I prefer to live in a world where people at least try to navigate grey areas.

But please, make the libertarian Gish galloping stop.

There was for a time a micro-industry of people taking flights to this location on Youtube -- it's one of the most fun examples of this that I've seen.

And yeah; really quickly people discovered that he genuinely had options.

There is a question I've not seen answered yet. Did the wallet guys know he was doing this in advance?

This is a bit of a silly way to look at it, I'm sorry to say.

What if they just remove the video on the balance of probability that it involved, in the FAA's judgement, a deliberate dangerous plane crash without permission?

This is not a challenging precedent. House-flipping is not smashing a plane into the ground without planning and without regard for safety, is it?

If you're pinning your argument on this, then fine. But it is a huge difference.

Honestly this whole idea that Youtube should willingly be a party to this sort of thing is a libertarian take too far for me, but then I'm British.

He was speculating to accumulate.

They should delete the video. And I really don't understand the argument that they shouldn't stop him using their platform; my goodness if Youtube was mine he'd be gone and I wouldn't for a second wonder if there was any meaningful free speech implication for removing it.

He is dangerous, and the allure of more views on youtube made him do a dangerous thing. I'd be like: "OK, you're not my customer anymore".

So he might have got to it.

But on the other hand he's also an idiot.

Nevertheless he at least thought he might have to do this.

There is another strategy than asking them to remove it, though. Ask them to qualify it. I've done this in the past (a long time ago, mind you, and in the UK, where employers are still somewhat bound by decency as well as law). I was asked to sign an extensive NDA for a short period of employment, and I agreed, on the condition that I could decline to join any meeting that wasn't strictly related to the project I was hired on, and that the same NDA bound them when discussing my personal projects.

Good design and good engineering explains itself; especially engineering that interfaces with other stuff. Well-designed things need less documentation.

Both, I think, require the same focus on clarity of intention as a good teacher.

All of its backers, all of its investors, imagine an Uber world where no individual matters except themselves.

They wilfully break laws expecting to be able to overturn them before they are punished; they destroy markets knowing that the regulation will have to adapt to allow them to continue.

The Uberisation of everything is the tech sector's most disgraceful product.

And yes -- navigating the line between the endings/beginnings bit, the loss (which it is), and tragedy (which it isn't) is difficult but this time around I am finding it easier.

One of the things I have already realised is that explaining-stuff-to-my-Dad is portable. I can do it in my head. And when I can do that without tears, I'll be able to add my Dad to any audience in the future, and hear his questions as well as theirs.

You can't hide the detail with a wave of the hand, you can definitely overcommunicate detail that is unnecessary, but the art of it is finding a way to explain the bit that matters in a way that makes it clear to the users that you're eliding detail that isn't important, without misleading them.

There is a very fine example of this in cinema -- the senior partners meeting in Margin Call, where Zachary Quinto's character has to explain why the firm needs to sell all of a particular asset class:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hhy7JUinlu0

One day I will use the line Jeremy Irons uses in this clip. I don't want to spoil it by quoting it.