quoththeraven

You're probably right that in the long run this is just a blip and it's advantageous to buy Boeing stock now while it's cheap in the expectation that it will recover. That doesn't mean Boeing isn't facing some real problems now or that the self-administered safety program isn't worth taking a look at. It may be useful to keep in mind that it took two plane crashes and people dying to provide you with this investment opportunity. Consistently defending Boeing on top of that just makes you seem close-minded and deaf to the possibility that allowing self-inspections on major issues as opposed to more minor technical things is a conflict of interest that human beings may take advantage of. Furthermore, if the problem is a lack of expertise in the FAA, maybe the solution is investing in people with technical knowhow and actually have the government do inspections instead of assuming the manufacturer will always be thorough or forthcoming.

I really got the impression that the moral panic was about women having sex and not at all about men having sex, which is a little lopsided, if you ask me. The moral panic about men only occurs when they're not having sex.

"An intersex" is incorrect, as "intersex" is an adjective, not a noun. As for choosing between intersex or intersexed, I don't know, but if the progression of the term transgender is any indication, "intersex" is the more current and acceptable usage.

Cat software running on dog hardware. [MEDIA=twitter]1109881324268126208[/MEDIA]

Equal time (sorta) for dogs: [MEDIA=twitter]1107051009250127874[/MEDIA]

Turn the page. [MEDIA=twitter]1114917031961346048[/MEDIA]

Not a red chili pepper. [MEDIA=twitter]1114907178974859264[/MEDIA]

Is anyone else a fan of this show? I watched on Hulu, so I won't see the second season that's about to start right away. The dynamic between Eve and Oksana/Villanelle reminds me a little of that between Will Graham and Hannibal Lecter in the second and third seasons of Hannibal, the TV adaptation. This is a good summary of the first season: https://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/tv/killing-eve-resumes-its-anxiety-fueled-story-of-two-women-who-cant-resist-one-another/2019/04/04/6c776a52-559c-11e9-8ef3-fbd41a2ce4d5_story.html?utm_term=.2154ef4ee703

And no one has called what Biden did sexual assault! It's a big straw man set up by people who are upset by any criticism of the way things are in this regard.

How old-fashioned of you. Honestly, that attitude comes from men who think women are out to get them or something. How is it difficult not to paw women? A handshake that doesn't linger and isn't a means of exerting dominance and nothing more than say a hand on the tip of a shoulder, rather than hands wandering down to our butts or the small of our backs, is all we ask from men we're neither intimate nor good friends with. Asking if something is okay is not some big imposition. It's literally just plain manners. (At this point I feel like saying "Use your words!") For years we have prioritized male comfort (not the right word, exactly, but I can't think of a better one) over women's and women are sick of it and not willing to take it anymore, yet you find that scary? Anytime a man says that it's all gone too far and he doesn't know where the lines are anymore, it's a signal women should steer clear. (You had to know I would challenge you on this, right?)

There was a lot of moral panic in the New York Times, and those articles weren't written by college-aged women. Research at the time showed men and women wanted actual relationships in about equal percentages. (The actual percentage for men was a few points higher.) Having casual relationships wasn't all due to following a permissive ideology, either. Many women said that establishing a long-term relationship would interfere with their studies and plans for the future, so they wanted to keep things casual even though that might be less emotionally satisfactory. Also nowadays "sex" and "dating" are more or less synonymous , which I for one think is a shame. Even though the concept of courtship is an outgrowth of old-fashioned thinking about gender roles in relationships, getting to know and respect someone and become friends with them is probably more integral to a long-term relationship than how hot the sex is. (Not that that's unimportant!) For those of you who disagree, if you ever did settle down with someone, was it the person with whom you had the best sexual chemistry or did you choose them for their general personal traits?

No, you don't. Jeez.

[MEDIA=twitter]1113815915269726208[/MEDIA]

More followup that makes me think not only is this not going away but that careers are being ruined and ended. http://www.asianjunkie.com/2019/03/31/seungri-booked-on-embezzlement-bribery-charges-providing-prostitution-partially-confirmed-by-police-choi-jong-hoon-booked-for-filming-molka-sex-video/ To summarize, Seungri has been booked on bribery and embezzlement charges, some of the claims about promoting prostitution that he himself made in these group chats and now seeks to explain away as lies have been confirmed and Choi Jong Hoon, formerly of FT Island, has been booked for distributing molka (spycam video). (He's also admitted under questioning that he bribed a police officer to suppress news of his arrest and punishment for drunk driving in 2016 after initially denying it.) Unless these cases fall apart in court, or are somehow suppressed between now and then, these guys and Jung Joon Young are toast and likely headed to jail, not just criminal convictions. Also, keep in mind the South Korean public (and Koreans in general) has a long memory and isn't nearly as forgiving as the American public. Sometimes public sentiment swings around when the initial condemnation was ill thought through, such as when former 2PM leader Jay Park was kicked out of the group when newly discovered MySpace entries during his initial training period dissed South Korea in the process of venting about the cultural differences between South Korea and his home in Seattle (he also had to learn Korean, as he didn't grow up speaking it), but most of the time the sentiment remains, no matter how ill founded. I mean, there are people petty enough to petition the Blue House (the South Korean equivalent of the White House) to disqualify BTS from being awarded Artist of the Year in the future by the Mnet Asian Music Awards because BTS won in 2016 and the petitioners feel their favorite group, EXO, was robbed. (BTS has won Artist of the Year at MAMA every year since then.) I feel that even the American public realizes that the government has no jurisdiction over award shows.

Holland released a new song and MV this week.

Do they have a habit of falling out of the sky? If not, it seems unlikely that the engine is the problem. ETA: Now that I've read the Vox piece @Oaktown posted, I see the engine is involved, but only in the sense that the plane was redesigned to accommodate it, as the Boeings are lower to the ground than the Airbuses. So it's not the engine itself that's the issue as much as the redesign that using the more fuel efficient engine required.

That's neither my experience nor observation (that tons of women get married everyday to become housewives). I know of no college-educated women doing this. They may drop out of the workforce when they have children, in large part because it makes economic sense if their partner earns more than they do and the cost of childcare is close to or more than their salary, but that's not dropping out, let alone marrying, to become housewives. Nor non-college educated women who graduated from high school in the 80s or later. Not even very many from my high school graduating class of 1974 in upstate New York. The expectation today outside very wealthy households is that women will work and be self-supporting if they're not pursuing additional education. And women have higher educational attainments than men these days as well, which would make no sense unless they planned to do something with those degrees.

Another perspective: [MEDIA=twitter]1112145249999175681[/MEDIA]

An article about coming to terms with abuse in light of Leaving Neverland and receiving compensation from a Canadian quasi-governmental fund as a result of abuse the author experienced that has useful things to day about what compensation can and can't do and why seeking compensation should not be viewed as proof that someone has bad motives: Leaving Neverland helped me understand my abuse by delicately exposing the exact same cycles and habits and systemic failures that I had endured myself. But it also helped me understand what society likely thinks of what happened to me, in part via its omissions. As Christina Cauterucci eloquently explained, one thing Leaving Neverland ignores is Robson and Safechuck’s repeated attempts to receive financial compensation for what they endured. This isn’t surprising: Victims’ desire for capital as compensation is often weaponized against them, so it makes sense that it was left out of this sympathetic portrait. But, as Cauterucci writes, “there are more reasons than money to go public with sexual abuse allegations against a world-famous man, and more reasons than greed to seek monetary compensation, considering that Jackson’s alleged serial abuse was only made possible through the trappings of fame and wealth.” I have some problems with the check I received. I don’t know if money makes anything better. But often money is the only kind of compensation our culture can offer, and the desire to get that can’t be seen as a crack in a narrative or a stain. The arguments against taking settlement money, the arguments that people sue just for the money, are painfully naive about how our capitalist culture works, anyway. Money, and the status and power that come along with it, is often already part of the equation. It can be used to entice victims, as we see with Jackson, and it can serve as a bulwark against their claims. It is why R. Kelly was still invited to mentor music classes after his sex tape was released. It is the entire post-prison career of Jeffrey Epstein. And it is my grandmother, difficult and striving, sending me to a fancy boarding school because she thinks it will make my path in life easier. I have spent decades trying to get some kind of justice. To have my abuser admit that he had done what we both know he did. The check that I got for what happened to me represents decades of work, trying to figure out some idea of justice. It is a literal settlement. I would prefer for the person who touched me to say out loud, in public, I liked to fuck 12- to 14-year-old boys, and I fucked a lot of 12- to 14-year-old boys, and I shouldn’t have tried to act on that desire. I worry that my check precludes true reconciliation, by perpetuating this kind of cold, mechanical idea that trauma can be alleviated via actuarial math. I am concerned that it prevents true reconciliation—separating justice from the social contract, from due process, and from the rule of law. But what I got was a check. The check is a significant number, which will do some significant good. It will get me out of debt, will pay for my therapist for a year. It still refuses to demand any responsibility from the teacher. Money is justice, but in a limited way, one that precludes personal responsibility. In a world where everything has a price, though, sometimes we have to settle for what we can get. https://slate.com/human-interest/2019/03/leaving-neverland-helped-me-understand-my-childhood-abuse.amp?__twitter_impression=true

They're not necessarily hiding behind a screen as much as they may get their quotient of personal interaction that they have the time, energy and motivation for from non-face to face interaction. There are downsides as well as upsides to meeting people face to face and unless there's enough reason to think it's going to be worth the time and effort invested, some people may think 'why bother?' Porn's just a click away and busting a nut in the comfort of one's own place is free and less fraught and time-consuming than meeting up with someone.

Some of us cried in front of Guernica when it was still at MoMA. And I missed MoMA trying to hang onto Guernica after Franco's death, but that clearly was not in accordance with Picasso's wishes.

I don't care who made it. Once it goes in a Boeing product, its performance becomes a Boeing problem too. And are you saying those are Boeing's only choices? Boeing's status is an issue because it's a US-based company and its only competitor is European, which means there are multiple reasons why the US government has incentive to go easier on and boost Boeing. Applying that preference to safety and safety inspections is a problem, and being hypervigilant to ensure that's not what's going on is justified, as far as I'm concerned.

That's not the same as having no significance whatsoever, which is what you appeared to be saying. Isn't it more accurate to say that how significant it is depends on what was going on? If it's a known factor that affects planes in general, like ingesting a bird, it isn't significant. If it's something else that is peculiar to this particular Boeing, that seems significant.

These may not technically be cute animals, but it is amusing. [MEDIA=twitter]1110745576025423873[/MEDIA]

Chinese gaming company Beijing Kunlun Tech Co Ltd is seeking to sell Grindr LLC, the popular gay dating app it has owned since 2016, after a U.S. government national security panel raised concerns about its ownership, according to people familiar with the matter. The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) has informed Kunlun that its ownership of West Hollywood, California-based Grindr constitutes a national security risk, the two sources said. CFIUS' specific concerns and whether any attempt was made to mitigate them could not be learned. The United States has been increasingly scrutinizing app developers over the safety of personal data they handle, especially if some of it involves U.S. military or intelligence personnel. From https://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKCN1R809L?utm_source=applenews&__twitter_impression=true Apparently Kunlun bypassed CFIUS to begin with, which is legal because CFIUS review is voluntary, but it's come back to bite it in the butt. NOTE: I chose to post this in The Lounge as a matter of information of general interest, but depending on where the discussion goes it might need to be moved to the politics forum.