jerbs

Your second line is simply not true. Both American [1] and United [2] have committed to waiving change fees if you don't want to fly on a 737 MAX. Southwest is farther away from bringing the MAX back into service, so they have less detail on their site [3], but it sounds like they'll do something similar.

[1] https://www.aa.com/i18n/travel-info/737-MAX-return-to-servic...

[2] https://www.united.com/ual/en/us/fly/travel/inflight/aircraf... (under "What if I don't want to fly on a MAX?")

[3] https://www.southwest.com/737-max/#return-to-service-plan (under "What are Customers' options if they don't want to fly on a 737 MAX?")

The CFM 56 on the 737 (NG or Classic) also has a flat bottom. E.g., [1] shows a 737-800 with an engine with a flat bottom, and [2] shows a 737-300 with an engine with a flat bottom.

[1] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:CFM_56_Lauda_737.jpg [2] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Classic_Colors_South...

It's fairly common in antitrust. Section 16 of the Clayton Act [1] gives states power to bring federal antitrust suits on behalf of their residents, and states will often bring both federal antitrust claims and state antitrust/unfair and deceptive trade practices claims in the same suit, as the states here are doing. Incidentally, if you're interested in the surprisingly expansive role of state attorneys general, the National Association of Attorneys General has published a fascinating (though pricy) book that goes into the common powers of state AGs in more detail than anybody would want.[2] The website for James Tierney's State AGs course at Columbia also has a lot of interesting readings.[3]

[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/15c [2] https://www.naag.org/publication/state-attorneys-general-pow... [3] https://www.stateag.org/syllabus-2020

Yeah, I laughed when I read that sentence. Although some rules in law have naming conventions that tell you something about the underlying rule (for example, the merger doctrine, or assault with a deadly weapon), a huge number of rules are named after the case that created the rule--or, in other words, just a person or company's name. So in administrative law, you might apply Chevron deference, or say that a post-hoc rationalization poses a Chenery problem. And, of course, sometimes lawyers disagree about what case created or recognized a rule, so you'll have some people calling something Auer deference, with others calling it Seminole Rock deference.

Not a lawyer, but have worked with lawyers in a law firm and government offices. Everywhere I worked did almost all legal work in letter format. I occasionally saw legal paper, but no more commonly than in non-law offices.

It's also worth noting that the quote he presented from the Oculus Rift thread was criticizing someone for pointing out that it is less concerning if surgical training equipment crashes than if surgical equipment crashes, not for saying that it is no big deal if someone dies in surgery. I didn't see anyone in that thread saying it would be ok for VR surgery equipment to fail.

You're absolutely right that designers, regulators and, in some cases, courts should take every death (and accident/near miss) seriously. But it seems to me like there are two questions here. The first question is, "should we have self-driving cars?" and the second is "how can we make those cars as safe as possible?" When people say, "compare it to a human driver," they are suggesting a way to answer the first question, not the second. And that does not mean that they think the second question is "no big deal."

I don't think the people arguing for a different standard are saying that it is ok for one person to die because people die every day. They're asking for observers to look at self-driving cars in comparison to human-driven cars. Because people dying is such a bad thing that we want to prevent, the relevant question should always be, "will this change make it more or less likely that somebody will die." And that is why it is relevant to compare pedestrian deaths from self-driving cars to pedestrian deaths from human-driven cars, but not relevant to compare it to skynet or thermonuclear war.

I don't know, however, how that comparison turns out. From the other comments, it looks like Uber's self-driving cars might be less safe than human-driven cars--in which case you and I would end up on the same side of the argument.

And blackberry really is a good example here, as the USG loved it and is a massive customer, but no one customer is able to keep an OS thriving