The blog doesn't condone the bombings or the violence. It talks about Kaczynski writings. For you, this is equivalent to glorifying a murderer. Wow, this is some poor comprehension.
I listen to all sorts of music and I love them. More often than not the artists are degenerates and drug addicts. I hate it but I can still enjoy the genius of their music. For example, Nirvana. Kurt committed suicide but his music is genius. Does not mean i gloirfy suicide or worship Kurt.
> The blog doesn't condone the bombings or the violence. It talks about Kaczynski writings. For you, this is equivalent to glorifying a murderer. Wow, this is some poor comprehension.
I think this might be a part of what Ted was talking about.
Ted was actually a very interesting thinker, very underrated in my opinion, and definitely misrepresented.
Sorry if I was unclear, it's a hard thing to summarize, but the useful part of it is in being a platform for app development, not just the fact that it hosts stuff. "End user server-side apps" isn't really a thing that exists, because current server-side applications e.g. wordpress have to run on a variety of stacks, have to reinvent user authentication, etc. Another way to put it would be that urbit is a platform on which to run build server-side apps in the same sense that Android is a platform for client-side apps.
It does work tolerably well, people are building stuff on it, but I think it's too widely-hated to build a network effect. (Source: search for urbit on HN and click on literally any thread)
Busses and trains aren’t good targets for terrorism.
You blow up a bus, maybe no one really cares except the locals to the area where the bus blew up.
A plane cuts through many different social classes and nationalities, putting them all in one place and making a large amount of people imagine themselves as the potential victim.
Literally just walked up to the gate. Only thing was the gate attendant checked your ID against the ticket. That was all. No metal detectors. No screening. Just walk up to the gate an get on. One time my mate forgot his drivers license, and missed the flight. So harsh!
I flew the final 6 years of that period and enjoyed flying. Post-9/11 flying sucks and is a huge drag. If you're too young to have experienced pre-9/11 airports then you really don't know what you're missing. When I was little they let me see the cockpit in flight, and the flight attendants would bring me little snacks on late flights.
It was a totally different experience versus being crammed into a flying bus.
Did we? Between 1968-1972 there were 130 hijackings in the US alone. In 1973 the FAA required passenger screening (I don’t know why people are saying screening began in 2001, the TSA was formed and updated screening procedures, but people were definitely already being screened).
From 1973 on, hijacking’s dropped considerably. Since 2001 there have been no hijackings in the US.
Yeah, I don't know if screening was the best solution and don't think the post-9/11 rules make sense, but there was clearly a problem in the past that got solved by screening. Also, nowadays we gotta make sure well-intended passengers don't have a Samsung Note.
> But does anyone dare board a plane when none of the passengers have been screened?
Yes. Without hesitation, yes.
Americans learned a lesson on 9/11/01. Prior to that, almost all hijackings resulted in the eventual release of the passengers. No one had ever hijacked a plane in the US and flown it into a building before. There was no real reason to fight back if doing so put you at risk.
After 9/11/01, the default assumption to the hijacking of an American airliner can only be that everyone on board is going to die, along with an unknown number of people on the ground. That change in perspective significantly alters the likely outcome.
If someone tried to hijack an airliner in 2024 with a knife - or even a gun - I would be highly surprised if, at the end of the day, more injuries were caused by the attacker than from the scramble of people jumping on top of them to subdue them.
The problems TSA was nominally created to solve simply no longer exist. Screen luggage for explosive, maybe walk people through an x-ray if the airline wants that, and move on with life.
Even further back, before the hijacking spree of the 70s, when I was a kid I remember our local airport had no division between ground side and air side. You just got out of your car, walked to the gate, and they checked your boarding pass. This would be in the late 1970s, it was a remote city, so probably the transition to a "secure boarding area" was later than in the big cities.
Absolutely I would. Most other countries have little or no screening and are just fine.
It's not a realistic risk to be concerned about... it's just not worth the hassle trying to mitigate something that is orders of magnitude less of a deal than other easier to mitigate risks.
Security was handled (owned) by airports since the dawn of time. Airports with high risk (JFK) had higher security, airports with lower security (SAT). Airports hired typical staff from the local community and you would go through a metal detector and someone would X-Ray your luggage to make sure there were no obvious bombs in there. Your family could meet you at the gate.
Originally when the TSA was invented, airports were allowed to do their own security, TSA was optional. Now, airports that already have TSA are not allowed to provide their own security, it is mandatory they hire federal union employees.
WHY is it necessary for municipal airports to hire federal union employees? Airports know their own local risk factor and can adequately manage those employees. Airports want their passengers to have a good experience, so that they come back. This is why they pay big bucks for rennovations, why they have the bad-ok-good-better-best colored buttons in the restrooms and everything else.
The airport has virtually no control over the staff running security. They can't overschedule employees for busy times and holidays, they're beholden to what the TSA does.
And yeah, they do regular tests of the TSA to see how much contraband they can slip past security. TSA regularly fails these tests/audits.
The rest of the world does not deal with the level of security as american airports, and nobody else is having problems. US airports are still running at/above 9/11 security levels... why? In most countries you aren't required to take off your shoes or walk through anything more invasive than a simple metal detector.
1. Abolish the TSA. Allow local airports to hire and manage their own staff (currently not allowed)
2. Adjust minimum standards up and down based on current thread level (don't force people wearing flip flops to take off their shoes)
TSA was a huge mistake and is absolutely security theater. Every other country in the world does a better job of managing risk at airports than the US.
If you have money, you buy Pre+Clear+Global Entry. The "screening process" is nil (three simplistic questions for Global Entry).
That leaves the bag inspections - and I can tell you that at least for the Pre checkins, they're not exactly enforcing e.g. the weird liquid rules. (And there are plenty of articles showing they're not super-great at finding guns, easier)
And yet, it seems air traffic is mostly threatened by carriers & Boeing implementing cost savings to enrich execs.
Also, we did just fine pre-2001, and it's highly doubtful the TSA would've prevented 9/11. So, what exactly does it buy us, outside of an employment program that mostly enriches folks supplying TSA equipment?
Hetzner's cloud console (https://console.hetzner.cloud/) was introduced for their vServer migration (competing with the likes of Linode). Robot (https://robot.your-server.de/) was used for their vServers previously and is still used for their dedicated servers and domain names and such.
Traditionally, cloud referred to an abstraction above "someone else's computer", keeping the specific details of those computers hidden from the user, allowing the operator to do things like swap out the hardware, move the data to another datacenter, etc. without the end user ever noticing.
But tech people love to come up with new definitions for the same terms all the time, so anything goes.
I listen to all sorts of music and I love them. More often than not the artists are degenerates and drug addicts. I hate it but I can still enjoy the genius of their music. For example, Nirvana. Kurt committed suicide but his music is genius. Does not mean i gloirfy suicide or worship Kurt.