I'll ask the obvious: wouldn't the aircraft just take to the skies directly, without bothering with the formality of setting their transponder, if they were knowingly escaping an apocalypse scenario?
There’s no formality. For planes with ADS-B out, it’s on when the plane is on (barring it being explicitly disabled by yanking the fuse).
Plus transponders are really convenient when you’re trying not to crash into other air traffic. Particularly in a scenario where you might be expecting ATC to be unavailable or abandoning their posts.
AFAIK the transponder kind of turns itself on when powering on the plane, you'd have to explicitly disable it but then you'd have weird discussions with the airport tower guiding you to a free timeslot on the runway which would just delay your takeoff, since ignoring the airport tower is a good way to not get off the ground at all because you'll accidentally be hit by some other plane.
In a theoretical scenario of the billionaire class of the world having some kind of "advance warning" of the apocalypse, they'd be taking to the air in the hours or several days prior to a total disaster happening. Meaning this would be done while the local governments were ostensibly still functioning, in which case you can't just have your private jet depart without active ADS-B and in-the-clear voice traffic for ground, and air traffic control coordination.
If governments and airspace control have already collapsed, post tense, then of course anything goes.
Colliding with other planes is going to impede your escape plan, so it would still be a good idea to turn the thing on. No further action needs to be taken for the ADS-B output to be correct, it works once it's powered on.
They wouldn't have to set anything. The transponder on almost any modern plane defaults to automatically on, either immediately or at takeoff. With Mode C (reporting altitude) or S (& reporting more) and squawking 1200 (VFR).
This drives me up a wall. Short of UX and front end devs taking this seriously, ive always wondered if theres a way for an OS level / browser level UX library to keep track of the "clickable state" 20ms ago (configurable to the user's reaction time liking) so the thing I click on is what my brain thought it was clicking on.
The better solution is developers and designers taking a sense of pride and craftmanship in this sort of thing. So many of my least favorite interfaces are presumably designed and implemented in an environment with a gigabit connection to their apps backend so they never catch it.
This one has somehow found its way into the iOS photos app of all places. Something is deeply amiss in the industry if the corporate avatar of design misses that one.
I sometimes use a trackball — without a "scroll wheel".
So in Google Maps on the web, I'd have to click the + and - buttons on the screen repeatedly to zoom in and out.
But those buttons don't always stay put. There is a status bar underneath it, that sometimes contains text so long that it wraps: and then that pushes the buttons up.
This. I'm not a fan of expanding links, like when a user hovers over a small button with an icon, and it expands to reveal the full button name, but the content around it (like other buttons) shift because of the size change.
It's a bit ironic the laws of UX is presented this way with gaudy graphics that are cumbersome to scroll through. They take up a lot of screen real estate and would disrupt what the typical user is used to.
I think they would have a very strong case that using the mouse on a product is likely to confuse consumers about the origin of the product and therefore infringe on their trademark.
That's a different kind of dysfunction, though. You can address it by copying the link and pasting it in a new tab, or if that's not possible, copying the current page to a new tab and clicking on the link there.
It's also not a very effective workaround, because some of the websites in question end up spamming multiple instances of their home page in the history stack.
You can usually address this by going back as far as possible, then holding the button again so more of the history shows up. And IME, it's only really broken sites that have this problem in the first place.
I wonder how often do privacy policies change, for the average site, to merit investing in a dedicated library that renders them dynamically. Assuming that the default solution is a static page.
I think most apps don't update often enough. We've seen products with privacy/cookie policies that are 5+ years old and totally out of sync with the product itself.
We're building OpenPolicy not necessarily to reduce the risk companies have of litigation, but instead to be more transparent with users and to build trust.
In the next version we'll be releasing auto-instrumentation that tracks data/third parties to always keep things in sync.
Okay a couple of things here... The first is that not all contracts are equally legally binding. Terms of service would be among the least. The second is that a contract also cannot override the law... You can't break the law just because it's in a contract...
My problem is mostly that I lack the legal expertise to be able to a) write up a coherent policy with full coverage, and b) follow up on changing legislation, of which there has been quite a lot in recent years (at least in Europe).
The best option until now have been generators found online, which mostly seem to have pivoted to lead generators or demos for paid products now. Considering that in Germany, for example, any website affiliated with a company or pursuing any economic purpose is required to have both a proper imprint and privacy policy, this is something you have to care about. There are even lawyers writing specialised crawlers to find websites with linked Google Fonts but no privacy policy notice, and send automated litigation to the owners. This only became possible after a court decided (as shortsighted as stupidly) loading fonts from Google's servers constituted a privacy violation, given that visitors had no way to consent.
Following these changes and reacting in a timely way is a continuous effort, and a framework to automate this is very welcome IMHO.
Why would sending requests to Google's servers (complete with Referer headers) not be a privacy violation? It allows Google to track every page you visit that has Google Fonts, which is definitely a privacy concern.
The less energy you spend to deliver value, the better for everyone.
reply