United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why
-
@lukfi said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
@polygeekery said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
So if we got rid of guns then murder, robbery, rape and other violent crimes would completely go away? Entirely? 100%
Right now every adult U.S. citizen can go to a shop and buy a gun for self-defense. Have violent crimes gone away?
Yes. They're going down at a steady rate.
@boomzilla said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
No, that's just your straw man that's doing that.
Maybe we could stop the discussion there. The article I posted claims that the U. S. has a cruel, punching-down culture. What you said so far about guns and what @pie_flavor said about healthcare ("you should have to pay for you") is proof that the article is on to something.
No. Punching down is when you restrict the movement of others. You speak of not actively increasing the movement of others, implying that the default state is helping each other up. Each person moving themselves up with their own resources is not punching down.
-
@pie_flavor said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
No. Punching down is when you restrict the movement of others. You speak of not actively increasing the movement of others, implying that the default state is helping each other up. Each person moving themselves up with their own resources is not punching down.
"Punching down" is when you don't take money from people to give other people free shit. Please try to keep up.
-
@lukfi said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
It's a kind of article you have to read with an open mind.
It's a kind of article that if you read it with an open mind your brain will fall out.
-
@sumireko said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
Get window seats boarded, then middle, then aisle.
That's if they even have assigned seats.
-
@lukfi said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
incomprehensibly dumb ideas like 'elementary school teachers trained to shoot'
I realize this may be a foreign concept to you, but a decently-sized contingent of Americans own guns and practice using them. This subsection of American society should also naturally include some elementary school teachers. Some of these routinely carry concealed for self-protection, except they're prohibited by law from doing so in a school where they'd be protecting not only themselves but also the students in their class.
If it makes sense to have trained and armed responders in schools, i.e. police or private security guards, why should we not allow trained and armed teachers to carry? Are you concerned that they might be incompetent with their weapon? Because if so, that describes a lot of cops too.
-
@lukfi said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
According to sources I've found, what goes into healthcare in my country from compulsory insurance and taxes comes out to about 7 % of GDP, and if you add what people buy themselves (mainly drugs), about 8 % or slightly over. U.S. GDP is supposed to be about $18.6 trillion and total healthcare spending $3.3 trillion (in 2016), which is about 18 %. That doesn't seem right to me.
Now, look up the statistics on what fraction of the GDP is spent on medical research, and see if you can figure out why the US spends so much on healthcare when compared to other countries.
-
@anotherusername said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
@lukfi said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
According to sources I've found, what goes into healthcare in my country from compulsory insurance and taxes comes out to about 7 % of GDP, and if you add what people buy themselves (mainly drugs), about 8 % or slightly over. U.S. GDP is supposed to be about $18.6 trillion and total healthcare spending $3.3 trillion (in 2016), which is about 18 %. That doesn't seem right to me.
Now, look up the statistics on what fraction of the GDP is spent on medical research, and see if you can figure out why the US spends so much on healthcare when compared to other countries.
Then he should thank us for subsidizing his healthcare by paying most of the R&D and making his procedures a sunk cost by the time they get to him.
-
@lukfi said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
If it was near-impossible for a psychologically unstable person to obtain a gun, the little guy would not need to defend himself.
How does that follow? If that person was so unstable that they were willing to commit violence why would not having a gun stop them?
You are doing what so many anti-gun people are doing and conflating guns with violence and that simply removing guns will remove the violence. History (and there is a hell of a lot of it) tells us that is not the case. Humans are violent. period. Allowing guns in society allows for all parties to be on as equal a footing as possible. You think this is punching down? I am trying to level the playing field as much as possible.
But you put the responsibility onto the little guy anyway.
No, the criminal put that responsibility on him. I am simply advocating that he be allowed all possible advantages in a situation where he is already strictly at a disadvantage.
-
@lukfi said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
Imagine this: You can afford to have healthcare, a firearm for your protection and a car for your transportation needs. There are other people who either can't afford those things or can't use them because of their health or age. They are therefore at a disadvantage. At this point, a European would say "That's dumb, let's have public healthcare, public transport and sane gun laws".
At which point I point out that the US already has healthcare for all, we always have. We even have laws in place (and have for a long time) that prevent a hospital from turning someone away that can be treated. The "in debt for the rest of your life from medical bills" is also an overblown issue. It does happen, but the degree to which it occurs is nowhere near what many will have you believe. Hospitals are willing to work with you for your fees.
The US is not great with public transportation, but that is due to a multitude of factors that are far beyond simple "we don't want to help others".
You need to define how our gun laws are not sane. The most recent shooting was due to a complete failure in enforcement of the existing laws. Had the police be bothered to due their fucking job to begin with he would never have been allowed to purchase those guns to begin with. So with a failure at the enforcement level how will new laws resolve the issue?You say: "I'm not the one with the disadvantage, that puts me at an advantage, so I'm fine with things as they are." This is the punching down.
No, that isn't punching down. I am doing nothing to impede them from succeeding. It is only punching down if my actions impede them from succeeding.
You have climbed a pile and you want to prevent others from climbing it. Or maybe not prevent, but definitely don't make it any easier for them.
You need to establish (the article you linked didn't establish it either) how we are punching down. How are we actively keeping people down?
This is what the article says: the first immigrants have climbed a pile (which was easier for them because there wasn't anybody else up there yet)
Why was it easier for them? The article never establishes why. History doesn't bear out that narrative either. Historically the first person to cut the path has the hardest time and everyone following has it easier as the path is now clear.
-
@dragoon said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
How does that follow? If that person was so unstable that they were willing to commit violence why would not having a gun stop them?
I don't have a horse in the gun regulation race of the US as I'm not a resident, and I consider it a matter for the residents.
But, guns are violence multipliers. A gun makes a hooman capable of a lot more violence in a given timneframe than for instance, bare knuckles or a knife. This function of violence multiplication is why military weaponry is forbidden for the regular plebes, as it's a better multiplier.
If the crazy nutjobs do not have easy access to better multipliers, the amount of damage they can cause is reduced. They will still cause damage and act out on violent urges, but the effect is lessened with less access to violence multipliers.
What the correct level to put the limit at is entirely up to the resident in the US as far as I'm concerned though.
-
@carnage said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
@dragoon said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
How does that follow? If that person was so unstable that they were willing to commit violence why would not having a gun stop them?
I don't have a horse in the gun regulation race of the US as I'm not a resident, and I consider it a matter for the residents.
But, guns are violence multipliers. A gun makes a hooman capable of a lot more violence in a given timneframe than for instance, bare knuckles or a knife. This function of violence multiplication is why military weaponry is forbidden for the regular plebes, as it's a better multiplier.
If the crazy nutjobs do not have easy access to better multipliers, the amount of damage they can cause is reduced. They will still cause damage and act out on violent urges, but the effect is lessened with less access to violence multipliers.
What the correct level to put the limit at is entirely up to the resident in the US as far as I'm concerned though.Guns are violence equalizers. Hollywood be damned...no amount of training will ever allow me to beat down multiple attackers that are bigger than I am.
Bombs and vehicles are violence multipliers as well. No mass shooting was as deadly as the Oklahoma bombing nor the NIce truck attack.
-
@karla said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
@carnage said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
@dragoon said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
How does that follow? If that person was so unstable that they were willing to commit violence why would not having a gun stop them?
I don't have a horse in the gun regulation race of the US as I'm not a resident, and I consider it a matter for the residents.
But, guns are violence multipliers. A gun makes a hooman capable of a lot more violence in a given timneframe than for instance, bare knuckles or a knife. This function of violence multiplication is why military weaponry is forbidden for the regular plebes, as it's a better multiplier.
If the crazy nutjobs do not have easy access to better multipliers, the amount of damage they can cause is reduced. They will still cause damage and act out on violent urges, but the effect is lessened with less access to violence multipliers.
What the correct level to put the limit at is entirely up to the resident in the US as far as I'm concerned though.Guns are violence equalizers. Hollywood be damned...no amount of training will ever allow me to beat down multiple attackers that are bigger than I am.
Bombs and vehicles are violence multipliers as well. No mass shooting was as deadly as the Oklahoma bombing nor the NIce truck attack.
Well, yes. Bombs and vehicles are also violence multipliers. And, explosives are really good as well. And that is why they are strictly forbidden unless properly licensed to use them. Someone, and probably a whole lot of someones, felt that the limit of what the public should have access to in violence multiplication is quite surpassed when it comes to explosives.
There is a slight thing to take into consideration with violence. Most people are capable of some level of violence. Most are, however, not ready and capable of large amounts of violence. Most would pause before putting a bullet in an assailant, and that may be a really big mistake in a hostile situation.
But as I said, I do not really have a stand on the legal side of limiting firearms in the US. It's not my business really.
-
@carnage said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
But, guns are violence multipliers.
No, they are a force multiplier, they indicate that you are willing to project violence if required. The #1 goal is defensive, violence projection is the last resort, not the first. The statistics on defensive firearms usage bares it out. It is rare that a gun is actually fired in a defensive scenario, its mere presence is often enough to deter the attack. This is true across genders/nationality/health/age/etc... The mere show of force is enough to deter a criminal who is looking for an easy target.
-
@carnage said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
Someone, and probably a whole lot of someones, felt that the limit of what the public should have access to in violence multiplication is quite surpassed when it comes to explosives.
That is more recent than you might think. At least in the US. My father used to be able to buy dynamite in the local hardware store when he was young.
-
@polygeekery said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
@carnage said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
Someone, and probably a whole lot of someones, felt that the limit of what the public should have access to in violence multiplication is quite surpassed when it comes to explosives.
That is more recent than you might think. At least in the US. My father used to be able to buy dynamite in the local hardware store when he was young.
Huh. Definitely more recent than I thought. 1970. Interesting article:
-
Dynamite is an interesting case and one that I am actually in favor of not being sold in the general store. But that is due to its short storage life. Dynamite weeps nitroglycerin crystals as it ages, these are extremely unstable. A strong jostle can set them off in this stage and even modern version of dynamite still have a recommended use by date of 1yr to counter this problem.
So I fully support it from a pure safety issue, not that I am afraid someone is going to start killing people intentionally with it.
On that note, you can legally buy Tannerite so beavers beware.
-
@dragoon said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
Dynamite is an interesting case and one that I am actually in favor of not being sold in the general store. But that is due to its short storage life. Dynamite weeps nitroglycerin crystals as it ages, these are extremely unstable. A strong jostle can set them off in this stage and even modern version of dynamite still have a recommended use by date of 1yr to counter this problem.
So I fully support it from a pure safety issue, not that I am afraid someone is going to start killing people intentionally with it.Yep. The reason I knew about dynamite being available when I was a kid was because Dad had a crate on the farm I was to stay away from.
Then later in life I watched 'Lost' and had flashbacks. People should be licensed to have dynamite. Short shelf life and such. But I also grew up with a father who had explosives licenses due to mining. He made ANFO with a homemade rig that was basically a concrete mixer and poultry waterers. This shit isn't rocket surgery.
-
@lukfi said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
You can afford to have healthcare, a firearm for your protection and a car for your transportation needs. There are other people who either can't afford those things or can't use them because of their health or age. They are therefore at a disadvantage. At this point, a European would say "That's dumb, let's have public healthcare, public transport and sane gun laws".
Wait, wouldn't they say "let's have public healthcare, public transport, and public guns?"
-
@dragoon said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
@carnage said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
But, guns are violence multipliers.
No, they are a force multiplier, they indicate that you are willing to project violence if required. The #1 goal is defensive, violence projection is the last resort, not the first. The statistics on defensive firearms usage bares it out. It is rare that a gun is actually fired in a defensive scenario, its mere presence is often enough to deter the attack. This is true across genders/nationality/health/age/etc... The mere show of force is enough to deter a criminal who is looking for an easy target.
Ah, all entirely true.
-
@polygeekery said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
@carnage said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
Someone, and probably a whole lot of someones, felt that the limit of what the public should have access to in violence multiplication is quite surpassed when it comes to explosives.
That is more recent than you might think. At least in the US. My father used to be able to buy dynamite in the local hardware store when he was young.
Yeah, I was under the impression of it being a rather recent banning. It seems that there was a wholesale banning of bangbang things in the decades after WWII in general. I've never really looked into it, but that is my impression at least.
-
@polygeekery said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
But I also grew up with a father who had explosives licenses due to mining.
I have a friend who used to have dynamite for mining. Nearly killed him. Not in the way you might expect, though.
Dynamite is basically nitroglycerin that has been absorbed by a porous material such a sawdust to make it less shock-sensitive. Under some conditions, the nitroglycerin can "sweat" out of the dynamite, where it can be absorbed through the skin. Nitroglycerin is widely used as a medication for chest pain (angina) due to heart disease. In the body, it acts as a vasodilator and in overdose can cause hypotension (low blood pressure) and bradycardia (slow heartbeat). And that is how it almost killed him.
-
@polygeekery said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
@lukfi said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
Maybe we could stop the discussion there. The article I posted claims that the U. S. has a cruel, punching-down culture. What you said so far about guns and what @pie_flavor said about healthcare ("you should have to pay for you") is proof that the article is on to something.
No.
Oh, you're growing up so fast⌠Cute!
-
@greybeard said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
Wait, wouldn't they say "let's have public healthcare, public transport, and public guns?"
Yes, only we call the public guns "the police".
-
@lukfi said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
@greybeard said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
Wait, wouldn't they say "let's have public healthcare, public transport, and public guns?"
Yes, only we call the public guns "the police".
Each time you want to fire one, you have to wait in line at the DMV for four hours.
-
@lukfi said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
@greybeard said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
Wait, wouldn't they say "let's have public healthcare, public transport, and public guns?"
Yes, only we call the public guns "the police".
Do you not get to use the public healthcare either?
-
@boomzilla said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
@lukfi said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
@greybeard said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
Wait, wouldn't they say "let's have public healthcare, public transport, and public guns?"
Yes, only we call the public guns "the police".
Do you not get to use the public healthcare either?
It's generally frowned upon if regular people start cutting others up, rather than let the professionals do it, yes...
-
@carnage In his "public guns = the police" system, "public healthcare" would mean that it takes a 3-month wait and a doctor's prescription to buy a bottle of Tylenol.
-
@anotherusername said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
@carnage In his "public guns = the police" system, "public healthcare" would mean that it takes a 3-month wait and a doctor's prescription to buy a bottle of Tylenol.
Are your police force really that inefficient that it takes them 3 months to show up at an ongoing crime call?
-
@carnage we have a saying that goes "when seconds count, the police are only minutes away".
When you need a gun, you usually need it right now.
What's more, courts have consistently ruled that police have no duty to show up and protect you when you call. This is even true in cases where their failure to provide a timely response is due to their incompetence or negligence...
Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone
Also worthy of special acknowledgement is the cop who just stood outside during the recent school shooting in Florida. He had absolutely no legal duty to make any effort to go in and help stop the gunman.
-
@anotherusername said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
@carnage we have a saying that goes "when seconds count, the police are only minutes away".
Sometimes more than that.
-
@anotherusername said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
@carnage we have a saying that goes "when seconds count, the police are only minutes away".
When you need a gun, you usually need it right now.
What's more, courts have consistently ruled that police have no duty to show up and protect you when you call. This is even true in cases where their failure to provide a timely response is due to their incompetence or negligence...
Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone
Also worthy of special acknowledgement is the cop who just stood outside during the recent school shooting in Florida. He had absolutely no legal duty to make any effort to go in and help stop the gunman.
Yeah, it's always better to have a solution at hand, rather than having to call for it to show up. But in the "our guns for protection is the police" being responded to with health care is a bit funny since it implies that you'd just grab the scalpel yourselves and start cutting rather than wait for the surgeons, which was my poor joke. :D
I've actually had the misfortune of having fucktards attempt to rob me a couple of times, and calling the police to prevent getting robbed was never really an option, though I am not entirely convinced that it'd turned out any better had I been carrying a gun. And the police would just shut down any investigation with them not having aaany clue.
-
@anotherusername said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
@carnage In his "public guns = the police" system, "public healthcare" would mean that it takes a 3-month wait and a doctor's prescription to buy a bottle of Tylenol.
No, it would mean that only the police get to use Tylenol.
-
@greybeard said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
@anotherusername said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
@carnage In his "public guns = the police" system, "public healthcare" would mean that it takes a 3-month wait and a doctor's prescription to buy a bottle of Tylenol.
No, it would mean that only the police get to use Tylenol.
Or that they dispense strychnine to the public instead of Tylenol.
-
@dkf "The legal dose is 10mg, but he took 10.5! SHOOT TO KILL"
-
@pie_flavor That would make it awfully easy to commit suicide-by-cop. Or murder-by-swatting.
-
They just can't catch a break...
-
Today I was attempting to explain hypervisor overprovisioning to a client and how you can allocate more resources than you actually have because with proper workload planning the VMs will not all need 100% of the resources they are allocated at the same time, etc. I tried to dumb it down as much as I could. We have an appliance that was sold to them by a vendor and over the past several years with software updates and the appliance being expected to do more and more we are finally running in to resource contention.
"Does that all make sense? It is kind of a deep and technical subject to attempt to explain to someone who does not work in tech."
"Yeah, sort of. It is like overbooking flights on airplanes."
"Yeah, that is kind of a good way to put it."
"They over sell the flights because some people are going to cancel."
"Exactly."
"And then occasionally things go wrong and everyone shows up."
"Yep, and then you end up with what we are dealing with here."
"So now more and more passengers are showing up for their flights and we are overbooked."
"Yep, and now we have passengers getting drug off the plane."
"Ha! Got it. Crystal clear. Get an estimate to me."
-
@Polygeekery +1 for not resorting to a car analogy of some sort.
-
@Polygeekery said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
"Yep, and now we have passengers getting drug off the plane."
I still contend that "drug off" is not proper use here, it should be "dragged off".
-
@dangeRuss said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
@Polygeekery said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
"Yep, and now we have passengers getting drug off the plane."
I still contend that "drug off" is not proper use here, it should be "dragged off".
No, they were smuggling cocaine, so it should be "drugs off."
-
American, not United, but as seen on Facebook:
American Airlines has destroyed society. It is chaos here. Not like the Before Times, when airlines didnât sell 87 tickets for an airplane that only holds 70 passengers.
The demon lord, American Airlines, offered me a voucher. I declared, nay to your wickedness, foul beast! I bought a 1st class ticket three months ago, you already ruined one whole day of my book tour this week. I should not be cast out amongst the pathetic Bumped! But American Airlines laughed, and said foolish mortal, if you donât âvolunteerâ then you will be bumped anyway, and be banished to the outer darkness of Dread OâHare for at least another day.
So I took my voucher of sadness, that I may book another flight so that they may torment me again in the future. When I asked if I could use the voucher at another airline that wasnât a complete shit show, American Airlines was not amused.
Thus I was cast from the holy 1st class, and sent to live among the dregs.
I have joined a tribe to survive.
The Delayed live in fear of the roving gangs of the Bumped. We battle for the vital territory of OâHare, like the six working power plugs in the entire airport. Or the one water fountain that actually squirts far enough you donât have to wrap your lips around it.
Rations are running low. I went to Chiliâs but Endless Chips is a lie. There is an end.
I bought a hot dog. It was $4000. It mocked me with its sadness.
I remember Valentines Day with my wife in the Before Times, but my only intimate alone time today was spent with a blue gloved TSA agent, because his machine thought my testicles looked suspicious.
Though I dwell in Dread OâHare, my luggage has flown to Utah. Where they assure me it will be taken care of by competent, American Airlines employees who totally wonât laugh as it is looted off the baggage claim.
Deprived of luggage, I have hunted and killed a service animal, and fashioned from its hide a loin cloth.
The Bumped Tribe has started a bonfire in terminal H to stay warm. We plot our next move against the Delayed Tribe.
-
United isn't the main bad guy here, but their customer service agent didn't do the right thing, either:
-
@HardwareGeek said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
CNN affiliate CBC.
This explains so much.
-
@levicki United also had weird IFE choice on the cabin TV screen once on a flight from SFO to FRA (was on a 747 without per-seat screens). Was dogs doing stuff. (i still wonder why they had chosen those clips in the "nighttime". Luckily had a window seat since landscape was more interesting (bonus: sunset and sunrise seen)
-
@levicki said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
I was on a United flight only once (returning from USA to Germany), but I said to myself "never again".
It's been four years or so, but Delta wasn't too bad the last time I used them. (No US airline flies the routes I've taken in the past few years, excluding codeshareâŚ)
-
CNN affiliate CBC
Maybe they're CNN's source for this story or something. CBC is our very own national
propaganda outletbroadcasting network with a news division
-
@levicki said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
flight attendants didn't allow people to get up, stretch
Wait, how long was the flight? Preventing people from getting up on long flights is , and can even cause medical issues. (My last flight was 13 hours long, from China to France, in economy class. The experience was unpleasant, but at least I could get up and walk a bit every few hours or so.)
-
@levicki said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
I guess that particular crew didn't like people walking around or something.
Or they had some sort of other reason for restricting people and not saying why, such as a prisoner in transit or something. It's worth getting premium economy (where you can, whatever label the airline is using) if your knees are uncomfortably packed into the seat in front in normal economy; it's not much more expensive and the extra legroom is a boon on long flights.
-
@levicki said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
@masterX244179 said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
(was on a 747 without per-seat screens).
Aren't all their 747s like that? I remember mine not having seat screens either which with the lack of leg space is actually a good thing or there would have been no more liquid in LCD.
Only had one measurement. Mostly the comment was about the WTF program running on the screens
-
@levicki said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
And who would haul prisoners on commercial flights?
I've read that this is frequently done.