Yes, but it's a bit unfair to ding an airline 600 euros per passenger on top of the fare refund because the weather wasn't safe. Fining an airline north of 100k because they didn't take off in unsafe weather would result in an even greater incentive to fly anyway.
The fines are there to disincentivise the airlines from skimping on staffing or maintenance, causing delays, and lumping passengers with the expenses incurred by having to rearrange travel at short notice.
I assume there is some kind of system in place to prevent airlines falsely claiming bad weather to escape the compensation rules.
I think there's another side to this. There's weather, and there's "It's winter".
I don't think it's reasonable for airlines to expect to maintain the same number of departures that worked in the nice summer months through the winter. Runways will need to be cleared, planes will need to be de-iced.
They could keep extra planes and staff around ready to replace an incoming flight if it's delayed (clearly easier for carriers with fewer types of aircraft). Heck just staff seem like they would be handy as the flight crew hit their service limits.
But there's no financial incentive to do that if "weather" (despite happening every winter) is a get-out-of-jail-free card.
There’s already an incentive with the weather. If have the plane has to be rebooked or refunded that’s lost revenue that stills ends up affecting the bottom line.
The airline is still very incentivized to get you were you are going on time. Planes and crews still need to get where they were going so it’s much better for everyone involved if it’s a full plane with an on time arrival for passengers.
> I don't think it's reasonable for airlines to expect to maintain the same number of departures that worked in the nice summer months through the winter. Runways will need to be cleared, planes will need to be de-iced.
Exceptional/unexpected weather is one thing. But the concept of winter isn't exceptional. Deicing and snow clearing is a known factor. In Tampa that's an exceptional thing, in Helsinki it's not.
The thing with this regulation (and the EU one) is that airlines can't just compete on running with minimal margins and skeleton crews every days, where a single unscheduled repair or sick crewmember sends ripples of delays through the system. For travellers to have any security there needs to be some sort of slack in the system. A spare crew, or a spare plane. So how do you make that not a catastrophic market disadvantage? Like this. By making airlines economically responsible for delays.
> I don't think it's reasonable for airlines to expect to maintain the same number of departures that worked in the nice summer months through the winter.
Agree. So they don’t sell tickets for those flights that don’t run, then there’s nothing to compensate.
Operate fewer flights if they are going to struggle to operate the ones they sell tickets for.
Forcing airlines to compensate passengers for weather delays isn't going to work, and isn't equitable. You'd probably have people purposefully trying to book flights that are liable to be cancelled in order to profit.
Don't know what disclaimer you're referring to but in the EU you still get a full refund for cancellations no matter what the reason.
It worked for us a few years ago. Eurowings was late and the plane had to land somewhere else, they got us to the destination airport with buses. Then we got 250 EUR comp.
The people that he bought the company from already got the money, which was more money than they could get on the open market. They don't give a fuck what he does with his company now. If you think he's tanking his own company to get back at the people who have all the money he gave them...yeah he's that stupid.
The reason why he keeps doing all these comically dumb things is exactly because people like you think he's cooking something. He has no one around him questioning the decisions he's making, so they keep getting worse, because that's literally what happens to every human in history who goes unchallenged for too long.
As someone who wants all of the other things he's supposed to be building, I can't imagine how you would not see Twitter as an objective step back.
Every single change he has made to Twitter is exclusively to claw back income from users because he made all of the advertisers leave. Anyone competent would have just added the features they wanted without burning 80% of the company's income and staff.
The cherry (or turd?) on top is that the platform is manned by a skeleton crew.
I kid you not: I recently saw a screenshot of a post by an engineer asking ex-Twitter engineers for help debugging an issue.. on Blind. Mind you, I don’t blame the engineer at all: it just gives you an idea of the mess Musk has made for himself.
I think the fact that the platform is still running is a testament to those who built & documented the infra. It’s also a feather on the cap for those who remain to man the ship, particularly if there was no other choice.
One catastrophic outage is all it really takes at this point.
Elon has said he's ok losing money on Twitter. Its about providing a free speech platform where people with opposing views are allowed to express them.
For the Turkish Gov thing, I should've specified US citizens on US Soil. The argument he claims is that a country can decide how they want to operate businesses inside their own borders. Twitter must comply. Its better to be allowed to operate in another country than be kicked out and have another more government subservient tech company replacement step in. If you believe otherwise, I think I would need to hear a strong argument that its the better alternative.
If someone is one of the most highly influential people on the planet managing gigantic marketcap companies like Tesla/Spacex, It makes sense from a personal safety standpoint not to dox their location each time they travel. Doxing people fits whose narrative again? I'm not convinced thats a 'narrative'.
Banning links to substack was temporary. Substack released a competitor and was scraping their contact data. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2023/apr/11/row-between-tw.... How would you handle the situation where you have a company losing money and competitors are sucking your data dry?
In regards to scraping users from the platform your moving away from, Facebook did the exact same thing to twitter in 2013. The veterans running these companies know the playbooks.
https://twitter.com/TechEmails/status/1650894515702763521
Its naive that people sit on the sidelines opining they should've done the opposite when all the evidence points to blocking scraping as a standard business practice (and scraping is illegal if the company forbids it in their policy). Most people saying otherwise have not run a company or startup in a competitive environment where every other player wants to steal their lunch.
If someone is crawling your content, that's usually bad behavior.
If a user signs up somewhere else, and wants their data to be ported over, there is very little to legitimately complain about. Even more so when the scraping is just contact data for that user, because that's very little server load.
Go away with this "steal their lunch" stuff. It should be legally mandated that users can transfer contacts between services.
Also blocking API access is very different from blocking user-posted links.
1. Wikipedia had the same issue with the Turkish government, fought it in Turkish courts and won. Twitter bent over and used the "but another even worse app will take our place" excuse you're using here. They're not helping free speech here.
2. Flight data is public, no one is doxing anyone. The incident Musk used as proof that this was bad was while he was in a car... far from his plane.
3. Twitter banned Mastodon links before Substack. Was Mastodon scraping Twitter's contact data too?
You see, the problem is not even what he's doing with Twitter. It's his company, who cares? It's claiming that Twitter is the internet's "town square" and that he is anti-censorship, while restricting access to the platform and censoring content. It's complete bullshit and people like you fall for it and even defend it.
I'd respect Elon Musk more if he came out and just said "this is my platform, I'll ban stuff that affects me or affects my revenue, get out if you're not happy." Instead, he says one thing and does another.
If your bank sells your mortgage to another bank, the second bank now owns that debt. If the first bank goes out of business, you very obviously (separately from the previous transaction) lose any money that isn't insured. I'm not sure what else you would expect to happen.
yes, and I am saying the first bank should have to use the assets it has tied to you to pay off the debt it has to you, before it can sell them in bankruptcy to bank #2.
And we're saying that's not how that works. When the FDIC takes over the bank, they pay out all of the insured deposits, sell all of the assets, and distribute the remaining funds, which in cases like this one are not enough to cover uninsured deposits.
"In the case of a non-delinquent loan, the depositor might elect to “set off” the loan against his/her deposits in order to receive full value for any uninsured funds (i.e., funds in excess of the $250,000 insurance limit). In either case, no “offset” is possible unless the obligations are “mutual” – meaning that the borrower and the depositor must be the same person or legal entity acting in the same legal capacity."
> Some SVB customers told the Journal they have asked First Citizens if their loans can be set off with the deposits that the funds had in their Cayman bank accounts.
> In response to a query from the Journal, a First Citizens spokeswoman said a setoff “isn’t legally possible in this situation,” because First Citizens owns the capital-call lines while the Cayman deposits were with SVB Financial Group, the former holding company of Silicon Valley Bank.
>Presumably these loans were offloaded before the insolvency hit
No, that isnt what it is saying here. The loans weren't offloaded beforehand. First citizens obtained them as a result of the insolvency. First Citizens is claiming that they dont have to perform setoffs for some of the loans they acquired.
First citizens did perform setoffs for other unsecured customers in US branches, similar to how I described in my posts above, as required by law. Customers with accounts AND loans get their loans forgiven before the account balance goes to FDIC insured accounts. However, First Citizens thinks that due to the structure of their purchase and the SVB organization, they are not obligated to do the same for international branch customers with accounts and loans. For those, they get to hold the loan but not the setoff obligation.
Now the FDIC is in the position where they have to decide if they will claw back the loans from First Citizens and forgive them directly.
yes, And I am saying that it is not unreasonable that the bank should have to pay back individuals with assets for sale before covering those without assets.
It all comes down to priority in asset recovery.
There is no moral, philosophical, or biblical truth that FDIC insured depositors must be paid out first. It is just as conceivable to have a system where customers with both bank assets and debts have higher priority to recovery, at least for to funds recovered from their assets..
Anyone using the bank signed a contract that defined how a failure affects them. There is absolutely a moral, philosophical, and biblical truth behind honoring that contract.
Galatians 3:15: "To give a human example, brothers: even with a man-made covenant, no one annuls it or adds to it once it has been ratified."
Proverbs 17:18: "One who has no sense shakes hands in pledge and puts up security for a neighbor."
Outside of that fact, the reason that the system is designed this way is to protect normal people from Rich people destroying these banks. If it were the way you're proposing, only the Rich people taking on the most risk and debt would get paid out, and every normal person using the bank would lose everything. We know this, because that's exactly what happened before the FDIC, which is the entire reason it exists.
I understand that there are legal regulations which generally specify these matters. However, to think that these are immutable is just wrong. Banking regulations change over time and jurisdiction.
To be clear, I'm not advocating abolition of the FDIC. Normal people wouldn't lose everything. The rich still would pay for FDIC payments, just like they now.
You would just see some individuals have less damage, specifically when bank assets in their name are commensurate with bank debt in their name. FDIC payouts would be slightly larger, but again, these are recouped by banking fees, largely paid by the rich
How do you think the bankrupt bank pays it's creditors/depositors? It sells all the assets in bankruptcy to bank #2 and then uses that cash to reimburse the people it owes money to in an orderly way. It doesn't go to each creditor and negotiate the debt separately. The entire point of bankruptcy proceedings are to ensure that the CEO doesn't make his golfing buddies whole by settling their debts and leaves everyone else out to dry.
Assets -> cash -> distributed according to the courts.
Assets -> cash -> forgive any loans to the people who had accounts -> payoff FDIC insured accounts -> distribute remainder according to the courts
This is what happened for US customers with both loans and unsecured accounts. bank #2 says they dont have to forgive the loans specifically for some customers.
FDIC takes over bank -> FDIC allows people to pay off their loans with the same bank using funds at the same bank -> FDIC pays off insured accounts and takes on debt from the bank -> Sells Assets -> Uses cash to pay itself back by being first in line with the courts.
If it gets to Bank #2, it's not their problem and they specifically don't have to. Also, this wasn't a US bank! It wasn't under FDIC control. That payoff happens before bankruptcy. If the FDIC doesn't take over your bank it doesn't apply.
>Also, this wasn't a US bank! It wasn't under FDIC control
That's the part that I disagree with. My understanding is that FDIC took possession and sold off the International loans to bank number two, but did not discount them by the international account balances.
It doesn't seem right to me that the FDIC can say "it's not my problem we don't have control“ while simultaneously taking and selling the international loans
Which they are, and FDIC now has to choose whether it's going to take back the loans it's sold off to pay the account holders.
This isn't about what happens to FDIC insured accounts, it's about how to apply pre-existing FDIC policy for handling non-insured accounts. The regulation is very clear on how not insured accounts get offset in some cases and the regulations are unclear or discretionary in other cases.
This goes full circle back to my original point that if the FDIC takes control of the International loans, but they should deduct the value of that counts from those loans, just like they did for the majority of the customers
I would love to use Google's cloud, but I just can't risk my email, map, and browser services being cut off because some AI determined that my application looks suspicious, with no human customer support to contact, as has been reported multiple times.
Actually I find their support to be pretty good. Granted I am at a large tech company who likely pays for premium support, but I can always get through to a human who knows what they're talking about. They've even helped with issues inside my app that were my fault.
I tried moving off Gmail, I really did. But all the EU-based alternatives just suck so much. So now I'm back to Gmail, but I pay for it (Google Workspace). This way I at least have a commercial relationship with Google which gives me various contractual rights, and access to phone support. I also have a contingency plan: I have my email address on my own domain, and I backup my mailbox once in a while, so that I can migrate off Gmail should I need to do that at some point.
Could say the same thing about a former President publicly admitting to committing crimes, and half of the country not caring. Never before in history have so many people been so openly evil. Maybe the takeaway is that they've actually been that evil this whole time, they just weren't doing it so visibly. I personally would also clearly perceive a difference between being disrespectful and being evil; to whatever degree both could be considered immoral, I'd sure rather the former than the latter.
You misunderstood. People historically viewed themselves to be good, and justified their actions that way. People are now giving up the ability to justify their actions as good, and openly admitting to doing bad things on purpose. Go ahead and check your history books for that ever happening before. You can laugh, but normal people aren't particularly enthused by this turn of events.
> Could say the same thing about a former President publicly admitting to committing crimes, and half of the country not caring.
Bill Clinton, who admitted to giving misleading testimony under oath?
> Never before in history have so many people been so openly evil.
"History merely repeats itself. It has all been done before. Nothing under the sun is truly new. Sometimes people say, “Here is something new!” But actually it is old; nothing is ever truly new." - Ecclesiastes 1:9-10 (New Living Translation)
Some people always think they're living through the worst times ever -- it may be the worst times for them _individually_, but it's certainly been worse for others in history.
Could say the same thing about a former president admitting to having oral sex in the oval office, or pardoning a corrupt multi millionaire on his last days in office. Making this political does not take away from OPs argument.
Not sure how you think I "made this political" if you read the first post. I was just balancing the perspective. I'd rather have a president get sucked off than openly commit acts of treason, if that's the equivalency you would like to draw. If by "OP's argument" you mean the incorrect idea that the topless trans person was "celebrated": (1) the white house literally denounced their actions, (2) I already acknowledged that I believe it to be disrespectful and not particularly immoral, and (3) I consider those to be two different things.
I think you've just made a point in favor of crypto, and certainly against Gensler, who pretty much made an argument in favor of banning "bananas" entirely.
> Money to depositors for amounts greater than $250K is a bail out. They have no right to that money from the Feds.
No. The feds aren't giving anyone fed money, they're selling SVB's assets and giving the people they owe their own money back. There isn't enough money to give everyone 100% back, so they won't be getting 100% back. There's no extra government money making anyone "whole". They're just winding down the assets so they don't all get stolen like FTX.
Extra money is precisely what Yellen is proposing. The government will backstop the depositors to prevent a run on every other non-SIFI. This is the right move.
> I really don't understand what the allure of cannabis is.
Everything that exists in reality, from the observable beginning to the projected end, follows a pattern of abstraction that is exact and single. Drugs give you access to "suspension of disbelief" in experiencing fiction that is larger than reality.
> Like not being able to hold a thought for more than 5 seconds.
Not really an effect of cannabis. Heuristically it's more like the opposite, focusing on one thing for hours. The same way people with ADHD take Adderall.
>> Everything that exists in reality, from the observable beginning to the projected end, follows a pattern of abstraction that is exact and single. Drugs give you access to "suspension of disbelief" in experiencing fiction that is larger than reality.
Thats a fancy way of saying it gets you stoned. You can intellectualize it all you want, but its just words. I can think of any number of ways to "suspend my disbelief": try holding your breath, or slapping yourself silly. Try putting your finger in an electric socket. Really, there's no shortage of ways.
Your description of your experience with cannabis is telling. If you're frustrated with not being able to hold a thought for more than 5 seconds, then that might mean that you went into it with expectations of how it should go, and then spent your time being high trying to retain the "control" you had sober and bring those expectations to reality. This is a common mistake. The good parts of cannabis come from letting go of expectations of control. It's in letting go that hyper focused states or creative bursts can happen.
Not everyone is able to "let go" at will, but some can do it intuitively while others may have anxieties regarding control that must be worked through.
But theoretically, the cannabis should have helped that. I also felt a lot of nerve twitches all over. It might have been too high THC, but it was not an experience that I cared to repeat.
For the kind of experience you are talking about, I would think psychadelics would probably be the better fit.
If you have control problems with cannabis, I suggest you stay well away from psychedelics. Everything that you mentioned regarding your cannabis experience is something that you learn to integrate and eventually move past, to super-creative super-introspective states that you can harness for growth and value. You can learn to guide the experience while you're undergoing it.
Psychedelics are in a different class in that there is no guiding the experience while it's happening. The best one can do is prepare the context (set & setting) and hope for the best. In that sense, they're a lot more difficult to handle than cannabis, but also potentially orders of magnitude more rewarding. But to reap those rewards, I feel that one needs to deploy -if only temporarily- a different model of looking at the world: more like a shaman treating the substances like sacraments, with awe and respect, than a cold rationalist.
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/12/22/weather/why-flights-get-c....