7 ms·

Interesting timeline. Following the two fatal crashes involving the MCAS system and the 737 Max … The FAA gave Boeing until Dec of 2022 to implement a fix. The

Interesting timeline. Following the two fatal crashes involving the MCAS system and the 737 Max … The FAA gave Boeing until Dec of 2022 to implement a fix. The fix was to reconfigure the 737 Max with 2 sensors (instead of one) and include an manual shutoff Guess what happened? Boeing didn’t fix anything.. instead they cried to congress that the fix is too expensive and they cannot get it done. So what happens is congress includes a provision in the omnibus spending bill to exempt Boeing from having to fix the MCAS system. So today in 2024 .. the 737 Max still only have one sensor although they did retrofit a manual shutoff https://lynnwoodtimes.com/2022/12/23/boeing-max-221223/ https://lynnwoodtimes.com/2022/12/23/boeing-max-221223/ Pretty interesting after millions spent on investigation , congressional hearings, developing engineering a better MCAS system … quietly Boeing just bypasses everything. Honestly it’s super depressing and makes me question if we are even a functioning democracy (inverted corporate democracy perhaps?)

jacquesm 3y ago
Any kind of law that mentions a company by name should be automatically rejected, unless it is to add more limitations based on past (bad) performance and then only to document the reason the law exists, never to provide exemptions.
- bmulcahy 3y ago
  Somewhere, the NFL is quickly checking its shoes...
- Kwpolska 3y ago
  Congress will be happy to replace “Boeing” with “American companies which manufacture all of commercial and military aircraft, satellites, and space vehicles and launchers”.
- JoshTriplett 3y ago
  > Any kind of law that mentions a company by name should be automatically rejected, unless No "unless". No law should target a specific company or individual by name, ever, whether to give them special exceptions or special permissions or special restrictions or anything else. (They also shouldn't target specific companies by sufficiently-specific-description-it-only-applies-to-one-or-two-companies, either.)
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    If course they can: laws frequently cite specific cases and specific abuses in their supporting documentation in order to point out the exact intent of the law.
    - pc86 3y ago
      Laws are not research papers, they don't need to cite sources.
      - jacquesm 3y ago
        The fact that they do not need to is true, but the typical law rests on a body of data and some of that data will be supplied with the bill depending on what the material is about. This is because most laws are created with specific goals and purposes in mind, they're not born finished and ready to be voted on derived from first principles, they usually exist to address something quite specific.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
    - JoshTriplett 3y ago
      I never said they "can't", I said they shouldn't. Also, there's nothing fundamentally wrong with citing something as an example in the argumentation around a bill enacting a law (unless it's by way of targeting them with polemic), but there is something fundamentally wrong with putting that in the legal code itself.
  - pi-e-sigma 3y ago
    US Congress has been passing acts concerning specific people or institutions, directly referenced by their name since its inception. It's called private laws https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_Congress#Public_law,_private_law,_designation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_Congress#Public_law,_pr...
- Y_Y 3y ago
  You raise a good point, and there definitely exists a pile of related jurisprudence on the subject of "attainder"[0]. Afaik that only applies to negative consequences though. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder
- marssaxman 3y ago
  Washington State has been making Boeing-specific laws for decades, without having to mention them by name - the legislature just writes up a bill which sets such-and-such a lower tax rate for every aircraft manufacturer which employs at least so many workers, et voila! There happens to be only one.
tavavex 3y ago
That is pretty concerning. The way how Boeing can get its way simply by threatening to can the entire MAX program (which they'd never actually do) shows that there's a very deep level of integration between the US government and its biggest companies, especially one like Boeing that's often seen as kind of a minor point of national pride. Not only that, but the article mentions that the 737 MAXs got an exemption on providing a modern crew alerting system. Of course, all of that is done so they could certify these aircraft as being basically the same as the first 737 from the 60s. Meanwhile, A320s have been flying with ECAMs (a centralized system for viewing the plane's status and alerts) since the 1980s.
- SuperNinKenDo 3y ago
  The integration of government and these big businesses is one thing. The fact that it always seems to run in the direction of undermining citizen safety and protections, and weakening the country's capacity to actually hold these companies accountable to even national level interests is astonishing. What purpose does this integration serve if not to allow the government leverage? These days you have the US government acting like its a 2nd-world power, just desperately trying to hang on to any businesses willing to grace the US with their presence, instead of a nation that holds the key to glibal economic power. Frankly it's pathetic.
- PaulHoule 3y ago
  Boeing doesn't have a real business plan until they have a plan to replace the 737. Boeing and Airbus have been going crazy over the past 30 years developing widebody airliners, some of which were solidly rejected by the market, but domestic flyers (most of them) are stuck with a 1967 design. It's a disaster when it comes to managing the social and environmental impacts of air travel. A ride in this plane https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer_E-Jet_family https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer_E-Jet_family radically changed my view of what is possible in a small airliner, because it has a squared-off cross section it feels much larger on the inside than a 737... And this is a previous generation plane, now there is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer_E-Jet_E2_family https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer_E-Jet_E2_family and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A220 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A220 There's a crisis brewing at America's small airports in that they've really stopped building the sub-50 seat regional jets that serve smaller airports. (In the small city near me, almost every organization lists the local airport as a weakness in a SWOT analysis) Manufacturers know that airliners around 70 seats would be dramatically lower cost to operate than the status quo, enough that prices would drop and service quality would increase and filling the extra seats would be easy. Trouble is the unions won't let the airlines upgrade https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scope_clause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scope_clause
belter 3y ago
Yeah, I heard Boeing even has it's own Presidential candidate...
- lostlogin 3y ago
  A brief search of who Boeing donates to is a bit depressing. I know that they have parted ways now, but Haley has managed to sit on both sides of negotiations between government and Boeing.
richardwhiuk 3y ago
Fortunately, Boeings work on the 737 MAX was independently checked by non-US aviation authorities who aren't subject to US Congress provisions.
- Dah00n 3y ago
  <Non-US aviation authority reads FAA papers> "All good boss. Let's certify this!"
  - xcv123 3y ago
    https://www.easa.europa.eu/en/newsroom-and-events/press-releases/easa-declares-boeing-737-max-safe-return-service-europe https://www.easa.europa.eu/en/newsroom-and-events/press-rele... "Following extensive analysis by EASA, we have determined that the 737 MAX can safely return to service. This assessment was carried out in full independence of Boeing or the Federal Aviation Administration and without any economic or political pressure – we asked difficult questions until we got answers and pushed for solutions which satisfied our exacting safety requirements. We carried out our own flight tests and simulator sessions and did not rely on others to do this for us."
  - richardwhiuk 3y ago
    EASA insisted on additional requirements then the FAA did - so I think "no".
therealcamino 3y ago
You are confusing two different issues. The article you reference is from December 2022. The MAX 8 had already returned to service two years prior, with the required fixes to the MCAS system, in 2020. This law had to do with a deadline for certifying the MAX 7 without completely redesigning some of the systems. I'm not a Boeing defender here -- these issues are incredibly concerning.
- bmitc 3y ago
  What are all the differences between these MAX <n> planes? Is this an intentional strategy by Boeing to confuse so that they can make all these loose arguments and skirt regulations?
  - dharmab 3y ago
    Bigger number = longer plane. They start counting from 7 because the MAX 7 was the successor to the 737-700.
    - bmitc 3y ago
      Thank you for answering, especially when so many doenvoted. Now I know! It does appear that Boeing tries to get away with "you've approved it for MAX <x>, so just approve it already for MAX <y>".
lostlogin 3y ago
> Honestly it’s super depressing and makes me question if we are even a functioning democracy (inverted corporate democracy perhaps?) By international standards, US ‘democracy’ doesn’t get rated that highly. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist_Democracy_Index#:~:text=The%20Democracy%20Index%20published%20by,democratic%20rights%20and%20democratic%20institutions https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist_Democracy_Inde....
- virtualritz 3y ago
  > By international standards, US ‘democracy’ doesn’t get rated that highly. For starters, it's a two party system. Sharp tongues would point out that this is double the amount of political parties you'd "find" in Russia or China ...
phpisthebest 3y ago
I guess that depends on what you believe a "functioning democracy" because yes we are are "functioning democracy", the fact that the outcome is not what you desire do not mean it is non-functional. Keeping in mind that a democracy was never the goal, and being a democracy is actually the root of the problem. Looking to the federal government for solutions to all of these problems is the the problem itself. People expecting the government to fix everything is the problem.... Maybe instead of acting "are we a functioning democracy", the better question is "how can we solve these problems with out government..."
delfinom 3y ago
>(inverted corporate democracy perhaps?) The word you are looking for is oligarchy.
boppo1 3y ago
>makes me question if we are even a functioning democracy Obviously, obviously not.
hn_version_0023 3y ago
> Honestly it’s super depressing and makes me question if we are even a functioning democracy (inverted corporate democracy perhaps?) We're not. There was a coup attempt scant years ago, and there will absolutely be another in November.
schiffern 3y ago
It's almost comically evil at this point. Boeing actually argued that the victims didn't experience any suffering, because they died on impact. So in your final screaming moments as you hurtle toward the ground, be comforted to know that the ultimate perpetrators of your death will say your terror never even happened. https://www.wsj.com/articles/boeing-families-argue-over-pay-for-737-max-victims-suffering-d38127d5 https://www.wsj.com/articles/boeing-families-argue-over-pay-...
jlmorton 3y ago
This is completely wrong. Boeing did make the changes to include input from two AoA sensors, they did change the system to prevent recurrent horizontal stabilizer movements, they did include a manual shut-off. What you are talking about has very little to do with MCAS. Congress required any new aircraft type certified after 2022 to include an Engine-Indicating and Crew Alerting System. It was never even intended to apply to the 737-10, but because the certification took longer than expected, it became likely the -10 would fall under the regulation, which would cause pilots to have to be re-trained for the -10. All of this is only peripherally related to MCAS.
TylerE 3y ago
That is not at all accurate. The MAX has two AoA sensors from day one.
- Someone1234 3y ago
  We're talking about what the MCAS used for input. The aircraft has two AoA sensors and three computers. MCAS used 1 and 1 because it was believed to be non-safety-critical system. Here is a direct quote from Wikipedia's MCAS article: > Though there are two sensors on the MAX only one of them is used at a time to trigger MCAS activation on the 737 MAX. Any fault in this sensor, perhaps due to physical damage, creates a single point failure: the flight control system lacks any basis for rejecting its input as faulty information. There is a whole subsection just about MCAS and AoA sensors.
  - TylerE 3y ago
    So what you're saying is that I'm right, it in fact had 2 AoA sensors from day one.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
School-Cotton 3y ago
> makes me question if we are even a functioning democracy The US has not been a functioning democracy for a very long time, if it ever even was. Don’t despair! Plenty of people have fulfilling and happy lives in non-democracies. But it’s important to be realistic about the chances of anything about the political system fundamentally changing.
alvah 3y ago
You'd probably want to cite such a big claim ("Boeing didn't fix anything"), which is not supported by your link. Other online sources say Boeing did fix MCAS, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_MAX_groundings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_MAX_groundings
talldatethrow 3y ago
I hate to turn this into a political comment, but your comment about it being depressing struck a nerve with me. Many conservatives and people worried about the border have been feeling this depression pretty hard the last few years, if not 20+ years. Add in the crime problem with no cash bail, and honestly a few friends and I have felt something is really wrong for several years on a pretty deep sad level. Interesting that something slighlt convoluted like a plane retrofit was what brought about it in you.
- vladms 3y ago
  Feeling sad and depressed can be a medical condition rather than a reality issue. There are many numerically things (can't check everything) that are not much worse than 20 years ago (and some even better), but people seem more and more upset. It's like they just spend time online/on TV and WANT to find reasons to feel bad. Or that they expect that because things CAN be good they will be good tomorrow without any effort.
  - talldatethrow 3y ago
    I'm in California since 1989. Things are definitely different and IMO worse than before. If I had to guess, previously the crime was in obvious rough areas. Now it seems it's expanding to everywhere. But even if crime/illegal border crossings were down... Just because we were unaware of it 20 years ago and are now aware doesn't really make people feel better about it. "Hey, you know how you were wondering why wages are stagnant, yet housing prices are still rising? Turns out there were millions of people entering illegally every year and you just weren't aware of it previously! Better turn off the news or you'll feel worse about that $3k 2bdroom."
    - metabagel 3y ago
      One has got nothing to do with the other. Illegal immigrants aren’t driving up housing costs. Standard of living is stagnant, because wealth doesn’t “trickle down” like Reagan promised us. It trickles up. You’re repeating right wing talking points.
fuckyah 3y ago
[dead]
dm319 3y ago
There should be people on life sentences for manslaughter of 346 people that happened as a result of corporate greed and a company culture which made company profits the only important metric of success.
superhumanuser 3y ago
Single item spending bills ftw
cromka 3y ago
Such an americentric take... as if Boeing only had to deal with FAA only. You completely forgot about other regulatory bodies. How was Boeing supposed to sway EU bodies, for example? Once you realize there's more of those, your conspiracy theory ends up in shambles.

jacquesm 3y ago

Any kind of law that mentions a company by name should be automatically rejected, unless it is to add more limitations based on past (bad) performance and then only to document the reason the law exists, never to provide exemptions.

bmulcahy 3y ago
Somewhere, the NFL is quickly checking its shoes...
Kwpolska 3y ago
Congress will be happy to replace “Boeing” with “American companies which manufacture all of commercial and military aircraft, satellites, and space vehicles and launchers”.
JoshTriplett 3y ago
> Any kind of law that mentions a company by name should be automatically rejected, unless No "unless". No law should target a specific company or individual by name, ever, whether to give them special exceptions or special permissions or special restrictions or anything else. (They also shouldn't target specific companies by sufficiently-specific-description-it-only-applies-to-one-or-two-companies, either.)
- jacquesm 3y ago
  If course they can: laws frequently cite specific cases and specific abuses in their supporting documentation in order to point out the exact intent of the law.
  - pc86 3y ago
    Laws are not research papers, they don't need to cite sources.
    - jacquesm 3y ago
      The fact that they do not need to is true, but the typical law rests on a body of data and some of that data will be supplied with the bill depending on what the material is about. This is because most laws are created with specific goals and purposes in mind, they're not born finished and ready to be voted on derived from first principles, they usually exist to address something quite specific.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
  - JoshTriplett 3y ago
    I never said they "can't", I said they shouldn't. Also, there's nothing fundamentally wrong with citing something as an example in the argumentation around a bill enacting a law (unless it's by way of targeting them with polemic), but there is something fundamentally wrong with putting that in the legal code itself.
- pi-e-sigma 3y ago
  US Congress has been passing acts concerning specific people or institutions, directly referenced by their name since its inception. It's called private laws https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_Congress#Public_law,_private_law,_designation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_Congress#Public_law,_pr...
Y_Y 3y ago
You raise a good point, and there definitely exists a pile of related jurisprudence on the subject of "attainder"[0]. Afaik that only applies to negative consequences though. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder
marssaxman 3y ago
Washington State has been making Boeing-specific laws for decades, without having to mention them by name - the legislature just writes up a bill which sets such-and-such a lower tax rate for every aircraft manufacturer which employs at least so many workers, et voila! There happens to be only one.

tavavex 3y ago

That is pretty concerning. The way how Boeing can get its way simply by threatening to can the entire MAX program (which they'd never actually do) shows that there's a very deep level of integration between the US government and its biggest companies, especially one like Boeing that's often seen as kind of a minor point of national pride. Not only that, but the article mentions that the 737 MAXs got an exemption on providing a modern crew alerting system. Of course, all of that is done so they could certify these aircraft as being basically the same as the first 737 from the 60s. Meanwhile, A320s have been flying with ECAMs (a centralized system for viewing the plane's status and alerts) since the 1980s.

SuperNinKenDo 3y ago
The integration of government and these big businesses is one thing. The fact that it always seems to run in the direction of undermining citizen safety and protections, and weakening the country's capacity to actually hold these companies accountable to even national level interests is astonishing. What purpose does this integration serve if not to allow the government leverage? These days you have the US government acting like its a 2nd-world power, just desperately trying to hang on to any businesses willing to grace the US with their presence, instead of a nation that holds the key to glibal economic power. Frankly it's pathetic.
PaulHoule 3y ago
Boeing doesn't have a real business plan until they have a plan to replace the 737. Boeing and Airbus have been going crazy over the past 30 years developing widebody airliners, some of which were solidly rejected by the market, but domestic flyers (most of them) are stuck with a 1967 design. It's a disaster when it comes to managing the social and environmental impacts of air travel. A ride in this plane https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer_E-Jet_family https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer_E-Jet_family radically changed my view of what is possible in a small airliner, because it has a squared-off cross section it feels much larger on the inside than a 737... And this is a previous generation plane, now there is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer_E-Jet_E2_family https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer_E-Jet_E2_family and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A220 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A220 There's a crisis brewing at America's small airports in that they've really stopped building the sub-50 seat regional jets that serve smaller airports. (In the small city near me, almost every organization lists the local airport as a weakness in a SWOT analysis) Manufacturers know that airliners around 70 seats would be dramatically lower cost to operate than the status quo, enough that prices would drop and service quality would increase and filling the extra seats would be easy. Trouble is the unions won't let the airlines upgrade https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scope_clause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scope_clause

belter 3y ago

Yeah, I heard Boeing even has it's own Presidential candidate...

lostlogin 3y ago
A brief search of who Boeing donates to is a bit depressing. I know that they have parted ways now, but Haley has managed to sit on both sides of negotiations between government and Boeing.

richardwhiuk 3y ago

Fortunately, Boeings work on the 737 MAX was independently checked by non-US aviation authorities who aren't subject to US Congress provisions.

Dah00n 3y ago
<Non-US aviation authority reads FAA papers> "All good boss. Let's certify this!"
- xcv123 3y ago
  https://www.easa.europa.eu/en/newsroom-and-events/press-releases/easa-declares-boeing-737-max-safe-return-service-europe https://www.easa.europa.eu/en/newsroom-and-events/press-rele... "Following extensive analysis by EASA, we have determined that the 737 MAX can safely return to service. This assessment was carried out in full independence of Boeing or the Federal Aviation Administration and without any economic or political pressure – we asked difficult questions until we got answers and pushed for solutions which satisfied our exacting safety requirements. We carried out our own flight tests and simulator sessions and did not rely on others to do this for us."
- richardwhiuk 3y ago
  EASA insisted on additional requirements then the FAA did - so I think "no".

therealcamino 3y ago

You are confusing two different issues. The article you reference is from December 2022. The MAX 8 had already returned to service two years prior, with the required fixes to the MCAS system, in 2020. This law had to do with a deadline for certifying the MAX 7 without completely redesigning some of the systems. I'm not a Boeing defender here -- these issues are incredibly concerning.

bmitc 3y ago
What are all the differences between these MAX <n> planes? Is this an intentional strategy by Boeing to confuse so that they can make all these loose arguments and skirt regulations?
- dharmab 3y ago
  Bigger number = longer plane. They start counting from 7 because the MAX 7 was the successor to the 737-700.
  - bmitc 3y ago
    Thank you for answering, especially when so many doenvoted. Now I know! It does appear that Boeing tries to get away with "you've approved it for MAX <x>, so just approve it already for MAX <y>".

lostlogin 3y ago

> Honestly it’s super depressing and makes me question if we are even a functioning democracy (inverted corporate democracy perhaps?) By international standards, US ‘democracy’ doesn’t get rated that highly. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist_Democracy_Index#:~:text=The%20Democracy%20Index%20published%20by,democratic%20rights%20and%20democratic%20institutions https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist_Democracy_Inde....

virtualritz 3y ago
> By international standards, US ‘democracy’ doesn’t get rated that highly. For starters, it's a two party system. Sharp tongues would point out that this is double the amount of political parties you'd "find" in Russia or China ...

phpisthebest 3y ago

I guess that depends on what you believe a "functioning democracy" because yes we are are "functioning democracy", the fact that the outcome is not what you desire do not mean it is non-functional. Keeping in mind that a democracy was never the goal, and being a democracy is actually the root of the problem. Looking to the federal government for solutions to all of these problems is the the problem itself. People expecting the government to fix everything is the problem.... Maybe instead of acting "are we a functioning democracy", the better question is "how can we solve these problems with out government..."

delfinom 3y ago

>(inverted corporate democracy perhaps?) The word you are looking for is oligarchy.

boppo1 3y ago

>makes me question if we are even a functioning democracy Obviously, obviously not.

hn_version_0023 3y ago

> Honestly it’s super depressing and makes me question if we are even a functioning democracy (inverted corporate democracy perhaps?) We're not. There was a coup attempt scant years ago, and there will absolutely be another in November.

schiffern 3y ago

It's almost comically evil at this point. Boeing actually argued that the victims didn't experience any suffering, because they died on impact. So in your final screaming moments as you hurtle toward the ground, be comforted to know that the ultimate perpetrators of your death will say your terror never even happened. https://www.wsj.com/articles/boeing-families-argue-over-pay-for-737-max-victims-suffering-d38127d5 https://www.wsj.com/articles/boeing-families-argue-over-pay-...

jlmorton 3y ago

This is completely wrong. Boeing did make the changes to include input from two AoA sensors, they did change the system to prevent recurrent horizontal stabilizer movements, they did include a manual shut-off. What you are talking about has very little to do with MCAS. Congress required any new aircraft type certified after 2022 to include an Engine-Indicating and Crew Alerting System. It was never even intended to apply to the 737-10, but because the certification took longer than expected, it became likely the -10 would fall under the regulation, which would cause pilots to have to be re-trained for the -10. All of this is only peripherally related to MCAS.

TylerE 3y ago

That is not at all accurate. The MAX has two AoA sensors from day one.

Someone1234 3y ago
We're talking about what the MCAS used for input. The aircraft has two AoA sensors and three computers. MCAS used 1 and 1 because it was believed to be non-safety-critical system. Here is a direct quote from Wikipedia's MCAS article: > Though there are two sensors on the MAX only one of them is used at a time to trigger MCAS activation on the 737 MAX. Any fault in this sensor, perhaps due to physical damage, creates a single point failure: the flight control system lacks any basis for rejecting its input as faulty information. There is a whole subsection just about MCAS and AoA sensors.
- TylerE 3y ago
  So what you're saying is that I'm right, it in fact had 2 AoA sensors from day one.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]

School-Cotton 3y ago

> makes me question if we are even a functioning democracy The US has not been a functioning democracy for a very long time, if it ever even was. Don’t despair! Plenty of people have fulfilling and happy lives in non-democracies. But it’s important to be realistic about the chances of anything about the political system fundamentally changing.

alvah 3y ago

You'd probably want to cite such a big claim ("Boeing didn't fix anything"), which is not supported by your link. Other online sources say Boeing did fix MCAS, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_MAX_groundings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_MAX_groundings

talldatethrow 3y ago

I hate to turn this into a political comment, but your comment about it being depressing struck a nerve with me. Many conservatives and people worried about the border have been feeling this depression pretty hard the last few years, if not 20+ years. Add in the crime problem with no cash bail, and honestly a few friends and I have felt something is really wrong for several years on a pretty deep sad level. Interesting that something slighlt convoluted like a plane retrofit was what brought about it in you.

vladms 3y ago
Feeling sad and depressed can be a medical condition rather than a reality issue. There are many numerically things (can't check everything) that are not much worse than 20 years ago (and some even better), but people seem more and more upset. It's like they just spend time online/on TV and WANT to find reasons to feel bad. Or that they expect that because things CAN be good they will be good tomorrow without any effort.
- talldatethrow 3y ago
  I'm in California since 1989. Things are definitely different and IMO worse than before. If I had to guess, previously the crime was in obvious rough areas. Now it seems it's expanding to everywhere. But even if crime/illegal border crossings were down... Just because we were unaware of it 20 years ago and are now aware doesn't really make people feel better about it. "Hey, you know how you were wondering why wages are stagnant, yet housing prices are still rising? Turns out there were millions of people entering illegally every year and you just weren't aware of it previously! Better turn off the news or you'll feel worse about that $3k 2bdroom."
  - metabagel 3y ago
    One has got nothing to do with the other. Illegal immigrants aren’t driving up housing costs. Standard of living is stagnant, because wealth doesn’t “trickle down” like Reagan promised us. It trickles up. You’re repeating right wing talking points.

fuckyah 3y ago

[dead]

dm319 3y ago

There should be people on life sentences for manslaughter of 346 people that happened as a result of corporate greed and a company culture which made company profits the only important metric of success.

superhumanuser 3y ago

Single item spending bills ftw

cromka 3y ago

Such an americentric take... as if Boeing only had to deal with FAA only. You completely forgot about other regulatory bodies. How was Boeing supposed to sway EU bodies, for example? Once you realize there's more of those, your conspiracy theory ends up in shambles.