Crashed jets lacked key safety features because the companies that bought them didn't want to pay for them

Again. Systems required for safe operation of a device by a reasonably competent operator are not something you consider an option.

It's cheaper and safer in the long run to just do the right bloody thing, since you get the whole economy of scale windfall.

Required by reasonable/responsible engineering principles.

If you add an automated system that has high control authority, which is fed data by a failure prone sensor, you add redundant information sources, compare/average out inputs and alert the operator to the possible technical issue.

This is a well known engineering pattern. No one tells you to do it. You're expected to be able to identify when something is high risk and act accordingly. If you seriously believe that regulations change designs rather than codifying lessons learned the hard way, I don't know what to tell you, as apparently we start from two completely different sets of axioms when it comes to implementing things others depend on.

The FAA are there to maintain a collection of lessons paid for in blood, and to provide a general process to follow which strikes a balance between manufacturers doing their thing, and the public's interest in not crashing with no survivors, and maintain a cohesive set of guidelines that govern the industry. An FAA inspector can't be looked at as outsourceable common sense for manufacturers and designers however. Due diligence starts at home.

It is up to the people signing off and the engineers overseeing everything to ensure that design is safe, and all outcomes are such that the public interest is best served. Executives and sales be damned.

Unethical engineering costs innocent lives. Dollars are (or should be) secondary in all regards.

The fact this is even debatable demonstrates how much safety ethos has taken a back seat to economic factors in the modern aviation industry.

A lot of modern can have collision prediction systems, pretty sure that a lot of them are optional on cheaper trims.

I would say that those are key safety features.

I support a 3rd petition too. In fact why don't we just repeat all elections and referendums until we get what we want?

This has been May's strategy with parliament. We're soon going to have a third vote on the same deal.

With the referendum it's more justified. There were financial irregularities which would have rendered the result void but the vote was non binding so the Electoral Commission advised it can't intervene other than to fine some of the guilty.

That is literally how democracy is supposed to work. You have regular(ish) elections to appoint your "representatives" in parliament (representatives in scare quotes because they seldom represent the people).

Even the 2016 EU referendum wasn't the first we've had. As the voting populous grows old, new voters come of age, and the relationship with our EU partners change, it makes total sense to revisit past decisions.

Nothing in democracy should be closed to re-evaluation for all time in the future just because some people made a vote once.

That's what the parliament is doing anyway.

the 2nd one would be about which deal. not the same thing.

If they have a 2nd petition I'm sure it'll include an option to say "I want to stay in the EU", which would be the same thing: repeating a vote until we get what we want.

Easily solved with instant runoff voting[1] for the entire spectrum from Remain to No Deal.

No one wastes their vote voting tactically, everyone gets their voice heard, and we get to choose exactly how we shoot ourselves in the foot when Leave wins a 2nd vote.

I mean how could Leave lose? It was the will of the people, they'll clearly vote the same again. /s

Better than the current game of 3d chicken we're playing right now.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting

Sorry, IRV is Not British. Only First-Past-the-Post is simple enough to be understood by good upstanding British voters. We had a referendum on it.

So instead you advocate we don't get what we want because all decisions are meant to be final?

"I'm sorry, you cannot return this jumper you bought online because even though it doesn't fit you, you've already decided to buy it and all decisions are final".

Pretty sure we already do that every 5 years :D

I don't know if it's shameful but it's expected.

Of those PHP websites, most of them are probably wordpress. How many of those haven't been updated in ages?

That's way more dangerous than running PHP 5, taking into account all distros will backport security fixes for years to come.

Probably worth noting that WP is planning on requiring PHP 7 by the end of 2019 https://make.wordpress.org/core/2018/12/08/updating-the-mini...

Yes, that's true you can find many web sites using Wordpress, or other popular CMSes like Joomla, forum boards i.e. phpBB or even e-commerce stores based on OpenCart / ZenCart / Prestashop haven't seen an update for a quite long time. Personally, I'd be glad to offer my free time to help i.e. update Wordpress (recent versions has auto-update feature) or even migrate to static-site, especially whether I am returning user of such website.

The hard part isn’t updating. It’s checking what got broken by the update, and fixing that. Then finding out one of the plugins is no longer supported, researching alternatives, and rebuilding half the site to use a new thing.

Tip: static analysis tools for PHP helped me during a rewrite from 5.6 to 7.0. It was really good experience, I'd say.

Same here. Sadly, I don't know of any static analysis tools that can detect inter-compatibility of different versions of WordPress plugins/themes/core. That's one aspect of WordPress maintenance that can get real hairy.

From my experience WP autoupdates

Do you expect all node small and medium completed projects run on latest node?

WordPress core autoupdates. Plugins will happily remain exploitable for years if you're not on top of their security updates.