Came here thinking that this was _finally_ a way to cap your costs and set your own quota and price caps for various aws services in hopes of avoiding that random 1k bill for a personal account etc. I'm surprised that it's account level limits and not a set-your-own-limit service.
It’s on a per-account basis because Amazon is leaning heavily into multi-account setups for organizations. The release of AWS Control Tower strongly indicates that multi account is the future of AWS. Service Quotas is simply another end toward that goal.
I probably own the final Mazda that has a "touch screen"... If you could ever really call Mazda's touch screen a touch screen.
A lot of the things that drive a poor experience with a touch screen are, imho, directly because they have such a poor implementation of a touch screen. Mainly, it's _slow_, _very slow_. A touch screen has to be very fast to seem like it's working, and in a car (in particular), it _must_ feel instant or it will feel like it's broken and cause distraction. I would be very interested to see some sort of apples-to-apples comparision (a good touch experience, vs a good tactile experience), but Mazda's is just not good. It's not even close to the realm of "good enough" to be used as a comparison.
I would say it's more like they never tried to do a touch screen, and then called it bad so they wouldn't have to keep trying.
And... The android auto experience is 10x better than the mazda infotainment system because of access to spotify, podcasets, and _actual_ navigation. I love the loftiness of how mazda talks about what they want to do, but they're so far off of delivering what they say they want to that I don't really know what to think. It's just bad and slow.
I really good tactile experience is probably better than a really good touch experience. But Android Auto is getting close to being a really good touch experience. The Mazda infotainment is not at all close to being a good tactile experience if you want to use say, spotify, or google maps, or use it to actually get to where you want to go.
It seems like there's something getting lost here. A lot of comments and even articles make it sound like Apple is retaliating against fb at random, which is not true. FB had an internal app agreement with apple to distribute apps to it's employees. Probably this one: https://developer.apple.com/programs/enterprise/
They violated the terms of the agreement, and therefore the have lost access. They also probably violated the terms of the app store as a whole, but who knows.
Whether or not one should have to be part of that program to install Enterprise apps is a different issue.
It's interesting to see so many new businesses forget the lessons that previous businesses learned. Brand identity and trust used to be the foundation of businesses, and at some level (I'm not sure what level) it still is. Even as someone educated on the differences between BF & BFN, I still never knew how to take BFN seriously with all the regular crap on BF. I don't really feel like it's my job to figure out how they fit together, and it would have been pretty simple just to completely split the brands if they actually wanted to have the two faces of the company. To the average internet reader, there was no difference between BF and BFN. People have either always known, or are learning (however slowly) that they can't vet every story themselves and they have to trust. BF corrupted that with their two faces.
> Brand identity and trust used to be the foundation of businesses, and at some level (I'm not sure what level) it still is.
I think that was much more the case when the brand was the only brand. When the company lived or died by its chocolate, or single brand of appliances etc, even if the founder was gone, I think a lot of care was taken. Now a brand is commonly one of 10 or 30 in a portfolio, I don't think there's much care left.
When the parent has a dozen appliance brands you can play loose with the trust of any or all. Half the product may be little more than badge engineering. When there's dozens of food brands in the book, or the market leading brand gets bought, it's virtually certain they will be worse than they used to be. Often quite a lot. The perception of the brand might carry that for years.
BF is an odd one as it's trying to become a respectable news outlet, without letting go of the junk that made them. Now the perception has to go the other way, up. A much more difficult move.
The appliance makers are particularly insidious. They have cheapo brand and luxury brand, but luxury brand is often just slightly modified cheapo brand. As people get wise to this, suddenly luxury brand becomes the new cheapo brand and ultra-luxury brand is the new must have luxury brand. Cheapo brand goes away (end of life!!) so time to upgrade!
At least (for now) if you buy a Samsung or LG you know who to be pissed off at.
It is weird how things have flipped, but at the same time makes sense if you look at it from the bean counter's view. It used to be that companies would start with the luxury brand. These would cost premium prices, and would last in a time frame in line with their prices. They would then take features away (or just disable them) to make the lower tiers. Sometimes this meant replacing a metal something with a plastic something. The prices would be cheaper reflecting the missing options. It might not last as long, but it was a fraction of the price. Now, it seems like everything is just a cheap plastic something, and the entire thing is cheap enough to just buy a new whole thing instead of repairing the broken component. The prices are now in the middle pushing back up towards the premium pricing, but for much lower quality product.
Makes sense if you don't mind killing the golden goose. Same sales with far more profit, but only until public perception catches up with the reality that the big brand is now as bad, or worse, than some cheap competitor.
Sometimes you only need to buy the reformulated market leader once to realise there's no reason to ever buy it again.
Well perhaps Buzzfeed News shouldn't have had the word 'Buzzfeed' in it. I mean, most large companies make sure their brand names are far more distinct than that...
(like Buzzfeed's equally dodgy counterpart, News Corp and its different newspaper/news site names).
I’m not sure that the average internet reader knew the difference between buzzfeed, buzzfeed news, the New York Times, and any random fake news site a 16 year old threw up.
At the time, my view was that, Buzzfeed, and others, were just attempting to ride the tsunami of free Facebook traffic for a wildly bloated valuation in hopes to hoodwink a legacy media company into buying them before the party ended. They spent what would have been their profits, and then some, on shining their turds. It was a gamble and they mostly lost.
Since a lot of this has been coming up I thought many people might like to know the basics of how the auto-thrust system is used. Some of this information could be slightly inaccurate so if a real pilot wants to correct anything here, that would be great. The auto-pilot setting for autothrust (A/T) has a lot of modes. You don’t specifically set the mode so much as a combination of settings can affect the mode that it’s in. The modes are the following (this is fairly generic and probably not exactly how the 777 system works):
A/T by itself will simply hold a specified airspeed by adjusting the Thrust Levers.
A/T + FL/CH + V/S + Alititude Hold: (Auto-Thrust + Flight Level Change + Vertical Speed + Altitude Hold) climb or descend to the set altitude by the set vertical speed at the specified airspeed. The thrust levers are maniplated by the system. Generally once the altitude is attained, V/S and FL/CH will turn off.
A/T + “V/S”: The same as the above but with no set altitude.
A/T + Thrust Hold: I looked at the 777 main control panel and I couldn’t find the setting for Thrust Hold, however it seems to be referred to in various things on the internet and I just don’t know what to look for. This setting is normally used for takeoff (maybe landing?) where the pilot sets an airspeed and a thrust (via the thrust levers) and the airspeed is regulated by pitching the aircraft up or down.
A/T + Thrust Hold + FL/CH + Altitude Hold: This setting is similar to the one above, but without setting a vertical speed. The indicated airspeed is controlled via pitching the aircraft up or down until the specified altitude is reached. I believe once the altitude is reached FL/CH mode is switched off as well as Thrust Hold.
This is my best guess as to what the 5 modes the NTSB says the 777 has. If any pilots could correct anything I’m missing or that is simply wrong, that would be great.
Switching between modes is really not intuitive because you’re fiddling with settings and it’s hard to know what button press is actually going to tell the system to do something. If you’re interested in how confusing it can actually be, I’d recommend installing the x-plane trial and trying to mess with these settings.
If you want to give it a go, the beginner’s tutorial for x-plane & the 777 has you do a visual landing on 28L @ KSFO
-400: Likely the 747-400. One of the variants of the 747
UAL: United Airlines
Asiana: This is the airline of the plane that crashed at SFO.
Right Seat: First Officer / Co-pilot's seat.
Left Seat: Captain / Pilot's seat.
Standards Captain: Probably means he was one of the people who would have final say in whether or not a pilot was certified to fly a specific aircraft. I believe there are two different standards, one for pilot and one for copilot, but I'm not sure.
Upgraded by Phenomenal Growth: The airline grew so fast they didn't have enough pilots so they had to promote copilots to pilots faster than they were probably qualified.
*edited to correct information based on the comment below.
This sounds like something that I would take to small claims court. For something like this, it's probably unlikely that they'll even show up and you would win by default.
