unicorn

I'd think Mr Phumiphiphat should know better than to waste his time. US visa policy is dictated neither by negotiation nor by a "monkey-see, monkey-do" policy (in which the terms are reciprocal). Decisions on which citizens are entitled to visa waivers are based on the statistics for the previous year from that country, namely what percentage of those granted tourist visas overstay their visa, and/or otherwise violate the terms of the visa, and on the visa refusal rate from citizens of that country. The US cannot safely handle the number of illegal immigrants into the country, and must base its visa policy on the likelihood that the citizens of that country will overstay. This seems to be the only intelligent visa policy. There are, of course, poorer countries who require visas of citizens of any country that requires visas of their own country. This is highly unwise, as it simply reduces the tourist dollars to that country without a commensurate decrease in risk in illegal immigration. https://skift.com/2023/04/17/brazils-retaliatoryvisa-rules-would-hurt-its-international-tourism-recovery/

Not a bad idea, but difficult to implement in practice. Airlines don't often label the aircraft as such on their websites. Plus, aircraft changes can happen between when you buy the ticket and when you fly. Will you deplane if, upon entering the aircraft, you find out it's a MAX?

Well, that link is misleading, since it refers to problems with the rudder control system: "The Federal Aviation Administration says it is closely monitoring inspections of Boeing 737 MAX jets after the plane-maker requested that airlines check for loose bolts in the rudder control system...". Plenty of loose screws to go around, though. "The problem here is relatively insignificant, but it does speak to continued serious problems with the production ramp, both at Boeing and with its suppliers."

The latest news is that there were some screws loose. Perhaps someone sleeping on the assembly line?

Glad to know that the iPhone (presumably Siri) was tactful! 😄

Or 70s/80s singers who never came out...

Speaking of 60s singers who never came out...

That song is liable to get @EmmetK to cum in his pants! 😄

The loquacious title goes to another one of our regular posters. And certainly not pompous, maybe pumpus--and right! 😄

While that statement is true, the issue here is not one of an intentional act, but one of gross negligence, due to not following standard, universal procedures. Another surgical example is the leaving in of instruments or equipment in the patient during a surgery. There are strict procedures to prevent this, and it's not simply a matter of looking carefully. Before closing a patient, the scrub RN must count out all pieces of equipment, including sponges, gauze, needles, and so on. The number must be the same as those the procedure started with. The RN must declare "The count is correct," before the surgeon can close. If it's not, the surgeon must look again, and if the item cannot be found, take an X-ray while the patient is still on the table to either find the lost object or ascertain that the lost object is not in the patient (even gauze pads have strips of metal in them which will show up on X-ray, for just this reason). If an instrument or needle, etc., is left in the patient, no extenuating circumstances can be claimed to avoid guilt. The circulating RN has recorded the procedure. Either the scrub RN miscounted (in which case there's liability on both sides, but especially the RN), or the surgeon ignored the miscount. Similarly, there are strict rules that a plane does not enter a runway without clearance from the air traffic controller. In these circumstances, the fact that an accident occurred demonstrates that either the air traffic controller or the pilot didn't follow the rules. The transcript of the conversation and the flight data recorder will determine who didn't follow procedure.

You don't understand what seems pretty obvious to most people. Yes, of course the investigation needs to be completed. And, yes, the pilot is entitled to due process before any criminal conviction. However, if the control tower recordings are accurate, this pilot's career is over (at best). I can guarantee that if a surgeon amputates the wrong limb, he will never be allowed to operate again. The error is so egregious that it's career-ending. If the reported communication transcripts are verified as accurate, I'd be astonished if this pilot's error wasn't career-ending as well. And res ipsa loquitor is a recognized legal term, which a judge can inform a jury about when it applies.

Yikes! 😬 I wonder what percentage of their fleet are 737Max's. I'm scheduled for some Alaska Air flights in June. Update. Google's great. "Boeing Max 9 Makes Up 29% of Alaska Air Passenger Fleet...". Double yikes. That's a whopping percentage. I hope our flights don't get cancelled. I don't know how they can find so many planes in such a short amount of time. 😩 The flights are listed as Alaska Airlines 1041 Boeing 737-900 (Winglets) I wonder if those are the 900 Max's.

Well, the analogous situation might be a surgeon who amputates the wrong leg, instead of the one with the cancer. There are hard-and-fast procedures that are standard policy at all hospitals. Before surgery begins, there is a "time-out" in which the surgeon, operating room RN's, and anesthesiologist review and sign off on which side is being operated on, and so on. Failure to follow those protocols is considered a gross violation and will result in those involved being barred from the operating room. While they could fight the charges, most do not, since operating on the wrong body part is pretty much black-and-white evidence of gross negligence. Claiming "I thought I knew," "the other leg looked bad, too," or "the stop lights weren't working" will not cut it. Now there are other cases in which there are more shades of gray. I remember being in a panel judging a surgeon (fairly new to our staff) who'd had two serious surgical complications for a similar procedure. There were no violations of protocol, but other surgeons questioned the adequacy of his surgical skills. He fought the charges, and there were witnesses on both sides due to extenuating circumstances (the cases were difficult), but eventually the surgeon had his privileges revoked. Assuming those transcripts are accurate, this pilot's situation is more akin to the wrong-side surgery than to that of the new surgeon with the complications. Again, assuming those transcripts are accurate, being on an active runway without clearance is simply an inexcusable no-no. In legal jargon, it's called res ipsa loquitor: the act speaks for itself. One "can infer negligence from the very nature of an accident or injury in the absence of direct evidence on how any defendant behaved in the context..." (Wikipedia definition).

I'm not convicting anyone. He's entitled to due process. That being said, this does not seem to be an issue filled with nuance or room for interpretation. Stop lights or not, a pilot should not move his aircraft into a runway unless he's been cleared by the control tower. Period. If the transcripts are accurate, things are looking pretty bad for the CG pilot. The instructions are not "guidelines" subject to the pilot's interpretation. They're hard and fast rules.

No, NOTHING is conclusive. Maybe the CG pilot's self-serving statements are true, and the recordings between the control tower and the pilots were all faked. I guess we'll just have to wait to find out the truth. 😉

Obviously, the pilot is entitled to his day in court, and should not be considered guilty under the law until convicted. However, if the facts are as previously stated (the control tower didn't give clearance for the Coast Guard pilot to be on the runway, but he was there anyway), then I don't see much room for nuance. The conversations were all recorded, so either someone faked the transcript, or that pilot's responsable. The fact that this pilot lied about it afterward only makes matters worse, in my opinion. Again, assuming the transcripts of the communications are accurate, things seem pretty clear-cut. Everything is on tape, so, unlike some criminal or civil trials, this is not a he said/she said situation, with the addition of circumstantial evidence. What was said was recorded.

Sad that, ironically, the pilot was the only one on his plane to survive. Well, hopefully he'll be court-martialed, fired, and thrown in jail for manslaughter/criminally negligent homicide. It could have ended up even worse.

I feel a song coming on.

BN is responsable for this tragedy from start to finish, although Hamas is worse. The US is essentially bankrolling BN's entire operation, and our aid should be contingent on how it's carried out. BN's policies were the catalyst for this mess. Before BN even got elected, Biden should have made an announcement that the amount of US aid to Israel would depend on whom they elected. And now, Biden should make it clear that further US $$ would depend on how the fight was conducted. I remember hearing some Israeli government official saying something along the lines of "We're of course interested in what our friends in the US have to say, but ultimately it's up to us to decide how to conduct this war." I thought, "No, it's our money. If you can't behave in a decent manner, it's up to us to decide whether or not to continue to fund it." The arrogance of BN and his officials simply floors me. The US can and should put its foot down. Certainly, one cannot in any way justify what Hamas did. The response, however, is becoming increasingly over-the-top, as plainly manifested by Israeli soldiers gunning down their own citizens, who were holding white flags. That was standard IDF protocol, not a fluke. Time to put a stop to this. There should be new elections in Israel.

That David Ermold sounds like a piece of work himself: https://apnews.com/domestic-news-domestic-news-general-news-46b00bab86dc4238a4d03a8688a65605 "...Ermold said he has no firsthand knowledge of Caudill, 45, using anti-gay slurs. But he has posted screenshots of others on Facebook making the accusations, calling Caudill a bigot and urging others not to vote for him. At least one person who made those accusations has since retracted them. Caudill showed The Associated Press lengthy private Facebook messages from one man who apologized and said his account had been hacked... This annoyed Ermold, who acknowledged he was “bitter” about losing the primary. He said he didn’t regret posting the messages about Caudill, even if they helped Davis win...". Calling someone a bigot simply based on rumor/innuendo and being bitter about losing a primary represents childish pettiness in the extreme. Fortunately, Caudill was elected and has been gay-supportive, despite Ermold's defamatory statements.

Wow. Maybe some air traffic controller or pilot had too much celebration for New Year's?

Yikes. I'm all for more research, but according to that link (of a lay press article): "In theory, the similarity of the two bacteria suggests that the meningitis B vaccine could offer some protection against gonorrhea... But to date all of the data supporting the use of the vaccine to protect against gonorrhea have been observational, meaning researchers have looked at gonorrhea rates in cohorts of people who received the vaccine for meningitis-control purposes." Observational studies can only suggest areas for further research in the form of randomized clinical trials. They never suggest causation. The observation that those who are vaccinated against MGC have 33% to 42% fewer gonorrhea infections that those who don't only raises the question. It does not provide an answer. One obvious interpretation of the observation is that people who've received the meningococcal vaccine are simply more cautious, and could be doing any number of other helpful behaviors, such as partner selection, condom use, and so forth. Of course, one might argue that vaccination against meningococcus is very unlikely to cause harm, so why not. That's true. However, any help the vaccine may or may not provide is still quite speculative. I would get the vaccine with the idea that it'll protect me against MGC. Even if it were to provide some 38% protection from GC (probably best-case scenario, and theoretical at this point), that's not something to count on.

Well, if you put "perhaps" after a statement, the perhaps can be anything, no matter how outlandishly unlikely. Putting unfounded medical advice out there might lead someone to rely on that information, and get into real trouble. There is no evidence that scrubbing won't be harmful, either. One can imagine that tears in the skin could increase risk. I know of no evidence either way. What a person might find "aesthetically attractive" is entirely besides the point.