While I understand the sentiment, such action doesn’t match the long term goals of the bloc to unify the continent. Another solution needs to be found to ensure single bad actors cannot hold up actions which severely impact the remaining stakeholders - I have no idea how it could be done though.

Xoxo, Another useless armchair observer

You need an incredibly robust quality management system to even achieve certification (allowing you to place on the market) when creating systems which include life support function, or functions which potentially could kill a user. All potential changes both within and outside of the manufacturers’ control MUST be assessed and constantly monitored so such issues CANNOT arise.

No one should be able to legally place an unsafe app on the market, or legally perform changes to the app without the necessary checks and balances.

Medical device approvals in most countries are definitely not the wild west. Although they are not perfect.

A man named Michel Thomas created a series of audio lessons to teach a number of languages, including German. He does it in a simulated classroom type of environment where one “student” makes common mistakes and he corrects them, so you get to hear someone else make the mistake first.

He also teaches you the necessary words to enable you to start understanding others speaking he language quickly. I found combining this with Duolingo and the super cheesy Extr@s TV series (once you have the basics) allowed me to go from 0 to speaking to people within 6 weeks and understanding 95% within 6 months.

I learnt Spanish and German from his audiobooks. They are worth the money if you can afford it and/or cannot pirate it.

Even the smaller competitors like Bombardier would have an interest in this, even if they are not the manufacturers of similar sized aircraft, a loss of faith in the aviation industry hurts everyone too. Plus suppliers etc.

As for the investigators (I know you meant FAA, not FCC), we have a similar issue in medical devices - you need seriously well educated experts to perform the investigations, and it is hard to find any without industry experience which wouldn’t look good on paper. The solution is to try as hard as you can to not have ex-employees audit their ex-bosses, but it isn’t always possible so we accept some overlap. It doesn’t mean these people don’t take their job seriously.

Oof… Big miss by me…thanks

I don’t think this ends in beheadings, but there will (hopefully) be significant follow on effects. A threat to consumer confidence in flying is a risk to the entire industry, all Boeing’s competitors and the airlines will be screaming for the FAA to get the actions right here…

The article above does not mention a cause of death

Thanks! I wasn’t clear on that detail!

Everyone is a bit shit here (including whoever came up with that title…). No one “won” anything here.

DoE wanted to use “emergency” measures to survey miner’s energy use, which is likely outside of the scope of the original intent of such powers (which appears to be why the judge granted a temporary restraining order?).

The Bitcoin miner’s claim the data release would cause “irreparable harm to their business…” If that’s not an admission of guilt, then I don’t know what is.

Not when I was doing it. Just go in with the attitude that it is a means to an ends, and turn up sober and on time and they’ll be stoked to have you.

Supermarket distribution centres. Not good long term as you will inevitably feel it after years, but great pay and you’re left to your own devices most of the time.

You have lost your licence to food with #2 there.

Any idea where can I find more info on this specifically?

There is no option currently, and no political interest to change it. Maybe this report will change that… Let’s see

Not owning a car with smart features

The Tories have literally just stolen conservative Australia’s early 2000’s immigration policies. Offshore “processing” which never actually happens, hardline “stop the boats!” which in reality is just “ban journalists talking about the boats” and “break down the smuggling gangs” which ends up just being “throw money at a foreign regime to enable our companies to exploit their resources via shitty contracts”.

If this had anything to do with bringing order to the asylum process, it would involve providing resources to said process.

Laptops are being gradually added to the list of devices within scope of this change. It only counts for any new device being sold on the market after the changes take effect.

The clause only makes sure that chargers do not limit, when connected to competitors devices. The regulation is coming from an e-waste perspective, which the EU has made it clear that it is not interested in entertaining or letting companies push them around.

As I commented above, the regulation clearly states “any additional charging protocol allows for the full functionality of PD… irrespective of the charging device used.”

So they can’t have both unless they split EU & RoW devices.

This is not correct for devices being sold to the EU at least. Part of the amendment to the Radio Equipment Regulation outlines the exact standards for power delivery that must be used, and that interfaces which are capable of being charged @ > 15W must “ensure that any additional charging protocol allows for the full functionality of the USB Power Delivery…”.

For data transfer, I don’t see the point and future improvements to USB will come from industry in future.

The only way around this is with a wireless charging protocol, but manufacturers are moving away from that it appears.

Most applications assume max 2 charge/discharge cycles per day, don’t they?

And where space is not an issue, a cheaper option could be favourable? Im afraid I don’t understand both your points