Sarcasm aside, while still not acceptable, some people might not have the means to buy new items to replace what they lost in a crash. So it is understandable for some people to make the choice of taking their luggage with them in such an event, as they might not have the wealth and/or insurance necessary to replace those items afterwards.
Of course the solution would be to make airlines liable to replace passengers' luggage in the event of a crash and inform the passengers that they will do so, but that's not how the world works currently.
Aren’t they? AFAIK it’s standard (if not required?) for airlines to have insurance which includes passenger legal liability.
Were there any recent crashes where passengers weren’t compensated? e.g. after US Airways 1549 everyone received at minimum $5k (or higher depending on damages) for lost luggage.
In general the airlines just ask you to leave your luggage. If they were legally obliged to replace all your items, they would inform you of such.
On international flights, an airline is liable for up to $1700 per the Montreal Convention. This might cover say half of one's laptop, which no matter how stupid it sounds, makes taking your luggage with you the only financially sensible choice in a crash (unless you have insurance). Now obviously such an event has other priorities than just financial ones, but it's no surprise if people choose to take their luggage with them.
On US domestic flights the amount is somewhat higher, $4700. However even this might not be enough for some. On EU domestic flights it's 1800€.
Airlines however are free to pay any amount they want, but they are not legally required to pay more than the limits set by law. So it is possible you will be reimbursed in full, but you wouldn't know that beforehand.
> This might cover say half of one's laptop, which no matter how stupid it sounds, makes taking your luggage with you the only financially sensible choice in a crash (unless you have insurance).
If there's no smoke, no visible flames, and you can do so safely without obstructing other passengers' egress? I can see the argument, sure.
Obviously if the cabin is filling with smoke or there are visible flames or other obvious dangers, the financially sensible choice is to evacuate ASAP as funerals often cost more than laptops.
I don't think a stressed rando inside the plane is in position to evaluate how soon it will combust. Not even the firemen on the outside often have a clue.
Eh, I'd defer to them over some rando on the internet who's only seen a video that shows a short snippet of what went on.
The best anyone here can do is screech about not following the default suggested practice of leaving the luggage but the person who took the bag was actually there. Perhaps they had to pick it up because it was on the floor (ceiling) in their way. Not much harm in carrying it if it's something that small anyway.
I’ve realized that fires are a way bigger issue than you might imagine after a crash — things can go south really quickly. Multiple stories of planes going from “fire outside” to “people suffocating and burning to death in their seats” in minutes. Here’s one of a 737 in Manchester, taxied of the runway intact, 55 people died: https://admiralcloudberg.medium.com/fire-on-the-runway-the-m...
I might have taken my laptop bag in such a case out of habit before reading these stories, not so much now.
I'm not arguing it's right. Frankly, I think it's stupid the way things are. But I can understand why some people make such choice.
I guess my argument mainly is that people who take their luggage are not stupid, instead their behavior may be highly rational, however we have the means to change it with by making such choice irrational and I wish we will.
I agree with your parent’s post explaining its a sensible financial choice. However as you noted there’s other things One could consider like other’s passagers survival chances or firefighter taking dangerous steps during their work.
Taking your language is financially sensible but socially dumb and selfish. It seems an acceptable choices in the countries that values individual liberties and financial independence, but the other half of the world look very bad at that behavior.
$3400 is a pretty pricey laptop for someone short on cash.
Also, am I correct in understanding that these requirements are the base requirement for any crash and don't actually absolve the airline of the full liability in case they are found to be responsible for the crash?
In terms of explaining the passenger's behaviour, though - presumably they didn't know this, and didn't have time to research it on their phone during the crash.
Airline customer service standards are very low; I can see how a person making the decision based on just their experience with airlines would conclude it was better to grab their carry-on if it was safe to do so.
Everyone thinks they are the main character of the story. I should get to keep my bag because I am the protagonist, but everyone else is supposed to leave theirs, so that we can escape faster! The rules don't apply to me specifically because I am the only person in my life that matters.
People who interact with the public and work for BigCo routinely bark orders that are non-optimal for the customers individually but convenient for the company.
Customers have been trained to stop and think twice when someone tells them what to do. That's just the reality of the world we live in.
> I give zero shits if you think you’re going to lose your stuff.
Yeah, last time an airline lost my bag they said pretty much the same thing.
The way I see it, there are two types of idiot:
You're an idiot if you delay the evacuation of a crashed plane. Shit's on fire, yo.
And you're an idiot if you expect an airline will make you whole. Airlines are in the business of delivering the worst customer service they can get away with - they don't even guarantee that a person who has booked a seat on a flight will have a seat on the flight.
> Sarcasm aside, while still not acceptable, some people might not have the means to buy new items to replace what they lost in a crash. So it is understandable for some people to make the choice of taking their luggage with them in such an event, as they might not have the wealth and/or insurance necessary to replace those items afterwards.
One person's means are not more important than the lives of the people on board. Stuff can be replaced; get everyone to safety first, then worry about stuff.
And yeah airlines are liable to replace stuff in the event of a crash and pay for damages if it's their fault. If it's the fault of the airplane manufacturer, they will have to; Boeing paid out billions to all parties involved in accidents and groundings of the 737 max:
> On January 7, 2021, Boeing settled to pay over $2.5 billion after being charged with fraud over the company's hiding of information from safety regulators: a criminal monetary penalty of $243.6 million, $1.77 billion of damages to airline customers, and a $500 million crash-victim beneficiaries fund.
Telegram has, by design, message content accessible to whoever runs the servers. WhatsApp has gone to great lengths to not have that.
Obviously there’s client security, potential backdoors, unencrypted backups, and many other things to worry about. But I don’t see a scenario where it fares worse than Telegram, and many where it’s significantly better.
Whatsapp has to have some kind of escape hatch if not back door simply because of the amount of heat it doesn’t get (think of all the regimes who are ok with it).
I believe that escape hatch to be cloud backups, which are heavily encouraged by the UI and not end-to-end encrypted by default. iMessage has made the same compromise.
As long as enough people click that checkbox, law enforcement has access and Meta/Apple are out of the news without having lied about or hidden anything.
My understanding is that WhatsApp has never made claims comparable to Telegram or Signal.
I also can’t tell if you’re being sincere. I was under the impression that Telegram was considered significantly less secure than Signal and that the matter was mostly settled. I’ve been seeing the following talking points repeated for years now.
>Genuine question, in what scenario is the self hosting setup and maintenance worth it?
Maybe if you're a huge org with a dedicated security team and so on, which could easily handle managing such service. I guess at a certain point it would bring cost savings at a scale in comparison to using Bitwarden, where it costs per team member or seat. Inhouse team has fixed costs in comparison.
Of course for smaller orgs or individuals there is little sense in hosting security software yourself. No way you're going to have enough time to manage the service and keep it secure, which is where almost all of such software's value is derived from.
>If you can't distinguish bad from good with LLMs, you might as well be throwing crap at the wall hoping it will stick.
This is why I think LLMs are more of a tool for the expert rather than for the novice.
They give more speedup the more experience one has on the subject in question. An experienced dev can usually spot bad advice with little effort, while a junior dev might believe almost any advice due to the lack of experience to question things. The same goes for asking the right questions.
That's a dropshipping site for AliExpress products shipping from China. You'll save money if you buy the product straight from AliExpress without a middleman in between.
However as you said, the toothbrush doesn't actually work.
Why is it now a trend to point this out? Marketing foreign-made inventory in your country is a long-standing legitimate business. Most individuals do not want to personally deal with a Chinese outlet.
I think you have misunderstood what dropshipping means.
In dropshipping the business won't have any foreign made inventory and neither will they have any in their country. Instead they will hook you up with a Chinese outlet without telling you.
The Chinese outlet will handle shipping, returns, etc with the dropshipping business just taking a cut for essentially spending money on Facebook Ads. This is the part where you'll deal with a Chinese outlet regardless of your preferences, because the dropshipping company basically did this to you without your knowledge.
They don't have a local stock to replace items under warranty. They don't have a local warehouse to return your item to if you're unsatisfied. They might've never even seen the product themselves and thus cannot even provide support regarding it's use.
So that's why I think it's important to point out dropshipping. It's a completely different thing than keeping a foreign-made inventory. There isn't really any good reason to buy from a dropshipper, because you'll deal with the Chinese outlet behind it regardless.
> They don't have a local warehouse to return your item to if you're unsatisfied
Yeah well that's their problem and not yours. That's the value they are providing! The person who sold you something can't disclaim responsibility for selling it to you, at least under American law.
What value? What kind of logistics value could they possible provide if they don't have logistics in the first place?
It of course is problem of the consumer, as consumer is the one returning the item and the one who ultimately has to deal with a Chinese company that may not even speak English, not to mention the time the package takes to get there for a refund.
While it's the seller's responsibility in theory, yes, they make it very clear that you'll be dealing with a Chinese seller in their terms. Yes, it is your job to read the terms before you buy, however if you do read them, why wouldn't you just go buy from AliExpress after that? Absolutely no extra value buying from the dropshipper once identified.
Because it blew up as a get rich quick scheme / "hustle culture" trend recently as it became much more accessible via internet-based dropshipping facilitators, and there's a lot of people trying to make a buck on it, in sometimes nefarious ways.
Dropshipping is when you order from a merchant and all the merchant does is make an order with your name and address from someplace else. In other words, you could have simply made that second order yourself and saved yourself whatever margin the merchant added on top.
Do note that dropshipping is a very specific term, which does not mean "importing things from another country and then selling them locally", but rather "taking orders from customers and then just ordering a shipment from someone else directly to the customer". For example it would be dropshipping if I made an eBay listing for some product and, whenever someone bought the eBay listing, just ordered the product from Amazon to their address. I never touched or shipped the product; I just made another order posing as the customer.
It's not ethical for someone to clone a more expensive version of some Amazon listing onto another site, and then order stuff from Amazon to whoever buys the listing, pocketing the difference. It's just scummy. Sites like Alibaba really do help because otherwise importing stuff is a lot more manual of a process, but dropshipping on its own is just ugh.
> It's not ethical for someone to clone a more expensive version of some Amazon listing onto another site, and then order stuff from Amazon to whoever buys the listing, pocketing the difference
This is textbook marketing. You connect buyers and sellers and take a profit. You are bringing the product to the attention of a previously-unaware consumer. I can't imagine what you think is not ethical about this.
It's okay when the product they're selling is their own product. Say, Amazon fulfillment. The manufacturer sends their products to an Amazon warehouse and then Amazon handles shipping them out. But if a seller claims to have their own product but then just goes to another listing and buys it to the customer, that is what I think is unethical.
IMHO reselling is OK only if it's disclosed what the original brand of the product is... but even reselling doesn't necessarily imply dropshipping.
Alibaba has a "search by image" feature. It has been the BEST weapon to catch dropshipping.
As a bonus, if it's on Alibaba, you can either A: order a sample direct cheap or B: find the product on Aliexpress and order that way for cheap, too. I love catching scams and flipping the tables to buy it myself at their own price if I think it's nifty.
I built a homemade hot tub system around one of those "ice plunge" bath tubs that seem to be a thing going around these days. They're a rigid inflatable tub, but anyone selling them alongside a chiller sells the tub alone for $500-1000. I found the direct source (Shenzhen Gateo Sports - https://gateo.en.alibaba.com/) and bought one for $200 direct from the factory and love my unbranded tub. ;)
#1 is the website ships globally with no restrictions. A lot of Chinese businesses ship to any country. A local business with their own stock generally won't handle shipping to every single country around the globe. Sure there are exceptions to this rule, but in general it works well as your first sign.
Read the terms and conditions, privacy policy and other more "obscure" information like that. Dropshipping items always ship from China and returns are received to a warehouse in China.
In their Terms of Sale, Sonic Brush mentions that it is rebranding the following product "We are selling the following brand mark : W-White.". So this would be the dropshipping product they buy from AliExpress.
You have to look more far back than just the Pentium 4 days. Intel absolutely were some of the greatest innovators on the industry if you look at 70s, 80s and 90s. I would say they simply were the best, but dropped the ball at least when AMD64 became a thing. How the mighty have fallen...
It's hard to overstate Intel's importance in regards to the modern CPU: they invented the microprocessor itself. (Though I'd like to state it's a bit controversial whether they only were the first to come up with a commercially available one or whether they actually invented the concept itself)
Also, there are many things outside the CPU that we take for granted today that were of Intel's innovation. A great example would be PCIe that Intel invented and essentially standardized. More recent example would be USB4.
Regarding CPUs they have some truly legendary chips, like the Intel 8086. This chip from the 70s is still in use today in your everyday products (as a clone though). It can be found TODAY in common products like computer mice, keyboards, AC, TV remotes and so on. Anything that is a commodity and needs some simple processing power has usually some derivative of 8086 inside it, granted ESP32 and such are taking over nowadays.
Of course the x86 instruction set comes from that very chip. I guess the name speaks for itself how big of a thing that was.
There's too much to fit inside one comment about how innovative Intel truly used to be, but they have a pretty good page for their history here: https://timeline.intel.com/
I guess it was innovation until competition got tough, then it was squash-mode, no matter how illegal or unsavory. During that era, can we honestly say Intel was still innovating in the CPU line? Have they innovated in CPU's recently? It seems not so much...
Look at the Core series - moderately incremental improvements for nearly two decades now? Many of which have significant, unfixable design flaws. AMD got their act together, and with significantly fewer resources ended up totally leap-frogging Intel in nearly all CPU metrics. How did this not happen at Intel after all these years?
AMD had some objectively better CPU's during the Athlon era - until they ran out of money mostly due to Intel's anti-competitive behavior.
The "what-if" scenario is interesting to ponder...
> AMD got their act together, and with significantly fewer resources ended up totally leap-frogging Intel in nearly all CPU metrics. How did this not happen at Intel after all these years?
And so could Intel if they wanted. Instead, they seem more interested in designing yet another socket and asking everyone to upgrade all of their hardware for a moderate performance bump...
>Instead, they seem more interested in designing yet another socket and asking everyone to upgrade all of their hardware for a moderate performance bump...
Yeah I totally agree if we consider Intel's innovation in the CPU space or lack thereof in the 21st century.
I have seen more innovation happen in the CPU space in the last 5 years than the 20 years prior to that. This has been thanks to AMD, Apple, ARM, TSMC etc; Intel has seemingly attempted to only slow down the innovation to keep cozy at the top spot.
Personal example: I rented an AMD machine last month and I seriously thought there was a bug with fastfetch when it showed the CPU having 5,7GHz clocks with 32 threads. I didn't believe such was possible. I had to double check because it felt so far fetched seeing such monstrous increase in clocks and cores, when upgrading from a few years old Intel machine to a new AMD one. That's innovation.
However to Intel's credit they have made major innovations in other areas, like peripherals, interconnects and so on. I am extremely grateful for Thunderbolt/USB4 existing today compared to the myriad of vendor specific docking connectors of the past.
>How did this not happen at Intel after all these years?
They replaced engineers with accountants after gaining dominant position on the market. Short term it gave more profits but long term most innovation was lost in the process.
Intel developed and released the first single chip microprocessor, the 4-bit MCS 4004.
You had CPUs before that, but they were not single chips.
> like the Intel 8086.
You mean the 8051? It is a nice embedded chip, mostly because it has a lot of bit-level instructions and has separate execution and data address spaces if I'm remembering the details right.
> Of course the x86 instruction set comes from that very chip
It does come from the 8086, which I do believe was at least somewhat based on the even earlier 8080. I could be wrong though.
But yeah Intel did a lot. In the 70's though you had lots of semiconductor companies: Fairchild, Signetics, Motorola, MOS/CSG branching off of them. I really wonder what Intel would be if IBM selected a 68000 for the 5150 though.
Yeah sorry I might've mixed up 8051 and 8086. Not totally sure, main point was that it's an old ass chip design used in modern products.
These chips with 70s design are very common in ordinary "non computing" products, granted most are Chinese clones with varying levels of modification. I spend a lot of time reverse engineering regular commodity devices, their electronics and their firmware. For example the portable AC I just opened had 2 of these 8051s(?) inside, with an ESP32 for networking which I find rather fascinating. The first one controls physical inputs (buttons) and IR input from a remote, the second controls the AC compressor, fans and lower level electrical inputs (sensors etc) while taking input from the first and the ESP32 handles wireless communication sending input to the first one.
These old low performance chips are found inside mice, keyboards, remote controllers, dehumidifiers, air fryers and almost any other "simple" electronics. It's fascinating how a 70s chip design is still so prevalent in our everyday products.
>but the transcripts the AI makes of me are so hilariously
My experience on AI transcripts is different: I use auto (AI) generated captions on YouTube for every video and while there sure are some mistakes with especially names and specialized words, in general it is highly understandable. So much so that that I miss the auto generated captions when they're not available.
Even if real captions are available, on occasion I have to swap out from the human made captions to the auto generated AI captions, because believe it or not in some cases the AI generated captions are actually better with less mistakes! I find that rather impressive from the AIs side.
Yes, that was my point exactly. Due to nice weather, ice cream consumption and drowning begin to correlate and it's hard to draw conclusions from this correlation alone.
As an example for coffee consumption it could just be that coffee is consumed more in countries with higher living standards and higher living standards lead to longer life. Coffee might not necessarily be healthy by itself, though of course it could very well be.
At least in the South of EU there are places with zero checks in place. I mean there are organizations operating in the Mediterranean whose whole purpose is to offer transport for people outside the EU without any checks required.
Honestly there isn't anything serious about such lack of checks. I'd say maybe US or Australia or such have serious checks in place -- EU is nowhere even close.
Of course the solution would be to make airlines liable to replace passengers' luggage in the event of a crash and inform the passengers that they will do so, but that's not how the world works currently.