5 ms·

This is a complete waste of taxpayer dollars. If I'm reading correctly the Florida waypoints referenced were renamed because a busybody NY Times reporter compla

This is a complete waste of taxpayer dollars. If I'm reading correctly the Florida waypoints referenced were renamed because a busybody NY Times reporter complained?

alistairSH 2y ago
Karen Schwartz, a stringer for the New York Times, asked if we are considering renaming three air traffic fixes near Palm Beach International Airport because of Donald Trump’s recent “racist statements about Mexicans. Asked != complained.
- wannacboatmovie 2y ago
  Let's not play games with semantics. You know quite well what is implied. No one asks a specific question like that (with loaded language like 'racist') unless they expect action.
  - lisper 2y ago
    Journalists do.
    - colechristensen 2y ago
      Everything journalists do is for attention. Stirring up fake controversy for views is not something to be respected.
  - alistairSH 2y ago
    Trump did call Mexicans rapists and murders (among other things). That’s unquestionably racist. There is nothing loaded about calling a spade a spade.
    - IncreasePosts 2y ago
      Like, he said that at least one Mexican is a rapist or murderer? Or did he say all Mexicans are murderers and rapists? Or something else? Please don't show me the quote. I know it. I want to hear your understanding of the quote, and how you can square it with how you described the quote.
      - alistairSH 2y ago
        So, the statement wasn’t racist? Sure thing bud.
        IncreasePosts 2y ago
        Where did I say it wasn't racist? I'm asking you who you believe he was talking about with the rapists and murderers statement. Some people think Trump said "Mexicans are rapists and murderers", which is why I'm asking.
        alistairSH 2y ago
        He claimed Mexico was sending mostly rapists and criminals. And possibly some good people too. It was unquestionably a racist statement, so I’m confused why a reporter calling it such is somehow controversial.
        IncreasePosts 2y ago
        I don't know, it doesn't seem racist to me, it seems more like an (incorrect) comment on the type of people who cross the border illegally, which is only a fraction of all Mexicans. > When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. […] They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people I can't imagine undoubtedly racist people, like saying the Grand Master of the KKK, making a statement like that and then throwing in a comment about how some black people are good people.
- Am4TIfIsER0ppos 2y ago
  Karen, eh? Schwartz, eh?
avalys 2y ago
I'm astonished that changing instrument approach procedures required only 50 hours and $11,000. I would have guessed an order of magnitude more than that.
- red-iron-pine 2y ago
  for FAA / FRA (aviation / railroad) I'd have assumed easily an order of magnitude. e.g. 11k just to get a team together for a day to evaluate the safety implications of the change.
ezrast 2y ago
I'd call that reading poorly-supported enough to be incorrect. The report establishes that waypoint names are changed somewhat frequently for reasons that are largely left to mystery, but can include "a basketball player I like died." Additionally, "This is on fire right now" suggests some relevant context beyond "a single reporter sent us a nosy email." So while it may technically be true that the email preceded the name change in the chain of causality, its framing as the principal cause appears to be a narrative built of incomplete information. The linked NYT article also mentions pushback from pilots.
mhink 2y ago
> If I'm reading correctly the Florida waypoints referenced were renamed because a busybody NY Times reporter complained? Do you suppose that if a so-called busybody complained about a waypoint the FAA didn’t care about, they’d bother to change it? It was $11k. You could probably pay that with the change in your couch.
- wannacboatmovie 2y ago
  > It was $11k. You could probably pay that with the change in your couch. I'm nominating this for 2024 Hacker News out-of-touch comment of the year. I'm having flashbacks of Bill Gates on the Ellen show years ago thinking a packet of crisps costs $10.
  - jlund-molfese 2y ago
    The comment GP was responding to was in relation to taxpayer dollars. $11000/about 340000000 people in the US = 0.003 cents per person. Sure, not all people pay the same amount of taxes, but that's really not that much compared to other things that the federal government spends money on. Conclusion? Yeah, the average person probably has more than 0.003 cents in their couch.
    - wannacboatmovie 2y ago
      Ah, my mistake. The intent behind my comment was that in aggregate there are infinitely better ways of spending $11k of government money, whether that went to a worthy social cause or what should be the FAA's primary mission: improving aviation safety. Arbitrary renaming of waypoints for emotional reasons is ridiculous. A similar situation in Seattle a few years ago, they renamed the "Red Line" branch of their new metro system because people said it was racist. True story. The effort to reprint maps, repaint the trains, etc. cost much, much more than $11k. The system is behind schedule and grossly over budget to the tune of ~$0.5B.
      - sterlind 2y ago
        The system isn't behind and over budget because of renaming the branch, that's peanuts. It's behind (at least the I-90 segment) because they managed to screw up laying the concrete twice. The second time they just didn't measure right and were off by two inches - after pouring the whole thing. Again. Focusing on wokeness just serves to distract from the mundane but more serious problem of incompetence.
franga2000 2y ago
It's not like this money was actually spent. From what I understand, they calculated it in terms of time spent by full-time employees, who would need to be paid for that time regardless. People don't work at 100% efficiency, so this likely just meant a higher workload for a few people for a week or so. Also, 11k is tiny when it comes to something like the FAA and it's not like it can be spent for something you deem more worthy once it's budgeted to them. And I for one think removing names of assholes like Trump from places they have no right being is worth the little effort it takes.

This is a complete waste of taxpayer dollars. If I'm reading correctly the Florida waypoints referenced were renamed because a busybody NY Times reporter complained?

alistairSH 2y ago

Karen Schwartz, a stringer for the New York Times, asked if we are considering renaming three air traffic fixes near Palm Beach International Airport because of Donald Trump’s recent “racist statements about Mexicans. Asked != complained.

wannacboatmovie 2y ago
Let's not play games with semantics. You know quite well what is implied. No one asks a specific question like that (with loaded language like 'racist') unless they expect action.
- lisper 2y ago
  Journalists do.
  - colechristensen 2y ago
    Everything journalists do is for attention. Stirring up fake controversy for views is not something to be respected.
- alistairSH 2y ago
  Trump did call Mexicans rapists and murders (among other things). That’s unquestionably racist. There is nothing loaded about calling a spade a spade.
  - IncreasePosts 2y ago
    Like, he said that at least one Mexican is a rapist or murderer? Or did he say all Mexicans are murderers and rapists? Or something else? Please don't show me the quote. I know it. I want to hear your understanding of the quote, and how you can square it with how you described the quote.
    - alistairSH 2y ago
      So, the statement wasn’t racist? Sure thing bud.
      - IncreasePosts 2y ago
        Where did I say it wasn't racist? I'm asking you who you believe he was talking about with the rapists and murderers statement. Some people think Trump said "Mexicans are rapists and murderers", which is why I'm asking.
        alistairSH 2y ago
        He claimed Mexico was sending mostly rapists and criminals. And possibly some good people too. It was unquestionably a racist statement, so I’m confused why a reporter calling it such is somehow controversial.
        IncreasePosts 2y ago
        I don't know, it doesn't seem racist to me, it seems more like an (incorrect) comment on the type of people who cross the border illegally, which is only a fraction of all Mexicans. > When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. […] They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people I can't imagine undoubtedly racist people, like saying the Grand Master of the KKK, making a statement like that and then throwing in a comment about how some black people are good people.
Am4TIfIsER0ppos 2y ago
Karen, eh? Schwartz, eh?

avalys 2y ago

I'm astonished that changing instrument approach procedures required only 50 hours and $11,000. I would have guessed an order of magnitude more than that.

red-iron-pine 2y ago
for FAA / FRA (aviation / railroad) I'd have assumed easily an order of magnitude. e.g. 11k just to get a team together for a day to evaluate the safety implications of the change.

ezrast 2y ago

I'd call that reading poorly-supported enough to be incorrect. The report establishes that waypoint names are changed somewhat frequently for reasons that are largely left to mystery, but can include "a basketball player I like died." Additionally, "This is on fire right now" suggests some relevant context beyond "a single reporter sent us a nosy email." So while it may technically be true that the email preceded the name change in the chain of causality, its framing as the principal cause appears to be a narrative built of incomplete information. The linked NYT article also mentions pushback from pilots.

mhink 2y ago

> If I'm reading correctly the Florida waypoints referenced were renamed because a busybody NY Times reporter complained? Do you suppose that if a so-called busybody complained about a waypoint the FAA didn’t care about, they’d bother to change it? It was $11k. You could probably pay that with the change in your couch.

wannacboatmovie 2y ago
> It was $11k. You could probably pay that with the change in your couch. I'm nominating this for 2024 Hacker News out-of-touch comment of the year. I'm having flashbacks of Bill Gates on the Ellen show years ago thinking a packet of crisps costs $10.
- jlund-molfese 2y ago
  The comment GP was responding to was in relation to taxpayer dollars. $11000/about 340000000 people in the US = 0.003 cents per person. Sure, not all people pay the same amount of taxes, but that's really not that much compared to other things that the federal government spends money on. Conclusion? Yeah, the average person probably has more than 0.003 cents in their couch.
  - wannacboatmovie 2y ago
    Ah, my mistake. The intent behind my comment was that in aggregate there are infinitely better ways of spending $11k of government money, whether that went to a worthy social cause or what should be the FAA's primary mission: improving aviation safety. Arbitrary renaming of waypoints for emotional reasons is ridiculous. A similar situation in Seattle a few years ago, they renamed the "Red Line" branch of their new metro system because people said it was racist. True story. The effort to reprint maps, repaint the trains, etc. cost much, much more than $11k. The system is behind schedule and grossly over budget to the tune of ~$0.5B.
    - sterlind 2y ago
      The system isn't behind and over budget because of renaming the branch, that's peanuts. It's behind (at least the I-90 segment) because they managed to screw up laying the concrete twice. The second time they just didn't measure right and were off by two inches - after pouring the whole thing. Again. Focusing on wokeness just serves to distract from the mundane but more serious problem of incompetence.

franga2000 2y ago

It's not like this money was actually spent. From what I understand, they calculated it in terms of time spent by full-time employees, who would need to be paid for that time regardless. People don't work at 100% efficiency, so this likely just meant a higher workload for a few people for a week or so. Also, 11k is tiny when it comes to something like the FAA and it's not like it can be spent for something you deem more worthy once it's budgeted to them. And I for one think removing names of assholes like Trump from places they have no right being is worth the little effort it takes.