Actually, there are a number of different benefits to various players in credit cards: - Consumers get fraud protection on their purchases. If someone is trying to cheat you then filing a claim with your credit card company is a fast way of resolving it. And as it stands now you are usually in the better position (merchant usually has to prove you are wrong). - Consumers also get theft protection. In the case your wallet is stolen U.S. law limits your damages to $50 (waved my most credit card companies nowadays). That is not the case with any cash you have there. - Merchants like not having to deal with cash. It is a lot harder for workers to steal from credit card transactions, and there are a lot of headaches with sacks of cash. - Merchants love the disconnect that may people have between the pain of paying and buying. If you can just swipe many people don't connect that as much with the cost of things (this is obviously not a benefit for those consumers).
This is a strawman argument. You are comparing cash with credit cards.
If you read what I actually said it is completely unambiguous I was advocating for replacement of credit cards with instant payment systems.
And there is not 0 cost to banks/creditcard vendors; they have to pay both for the systems involved, and for all the work of policing fraud/abuse and people who don't pay their bills. I am not going to argue that there is not good room for lowering the fees involved, but 0 is not the target.
Funny how I can have a bank account and never pay the bank for using it. How I can transfer funds, show up in person to deposit and withdraw money, use online banking, withdraw from ATMs all without being charged a single penny. I would assume moving a few bytes over a transaction network costs more than paying tellers and maintaining ATM machines.
Hell the bank will even print out checks, put a stamp on them and mail the check to anyone I want for free of charge. In fact my bank pays me for having a bank account.
Banks make money by loaning my money to others for profit while paying me shit for earned interest in return. Personally I see no reason why it can't be free but the great thing is that should be between you and your bank. If you don't like the terms you can go somewhere else. The point is merchants shouldn't be charged by some central middle man that does nothing.
Other countries in Europe and elsewhere have these types of systems and there are no percentage based transaction fees involved.
Whatever the question. Credit cards are the wrong answer.
I really appreciate you people who do not use credit cards, you help support the award programs for those of us who do!
That's as good a way as any to justify cheerleading for bankers to extract value from EVERYONE for absolutely nothing in return.
It's very kind of you to buy everything at inflated prices to support credit card transaction fees while getting none of the rewards... more for me then!
This isn't a zero sum game. They are taking value from you as well.
Kickback incentives to get people to use a payment brand should be treated as an anti-trust issue as sellers are effectively being held captive by perverse incentives on the back end. It's guaranteed suicide for many vendors to refuse to accept a known card brand.
Also there is no justification for bankers to extract percentages of every transaction for themselves in the first place. This is just a tax extracting value from the system for no benefit in return. Credit cards need to be phased out and banking systems improved to handle push based personal instant payments without transaction fees.
Watched 60 minutes interview last night. It was hard to watch.. At one point Shalev did the whole evil laugh thing while uttering something about not believing the newspapers.
To me personally it isn't a shock or surprise to find grey hats selling their souls for money. Personally I've never believed in the existence of any meaningful distinction between grey and black hats to begin with. What is much harder to fathom was why Shalev was allowed to get anywhere near a camera in the first place.
This is not a "shades of grey" issue. Either a crime was committed or not. If there is sufficient evidence to support a criminal conviction then a crime was committed. Anything short of that constitutes "not a crime."
You're getting into a very dangerous area when you want to classify people as "criminal but without sufficient evidence to support the claim." This is a nation of laws, not a mob.
What are you even talking about? Parent didn't call anyone a criminal. There is a clear difference between evidence and conclusions you seem to be ignoring.
How would you respond if someone called you a criminal in a public forum with intent of destroying your character or livelihood but lacked evidence to support it? I doubt you'd like anyone entertaining the idea that you were a criminal despite there being insufficient evidence.
This follows from the same faulty assertion.
If someone released evidence in their possession of wrongdoing to the public this is not the same thing as labeling someone a criminal.
If you don't want it done to you, don't do it to someone else.
The problem with this line of argument is nobody wants to be accused or convicted of anything regardless of whether they are guilty or not.
This argument effectively supports the proposition snitches deserve stiches.
No, this particular kind of lawsuit wasn't predicted by Popper circa 1945, but it's a great example of how it works in action.
I actually think Trump's so-called free-speech executive order is a slightly more sophisticated attack on tolerance. The real idea is to make is easier for intolerant people to attack tolerance.
Oh god not this crap again. Paradoxes are not real things. They don't exist in nature. The extent to which they appear to exist at all is underwritten by ignorance of the person considering the paradox.
Bigger issue here is "paradox" language is nothing more than an unnecessary source of confusion. This language has been used as cover for legitimizing indefensible behavior. (Antifa et el)
The concept Jefferson, KP and crew are contemplating centers on preservation of an environment where rational discourse can take place and very little beyond that.
The "paradox" is a reflection of the inconvenient reality attempting to censor speech is far more damaging to society than advocating for genocide against left handed freaks of nature.
SJW's on campus going bonkers shutting down speech they disagree with is a bigger problem than marching bands with swastikas on their foreheads playing horst wessel.
Trump's EO is a damn good idea given unchecked SJW craziness. Pence should keep it in force long after Trump has been dragged out of office and sent to jail.
So long as the trend line for GPU cost/performance continues to severely outpace trend line for last mile provision of bandwidth how can there be a future in any of this crap?
Clearly the Quest has better resolution and the better colors of OLED.
I'm open to trying a LCD VR display.
With OLED dark areas especially in space SIMS have annoying lag to them. Worse is the burn-in dirty sheen that gets worse as display elements age drifting further out of calibration. Not all that impressive to me either.
People forget that Tom Wheeler was a literal cable company lobbyist when he became head of the FCC. The Democrats fully expected him to serve the cable company's interests and block net neutrality.
Wheeler only pulled Title II rabbit out of his hat in reaction to losing Verizon lawsuit.
At that point after pushing open Internet nobody expected him to serve the cable company's interests. He already unambiguously demonstrated otherwise years before deciding to do Title II as a last resort.
Worse, this isn't about what you think of "network neutrality." This is 100% about pushing CALEA requirements onto the internet. You do want all of your data snarfable without a warrant, right?
CALEA requires a warrant but you're right when you say this isn't really about network neutrality. The democrats could have done a clean NN bill but they instead elected to keep all the Title II bullshit intact.
Taxing isn't really a solution. The problem is the concentration of money flows to a few. The government getting their hands on it after the fact is too late. We need a better distribution of how income is made.
My view problem isn't really about who gets how much money.
If the rich spent their money on capital investment or rich people stuff like giant mansions, mega yachts, G6's and hiring people to open doors for them that would be just fine.
The problem is rich are just hoarding income leaving it to sit idle to the tune of countless tens of trillions. When money is put to use at least it goes back into the system making it easier for everyone to earn something doing something. From people in the factories making parts for mega yachts, airplanes to staff opening doors along with everyone who supports them.
Progressive taxation with high top tier rates has a proven history of mitigating wealth inequality. US top tier rate should be more than doubled to way above 70% as it was from 30s to early 80s before the rich completely captured government.
But those aren't what anyone thinks about when they hear the phrase "meritocracy", especially in a context critical of the concept.
The context of TFA is pretty clear on what "meritocracy" is:
"Meritocracy has become a leading social ideal. Politicians across the ideological spectrum continually return to the theme that the rewards of lifeâ"money, power, jobs, university admissionâ"should be distributed according to skill and effort. The most common metaphor is the âoeeven playing fieldâ upon which players can rise to the position that fits their merit. "
"In the U.K., 84% of respondents to the 2009 British Social Attitudes survey stated that hard work is either âoeessentialâ or âoevery importantâ when it comes to getting ahead, and in 2016 the Brookings Institute found that 69% of Americans believe that people are rewarded for intelligence and skill. "
Also pretty clear in context of TFA being against meritocracy is the equivalent of being FOR straight up socialism.
What we're all thinking about are two things:
Who is we? The term Meritocracy is obviously totally meaningless in the absence of specific context. The context TFA provided is clearly not the same as the one you are working under.
a. People who coast to wealth on the backs of actual hard working folk. The Paris Hilton's the world. The Prosperity Gospel and the Divine Right of Kings.
Nearly every rich person on earth has done exactly this. They have all extracted value from those hired to labor for their benefit. What specifically is the problem?
b. People given a leg up in the world who act like they earned it all themselves. There's a phrase for this behavior: Pulling the ladder up behind you.
LOL... I wrote this program all by myself.
No no no! You didn't write the compiler or operating system stacks it has to call to operate. Nor have you designed or produced the hardware necessary for it to execute. You didn't develop the lithography devices making it possible to fabricate integrated circuits nor the enabling mathematics allowing for its development. You didn't mine raw materials nor develop processes for refining and processing them. You didn't develop the underlying models of governance that provided services necessary for any of these things to be developed.
Who fucking cares? What difference does it make how much credit or deference someone feels like belching out so long as you are not making fraudulent claims? Credits for every conceivable thing go back to the beginning of civilization.
You've set up your strawman (the hardworking PhD/repairman) and knocked him down, while completely ignoring people's real concerns over how the concept of meritocracy is abused to excuse wealth inequality, uphold a ruling class and punch down on the lower castes.
Seriously TFA is a subjective house of mirrors. It asserts "grit" is a function of genetics and upbringing explicitly dismissing all personal endeavor as "luck".
TFA also isn't so much about Meritocracy itself as it is a citation of a study of how internal perceptions of (nebulous) it as an ideal causes people to become full of themselves:
"Yet Castilla and Benard found that, ironically, attempts to implement meritocracy leads to just the kinds of inequalities that it aims to eliminate. They suggest that this âoeparadox of meritocracyâ occurs because explicitly adopting meritocracy as a value convinces subjects of their own moral bona fides. Satisfied that they are just, they become less inclined to examine their own behavior for signs of prejudice."
"However, in addition to legitimation, meritocracy also offers flattery. Where success is determined by merit, each win can be viewed as a reflection of oneâ(TM)s own virtue and worth. Meritocracy is the most self-congratulatory of distribution principles
What exactly are those? I went to his website https://betoorourke.com/ which contains absolutely nothing on his positions.
Beto is as useless as Kate's boyfriend in the movie Hackers. His entire job is standing on tables making captain obvious proud with motherhood and apple pie rhetoric.
overwhelming vast majority of the world doesn't give a shit about telemetry
My own view it would be rather foolish to assume the only group of people who care about privacy are those who know the difference between a bit and a byte.
The more likely explanation is others don't see it, don't understand it or are unaware of what's happening.
or selecting exact updates to install
They care when their work is lost because windows decided to install an update. They care when a botched updates break their systems and or software. They care when their settings get all screwed up.
Windows 10 is different, it has different requirements, different interface, different way of operating, and people don't like their cheese moved.
An abacus is different, it has different requirements, different interface, different way of operating and people don't like their cheese moved. Unfalsifiable statements have amazing versatility.
Telling a Google server that you want to load a common Javascript framework used on millions of web sites every now and then (after the first load it is cached locally) isn't exactly a massive information leak. It doesn't send the URL you are trying to access or anything like that.
It says specifically "When Chrome optimizes an HTTPS page, only the URL is shared with Google; other information â" cookies, login information, and personalized page content â" is not shared with Google."
"When Chrome optimizes an HTTPS page, only the URL is shared with Google; other information â" cookies, login information, and personalized page content â" is not shared with Google. "
Sharing URL is very much requiring data about browsing habits.
The Indonesian flight seems to have been due to a training issue: Boeing elected not to include the required procedures for disabling a failing anti-stall system into the variant difference training course because they didn't want to confuse the average pilot.
So hopefully all 737 max pilots have gotten the message now, and will respond quickly and appropriately when their aircraft exhibit a determined effort to dive into the ground.
Y'all have stock in Boeing?
What flights are serviced by 737 max? I what to fly on an aircraft where the pilot must remember what button to push to bypass random attempts of the aircraft to kill everyone. Knowing the "training" problem has been fixed is very reassuring.
Many expletives and ad homenim insults cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced during the production of this message.
Slashdot Mirror
Go back to your crack pipe. Thanks.
Noticed most of your posts here are like this. Angry and derisive void of substance.
Actually, there are a number of different benefits to various players in credit cards:
- Consumers get fraud protection on their purchases. If someone is trying to cheat you then filing a claim with your credit card company is a fast way of resolving it. And as it stands now you are usually in the better position (merchant usually has to prove you are wrong).
- Consumers also get theft protection. In the case your wallet is stolen U.S. law limits your damages to $50 (waved my most credit card companies nowadays). That is not the case with any cash you have there.
- Merchants like not having to deal with cash. It is a lot harder for workers to steal from credit card transactions, and there are a lot of headaches with sacks of cash.
- Merchants love the disconnect that may people have between the pain of paying and buying. If you can just swipe many people don't connect that as much with the cost of things (this is obviously not a benefit for those consumers).
This is a strawman argument. You are comparing cash with credit cards.
If you read what I actually said it is completely unambiguous I was advocating for replacement of credit cards with instant payment systems.
And there is not 0 cost to banks/creditcard vendors; they have to pay both for the systems involved, and for all the work of policing fraud/abuse and people who don't pay their bills. I am not going to argue that there is not good room for lowering the fees involved, but 0 is not the target.
Funny how I can have a bank account and never pay the bank for using it. How I can transfer funds, show up in person to deposit and withdraw money, use online banking, withdraw from ATMs all without being charged a single penny. I would assume moving a few bytes over a transaction network costs more than paying tellers and maintaining ATM machines.
Hell the bank will even print out checks, put a stamp on them and mail the check to anyone I want for free of charge. In fact my bank pays me for having a bank account.
Banks make money by loaning my money to others for profit while paying me shit for earned interest in return. Personally I see no reason why it can't be free but the great thing is that should be between you and your bank. If you don't like the terms you can go somewhere else. The point is merchants shouldn't be charged by some central middle man that does nothing.
Other countries in Europe and elsewhere have these types of systems and there are no percentage based transaction fees involved.
Whatever the question. Credit cards are the wrong answer.
I really appreciate you people who do not use credit cards, you help support the award programs for those of us who do!
That's as good a way as any to justify cheerleading for bankers to extract value from EVERYONE for absolutely nothing in return.
It's very kind of you to buy everything at inflated prices to support credit card transaction fees while getting none of the rewards... more for me then!
This isn't a zero sum game. They are taking value from you as well.
Kickback incentives to get people to use a payment brand should be treated as an anti-trust issue as sellers are effectively being held captive by perverse incentives on the back end. It's guaranteed suicide for many vendors to refuse to accept a known card brand.
Also there is no justification for bankers to extract percentages of every transaction for themselves in the first place. This is just a tax extracting value from the system for no benefit in return. Credit cards need to be phased out and banking systems improved to handle push based personal instant payments without transaction fees.
Watched 60 minutes interview last night. It was hard to watch.. At one point Shalev did the whole evil laugh thing while uttering something about not believing the newspapers.
To me personally it isn't a shock or surprise to find grey hats selling their souls for money. Personally I've never believed in the existence of any meaningful distinction between grey and black hats to begin with. What is much harder to fathom was why Shalev was allowed to get anywhere near a camera in the first place.
This is not a "shades of grey" issue. Either a crime was committed or not. If there is sufficient evidence to support a criminal conviction then a crime was committed. Anything short of that constitutes "not a crime."
You're getting into a very dangerous area when you want to classify people as "criminal but without sufficient evidence to support the claim." This is a nation of laws, not a mob.
What are you even talking about? Parent didn't call anyone a criminal. There is a clear difference between evidence and conclusions you seem to be ignoring.
How would you respond if someone called you a criminal in a public forum with intent of destroying your character or livelihood but lacked evidence to support it? I doubt you'd like anyone entertaining the idea that you were a criminal despite there being insufficient evidence.
This follows from the same faulty assertion.
If someone released evidence in their possession of wrongdoing to the public this is not the same thing as labeling someone a criminal.
If you don't want it done to you, don't do it to someone else.
The problem with this line of argument is nobody wants to be accused or convicted of anything regardless of whether they are guilty or not.
This argument effectively supports the proposition snitches deserve stiches.
Nothing you wrote actually disagrees with the Paradox of Tolerance. Possible cases:
(1) You haven't read it.
(2) You can't understand it.
(3) Both.
I have no reason to tolerate your intolerance or to recommend additional readings. This "discussion" appears to be concluded.
Again central issue WRT clumsy "paradox" language is protection of societies capacity for rational discourse. Nothing more.
No, this particular kind of lawsuit wasn't predicted by Popper circa 1945, but it's a great example of how it works in action.
I actually think Trump's so-called free-speech executive order is a slightly more sophisticated attack on tolerance. The real idea is to make is easier for intolerant people to attack tolerance.
Oh god not this crap again. Paradoxes are not real things. They don't exist in nature. The extent to which they appear to exist at all is underwritten by ignorance of the person considering the paradox.
Bigger issue here is "paradox" language is nothing more than an unnecessary source of confusion. This language has been used as cover for legitimizing indefensible behavior. (Antifa et el)
The concept Jefferson, KP and crew are contemplating centers on preservation of an environment where rational discourse can take place and very little beyond that.
The "paradox" is a reflection of the inconvenient reality attempting to censor speech is far more damaging to society than advocating for genocide against left handed freaks of nature.
SJW's on campus going bonkers shutting down speech they disagree with is a bigger problem than marching bands with swastikas on their foreheads playing horst wessel.
Trump's EO is a damn good idea given unchecked SJW craziness. Pence should keep it in force long after Trump has been dragged out of office and sent to jail.
So long as the trend line for GPU cost/performance continues to severely outpace trend line for last mile provision of bandwidth how can there be a future in any of this crap?
What are the reasons for owning a Mac in 2019?
It's produced by Apple and sold at ripoff prices.
Clearly the Quest has better resolution and the better colors of OLED.
I'm open to trying a LCD VR display.
With OLED dark areas especially in space SIMS have annoying lag to them. Worse is the burn-in dirty sheen that gets worse as display elements age drifting further out of calibration. Not all that impressive to me either.
Most people have more lag between the video output and the screen generating photons than you get sending a signal across the country.
Thanks for playing. RF PHY of my cable modem by itself introduces more latency before signal can even travel down the street.
Google might as well announce date they will become bored with it and shut it down during launch to save everyone time and guesswork.
The only thing more idiotic and wasteful than the underlying concept of streaming games is relying on Google for anything.
People forget that Tom Wheeler was a literal cable company lobbyist when he became head of the FCC. The Democrats fully expected him to serve the cable company's interests and block net neutrality.
Wheeler only pulled Title II rabbit out of his hat in reaction to losing Verizon lawsuit.
At that point after pushing open Internet nobody expected him to serve the cable company's interests. He already unambiguously demonstrated otherwise years before deciding to do Title II as a last resort.
Worse, this isn't about what you think of "network neutrality." This is 100% about pushing CALEA requirements onto the internet. You do want all of your data snarfable without a warrant, right?
CALEA requires a warrant but you're right when you say this isn't really about network neutrality. The democrats could have done a clean NN bill but they instead elected to keep all the Title II bullshit intact.
This is cool shit for what it is.
What else has the ability to encode 4k h.265 in realtime /w comparable GPU at a price anywhere near what this thing costs?
Having said that I do a lot of h.265 encoding and wouldn't touch the NVidia GPU encoders with a 39 and a half foot pole. They suck ass.
Still at $100 the deal breaker will be what kernel and hardware support look like for this thing.
Personally also looking forward to the N2.
https://www.hardkernel.com/blo...
Taxing isn't really a solution. The problem is the concentration of money flows to a few. The government getting their hands on it after the fact is too late. We need a better distribution of how income is made.
My view problem isn't really about who gets how much money.
If the rich spent their money on capital investment or rich people stuff like giant mansions, mega yachts, G6's and hiring people to open doors for them that would be just fine.
The problem is rich are just hoarding income leaving it to sit idle to the tune of countless tens of trillions. When money is put to use at least it goes back into the system making it easier for everyone to earn something doing something. From people in the factories making parts for mega yachts, airplanes to staff opening doors along with everyone who supports them.
Progressive taxation with high top tier rates has a proven history of mitigating wealth inequality. US top tier rate should be more than doubled to way above 70% as it was from 30s to early 80s before the rich completely captured government.
But those aren't what anyone thinks about when they hear the phrase "meritocracy", especially in a context critical of the concept.
The context of TFA is pretty clear on what "meritocracy" is:
"Meritocracy has become a leading social ideal. Politicians across the ideological spectrum continually return to the theme that the rewards of lifeâ"money, power, jobs, university admissionâ"should be distributed according to skill and effort. The most common metaphor is the âoeeven playing fieldâ upon which players can rise to the position that fits their merit. "
"In the U.K., 84% of respondents to the 2009 British Social Attitudes survey stated that hard work is either âoeessentialâ or âoevery importantâ when it comes to getting ahead, and in 2016 the Brookings Institute found that 69% of Americans believe that people are rewarded for intelligence and skill. "
Also pretty clear in context of TFA being against meritocracy is the equivalent of being FOR straight up socialism.
What we're all thinking about are two things:
Who is we? The term Meritocracy is obviously totally meaningless in the absence of specific context. The context TFA provided is clearly not the same as the one you are working under.
a. People who coast to wealth on the backs of actual hard working folk. The Paris Hilton's the world. The Prosperity Gospel and the Divine Right of Kings.
Nearly every rich person on earth has done exactly this. They have all extracted value from those hired to labor for their benefit. What specifically is the problem?
b. People given a leg up in the world who act like they earned it all themselves. There's a phrase for this behavior: Pulling the ladder up behind you.
LOL... I wrote this program all by myself.
No no no! You didn't write the compiler or operating system stacks it has to call to operate. Nor have you designed or produced the hardware necessary for it to execute. You didn't develop the lithography devices making it possible to fabricate integrated circuits nor the enabling mathematics allowing for its development. You didn't mine raw materials nor develop processes for refining and processing them. You didn't develop the underlying models of governance that provided services necessary for any of these things to be developed.
Who fucking cares? What difference does it make how much credit or deference someone feels like belching out so long as you are not making fraudulent claims? Credits for every conceivable thing go back to the beginning of civilization.
You've set up your strawman (the hardworking PhD/repairman) and knocked him down, while completely ignoring people's real concerns over how the concept of meritocracy is abused to excuse wealth inequality, uphold a ruling class and punch down on the lower castes.
Seriously TFA is a subjective house of mirrors. It asserts "grit" is a function of genetics and upbringing explicitly dismissing all personal endeavor as "luck".
TFA also isn't so much about Meritocracy itself as it is a citation of a study of how internal perceptions of (nebulous) it as an ideal causes people to become full of themselves:
"Yet Castilla and Benard found that, ironically, attempts to implement meritocracy leads to just the kinds of inequalities that it aims to eliminate. They suggest that this âoeparadox of meritocracyâ occurs because explicitly adopting meritocracy as a value convinces subjects of their own moral bona fides. Satisfied that they are just, they become less inclined to examine their own behavior for signs of prejudice."
"However, in addition to legitimation, meritocracy also offers flattery. Where success is determined by merit, each win can be viewed as a reflection of oneâ(TM)s own virtue and worth. Meritocracy is the most self-congratulatory of distribution principles
What exactly are those? I went to his website https://betoorourke.com/ which contains absolutely nothing on his positions.
Beto is as useless as Kate's boyfriend in the movie Hackers. His entire job is standing on tables making captain obvious proud with motherhood and apple pie rhetoric.
To go out of business.
overwhelming vast majority of the world doesn't give a shit about telemetry
My own view it would be rather foolish to assume the only group of people who care about privacy are those who know the difference between a bit and a byte.
The more likely explanation is others don't see it, don't understand it or are unaware of what's happening.
or selecting exact updates to install
They care when their work is lost because windows decided to install an update. They care when a botched updates break their systems and or software. They care when their settings get all screwed up.
Windows 10 is different, it has different requirements, different interface, different way of operating, and people don't like their cheese moved.
An abacus is different, it has different requirements, different interface, different way of operating and people don't like their cheese moved. Unfalsifiable statements have amazing versatility.
In 9 months. Should be fun to watch.
Telling a Google server that you want to load a common Javascript framework used on millions of web sites every now and then (after the first load it is cached locally) isn't exactly a massive information leak. It doesn't send the URL you are trying to access or anything like that.
Where are you getting your information?
The only place I could find that has any information about this feature is this:
https://blog.chromium.org/2019...
It says specifically "When Chrome optimizes an HTTPS page, only the URL is shared with Google; other information â" cookies, login information, and personalized page content â" is not shared with Google."
What do you know that overrides this?
No.
What else do you call it when information is being leaked from secure site to Google including internal resources loaded and page URLs?
This does not require any data about your browsing habits to be sent to Google
Not according to chromium blog:
https://blog.chromium.org/2019...
"When Chrome optimizes an HTTPS page, only the URL is shared with Google; other information â" cookies, login information, and personalized page content â" is not shared with Google. "
Sharing URL is very much requiring data about browsing habits.
The Indonesian flight seems to have been due to a training issue: Boeing elected not to include the required procedures for disabling a failing anti-stall system into the variant difference training course because they didn't want to confuse the average pilot.
So hopefully all 737 max pilots have gotten the message now, and will respond quickly and appropriately when their aircraft exhibit a determined effort to dive into the ground.
Y'all have stock in Boeing?
What flights are serviced by 737 max? I what to fly on an aircraft where the pilot must remember what button to push to bypass random attempts of the aircraft to kill everyone. Knowing the "training" problem has been fixed is very reassuring.
Many expletives and ad homenim insults cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced during the production of this message.