• 285 Posts
  • 1.31K Comments
Joined 8 months ago
cake
Cake day: July 18th, 2024

help-circle











  • I feel like it’s pretty clear from reading the interaction what did and didn’t happen.

    About 10 minutes later, with Liebb still indisposed, the pilot approached Sebbag and asked him to check on Liebb, the lawsuit says.

    Happened.

    The pilot then yelled at Liebb to leave the bathroom immediately, the lawsuit says.

    Happened.

    Liebb said he told the pilot that he was finishing up and would be out momentarily.

    Could go either way. It is starting to fall into a recognizable pattern, though, of “everything he did was crazy and unhinged, literally everything on my side was totally calm and reasonable” that usually is not how confrontations happen.

    The pilot became visibly enraged, broke the lock on the door and forced the door to the bathroom open

    Definitely didn’t happen.

    making scathing remarks about their Judaism, and how ‘Jews act’

    Definitely didn’t happen.

    Liebb said when he asked why they were being detained, an officer tightened his handcuffs and responded: “This isn’t county or state. We are homeland. You have no rights here.”

    Probably happened. 😦







  • The link that you were sent is regulations that apply to “certificate holders,” pilots in this case. The requirement that passengers “shall occupy” their seats means that if the plane lands, and the pilot was aware that someone wasn’t in their seat during the landing, the pilot has violated §121.311(b). It’s a big deal. The licensing authorities take things like this super seriously, and a pilot who deliberately violated one of those regulations would at a bare minimum have a black mark on their record that they would have to explain when applying for any future job.

    Also, no one is saying the pilot is stupid enough to let the plane crash because someone was in the bathroom. Stop using absurd strawmen and please refrain from it in the future.





    • I would give it a similar but distinct name, and just be aboveboard in the docs about where people can find the original project, what the differences are, and about what’s going on. As long as you’re open about what’s up I think it would be hard for any reasonable person to take offense if you prefer a less unixy style of output or whatever.
    • I would create an issue on the original project just explaining what you like and what you implemented in the new one, and saying you’re happy to contribute although the changes may not be wanted et cetera. Just be honest. You’re fine. More communication is usually a good thing.
    • git is powerful. It’s worth learning about the concepts if you do decide to invest the effort. You don’t have to get into a crazy workflow, but having your own ongoing branch and being able to merge/rebase changes from upstream as they happen can make your life easier. However, like a lot of tools from that type of toolbox, it can also make your life a lot harder if you’re not certain of what you’re doing, so YMMV. I would try to read a specific guide about how to set up the workflow you want, not just the reference documentation. Git has a ton of features, 90+% of which you don’t need, and many of its core features are called strange things or work in an unintuitive way.



  • The company says the content served to bots is deliberately irrelevant to the website being crawled, but it is carefully sourced or generated using real scientific facts—such as neutral information about biology, physics, or mathematics—to avoid spreading misinformation (whether this approach effectively prevents misinformation, however, remains unproven).

    You cowards. Make it all Hitler fan stuff and wild Elon Musk porno slash fiction. Make it a bunch of source code examples with malicious bugs. Make it instructions for how to make nuclear weapons. They want to ignore the blocking directives and lie about their user agent? Dude, fuck ‘em up. Today’s society has made people way too nice.