beliefs cloud their judgment.

But "audacious" and "bold" are probably better words to describe it. Maybe I'm overly cautious, but it's inherently risky to confront someone who has taken your property since they have already shown a willingness to break the law. It's a coin toss whether they will perceive the confrontation as a threat and react violently.

All that without even considering that he was dealing with a police officer who, de facto, will be given the benefit of the doubt in a confrontation and may behave accordingly. Not all cops are bad, I think most are good actually, but you have no way of knowing which one you will get in a situation like this. I'm very glad that this ended well (as well as it could have) for him.

If I remember correctly, the governor of PR would appoint the first 2 senators. A tactic could be to promise to appoint 1 republican senator as an enrichment to approve statehood. It's a real shit situation.

There are more Puerto Ricans living in NYC and Orlando than in PR. I'd like to visit before the little family I have left there leaves or dies out.

First, the Connecticut Compromise is a democratic underpinning of the US. It was central to the formation of the nation, and any attempt to alter it would be a foundational structural change to the constitution to say the least.

I understand the concerns about one generation binding another without recourse. Legal scholars differ on whether Article V, which implements the compromise, can be amended or not.

But for the sake of argument, let's say it can. It would be an insurmountable task requiring the following:

1. A supermajority in both houses of Congress (67% in the Senate and 66% in the House) to propose the amendment.

2. Ratification by three-fourths of the state legislatures (38 out of 50 states) or by conventions in three-fourths of the states.

3. Consent of the states that would lose their equal representation in the Senate.

4. Overcome any legal challenges that would likely arise at every step of the process.

The result would be a dramatic redefinition of federalism and democratic representation. This wouldn't be a cosmetic change, it would be a fundamental alteration to the structure of the government and constitution.

Very few things were deemed "unamendable" and entrenched in the constitution before, both explicitly and implicitly, but now it would all be up for grabs. Now nothing is irrevocable.

What's to stop future generations from altering other fundamental principles? While we may complain of being bound by the decisions of our ancestors, we would be opening up a Pandora's box of constitutional instability for future generations, binding them to the whims of a (slim?) majority of the current generation's political agenda.

I think that is the best case scenario. The worst, and I think a very possible scenario, is that states losing representation would claim that such a drastic and material change to the constitution upends the root of the bargain that led to the formation of the union, and would likely seek to secede. You may have achieved your goal of changing the apportionment of the Senate, but at the cost of the union itself. There are far easier and less risky ways to achieve political change.

> Brigadier-General Mattias Hanson, CIO, Swedish Armed Forces, says: “Strengthening Sweden’s militarily and acting as part of a collective defense requires us to increase our defensive capabilities. We need to utilize the latest technology and all the innovative power of the Swedish private sector. Sweden has unique skills and capabilities in both telecoms and defense technology..." [0]

This is just one quick example I could find.

[0] https://www.ericsson.com/en/news/2025/6/ericsson-5g-connecti...

In this case, I thought it should be obvious that OP must have faith in priests, given that they're Catholic, which requires faith as a prereq.

If you read my comment as a slight against Catholicism, I can understand, but I wouldn't feel comfortable publicly joking about any religion other than my own. If that's the case, you're in good company, with the multitude of nuns who've admonished me for similar offhand comments spanning 20 years of Catholic education from pre-k to college, this is old hat for me.

God willing, I'll mature or start telling better jokes some day.

The certainty or likelihood of being caught if a far more effevtive deterrent, but require effort, focus, and resources by law enforcement.

It's a resource constraint problem and a policy choice. If "they" wanted to set the tone that this type of behavior will not be tolerated, it would require a concerted multi agency surge of investigative and prosecutorial resources. It's been done before, if there's a will there's a way.

Very interesting insight.

It was atrocious then and it's atrocious now. There's almost something worse about zionst making it a business now. It's one thing to ethnically cleanse an area out of hatred, it's sick on a whole new level to try and turn a buck in the process.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45253797

Points: 6

# Comments: 0

About 10 years ago, I arrived at a company in the immediate aftermath of a failed implementation. There were many contributing factors, many of which I'm sure are common to other projects gone awry.

Is this problem as prevalent as it seems? How have these firms not developed a better methodology to avoid the most common pitfalls?

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45183643

Points: 2

# Comments: 1

Entering a room, I could feel the anxiety as some people instinctively grabbed their phones to buy a ticket.