Well the FAA discovered the pilot lied and now the pilot is in serious ** with his career and reputation destroyed: I'm assuming he is looking at possible jail time (not a lawyer).
I'd say this is a serious deterrent to pilots contemplating similar action in the future but I don't think the problem was with the FAA or this pilot. The real problem was the senior management at Boeing who made the conscious decision to put profits ahead of safety. Thus they were directly responsible for creating a culture of short cuts and cheating which lead to the ending of several hundred lives.
You (probably purposefully) make no distinction between the long term / residential rental market and the short-term / holiday let one. That is what Airbnb trades on (and the point of the article): they muscle in on the role traditionally filled by hotels and guesthouses except that they do not face the same regulations and costs. You have to apply and be regulated (you know, to stop guests being burned to death in unsafe properties) to be an actual B & B; to open a house as a... B&B on Airbnb you simply have to list the property. And you can do the same thing over and over again.
Anyway now the people that actually live in these locations can no longer afford to rent, let alone buy (again, the point of the article). If you don't see the problems with that (starting with airy concepts of 'community' and ending with your anger that there are no longer any nurses or teachers in your town) then you are even more of a wilfully ignorant passive-aggressive libertarian dork than the hacker news average (a bar which is set extremely high).
Let me play devil's advocate here. Because I worry a lot about this.
In as much as it affects the outcome of climate change you're wrong: not eating meat, driving and flying less, etc. will not, in any meaningful way, save us from what are increasingly alarming predictions regarding climate change. What you're talking about are straw men.
In fact I worry that the effect is negative because everyone pats themselves on the back for these kinds of activities and thinks they've done everything they can when, as I say, the impact of what they've done is essentially negligible and draws attention from what really is driving climate change (and noone seems to talk about).
And what really is driving climate change (and numerous other environmental issues - see massive over-fishing, environmental destruction by dredging for sand / mining for minerals, etc.) is the massive shift out of poverty of billions in people in China and India and their demands for housing, cars, travel, construction, etc. The US and Europe have had (fairly dramatically) decreasing carbon emissions for some time now, but all of those decreases (and then some) are erased by the increases in India and China. Particularly China which built 184 new coal plants in 2020 and increased its own CO2 emissions by 4% in the second half of 2020 alone: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-coal-idUSKBN2A308U .
Hopefully it does not need to be said that you cannot fault these countries for massively improving the welfare of their citizens or say that this is a bad thing. To be fair to both India and China: both are aware of (do not deny) the problem and are devoting large amounts of resources to finding solutions.
But those are the facts. You can virtue signal all you like about being vegan but really you are doing nothing to address the actual problem (and may actually diverting attention away from it).
>If you are looking for ransom, I can tell you I don't have money. But what I do have are a very particular set of skills, skills I have acquired over a very long career, skills that make me a nightmare for people like you. If you let my daughter go now, that'll be the end of it. I will not look for you.
I once went out with a nurse in the UK who worked in palliative (end of life) care. On a daily basis she was responsible for life-changing decisions concerning medications; she had to comfort the dying and tell bereaved people that their relatives had died (frequently ending up in tears herself); she had to give bed baths and clean up human waste daily. She had to undertake continuous training and assessment with her career at risk if she failed; she did not know more than a week in advance what shifts she would be working which on any given day could start at 6am or 9pm (and go through to 4am the next day).
For all of this she was paid £25,000 (USD 35,000) / year.
The injustice is that software engineers and the tech sector in general are being so insanely rewarded as most of the rest of society stagnates and living standards fall (I say this as an insanely rewarded software engineer).
Creating a UK corporation takes ten minutes online and costs you USD $20 (and anyone can do it).
But the compliance / Know Your Customer rules are very strict in the UK: it's almost impossible to get a bank account there unless you are legally resident there.
Not trying to be aggressive but I'm guessing that you use an adblocker to browse the internet?
I'm guessing that you believe content on the internet should be universally free (and contributors unpaid). Quick aside: even if you don't believe creators should be paid for their work, how do you propose that server / infrastructure costs are covered?
It's a philosophy I (sort of) understand but surely it's up to the creator if they want to be compensated for their work or not?
If that's the case then the current options are:
1. Advertising, marketing and user tracking / profiling which I'm sure you're a big fan of.
2. Some sort of subscription service
Or 3: contributors are compensated with micro-payments / tokens - e.g. what these guys are doing.
How has Facebook become one of the biggest (and malignant) companies in the world without paying a cent for the content that we (and content creators) supply (content without which Facebook would be nothing)? How is that right? What if there were a (let's call it "decentralised") system where all of us were rewarded for the content we produce and not just the mega corporations? It could be a system... sort of like this :-O.
The story is that - certainly in the early days - you could be fired from Amazon as a manager if your section made a profit.
The argument is that your entire focus as a software / service business is growth (aimed at profitability for some undetermined future date). If your section or company is making a profit this represents a failure to utilise all of your resources for the purpose of growth.
As a multi-national there are various tax shenanigans you can play - that is up to governments to decide how to crack down on those. The unfortunate fact is that you need countries like Ireland on board who have benefited greatly from being very corporation tax friendly.
I've often thought that coding - for me - is more visual / graphical than anything else. If you could find a way to quantify + test people's ability to do that, you could throw rubbish coding challenges out the window and, given the state of tech hiring, be an instant millionaire.
Having said that, for me it's impossible to describe. There is a part of my brain that is putting things together (graphically, sort of) but simultaneously thinking dependencies, potential problems, optimisation, etc.. Then there's a part that is doing things based on experience and repetition - to be fair the second and third parts are more based on experience than anything else.
The real tragedy is that their treatment is certainly a dis-incentive for drug and other companies to ever do anything pro-bono / for the benefit of humanity again. Well done EU!
The voters were asked three times: one referendum and two general elections, the last of which was won overwhelmingly by the party which had a single message - to 'get brexit done' - and lost by the party which denied the democratic wishes of every single region in England except London.
I'd say this is a serious deterrent to pilots contemplating similar action in the future but I don't think the problem was with the FAA or this pilot. The real problem was the senior management at Boeing who made the conscious decision to put profits ahead of safety. Thus they were directly responsible for creating a culture of short cuts and cheating which lead to the ending of several hundred lives.