Tiled at different zoom levels

Worked at a place that used to do a kind of arbitrage between adclicks and traditional print. A large percent of traffic, especially mobile, was obviously either toddlers or bad bots; yet we were billing our customers for the 'engagement'.

Only if the increased revenue from rounding doesn't go into retailers pockets but rather is redistributed somehow. i.e. to reduce sales tax

False absence, is better than false presence. Especially with kids.

The UX is optimizing for accuracy over ease of use, and in this case is likely intentionally difficult to use.

That's how I was taught, build up a CPU using TTL logic chips.

Even just starting with the building blocks is useful, like build a flip-flop

The license reads: 'THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS"'.

If you bought a car and your dealer had you sign an EULA with that sentence in it (pertaining specifically to the security features of your car), would you feel safe to ride it at highway speeds?

If I went to a lot that had a sign at the entrance saying "Open Source Cars, feel free to open the hood and look to learn stuff. No warranty implied. Some may not function. All free to duplicate, free to take parts from, and free to take home", and then took a car from the lot and drove it home, no I would not be surprised if it fell apart before getting out of the lot.

When you purchase a car, you pay actual money, and that adds liability, so if it implodes I feel like I can at least get money back, or sue the vendor for negligence. OSS is not like that. You get something for free and there is a big sign saying "lol have fun", and it's also incredibly well known that software is all buggy and bad with like maybe 3 exceptions.

> If you bought a car and your dealer had you sign an EULA with that sentence in it (pertaining specifically to the security features of your car)

If the security features are implemented in software, like "iOS app unlock", no I would not expect it to actually be secure.

It is well known that while the pure engineering disciplines, those that make cars and planes and boats, mostly know what they're doing... the software engineering industry knows how to produce code that constantly needs updates and still manages to segfault in so much as a strong breeze, even though memory safety has been a well understood problem for longer than most developers have been alive.

Every used car sold outside of the major brand's certified used car programs is "As Is". So yeah, I would.

Speaking to US laws, auto manufacturers are required to fix design bugs that cause safety issues regardless of warranty or used status, at no cost to the owner. You may be familiar with the standard name for those fixes, "recalls". It's illegal to sell a vehicle with unresolved recalls, though the government deliberately avoids enforcing that as aggressively as they could.

It's a very different system from software's "NO WARRANTY OF ANY KIND".

I think the literal fear of death _might_ be motivation enough for pilots to advocate for safety? And if they want to fire you, would you want to work for them anyways?

> I think the literal fear of death _might_ be motivation enough for pilots to advocate for safety?

You'd think, but individual humans are very very bad at estimating risk, and in toxic group and work situations, humans will often take on increased personal risk rather than risk conflict. I.e., they will value group conformity over their own safety ... especially if their paycheck is involved. Fear of death is not nearly as powerful as robust regulation and unions.

Famously, this fact is also why no one drives recklessly and no one has lost any limbs with power tools.

The alternative to employment is death. Many people are willing to take a possible chance of dying to avert a certainty of dying.

Would that be more reliable than just ensuring there are consequences for lying?

Perhaps. If the pilot knows that the ATC can see he's full of it, he might be less likely to lie.

Those who still do can be grounded and be moved into management or take up a career in politics.

Putting a theory of "you shouldn't trust pilots" into ATC breaks the entire system.

It is a system built out of very regulated parts, very professional people, and tight controls.

Pilots are encouraged to be very forward and proactive about fuel situations because of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avianca_Flight_052

Minimum fuel requirements are calculated as "Time of fuel for cruise to certain points", which is usually good enough, but if an Airport is stupid busy, or has bad wind patterns, just a couple go-arounds will chew through your fuel way faster than the regulation expects.

Turbofan engines are also dramatically less efficient at low altitude than high altitude cruise. So holding at low altitudes because a congested airport is dealing with traffic will chew through your reserves much faster than you expect.

Ryanair flies short hops to congested airports. They will have relatively low reserves, and you should expect them to run into "Hey we are low on fuel" more often than international flights for example.

> It is a system built out of very regulated parts, very professional people, and tight controls.

also worth mentioning that most of the civil aviation regulations and SOPs regarding commercial flights are written in blood.

I mean, obviously, it's better to trust the pilots, but if they are jumping the line because "fuel low" when it's not low, well, they're not being very professional, are they?

I’m surprised the “fuel on board” isn’t something communicated via transponder considering previous low fuel emergencies/crashes.

It wouldn’t change anything. The line between a “mayday - fuel emergency” and any other flight waiting for a landing slot is crystal clear. Of course, in low-but-not-emergency fuel scenarios the pilots can request priority, but the ATC don’t have to oblige them.

As a rule airline pilots don't lie about this stuff. They take safety pretty seriously.

Can AV evidence not be faked without AI tools?

It's a presumption that the universe is not a product of the mind. Without which you can not establish that the 'secrets of the universe' are not inside the mind.