The assumption here is that Boeing is responsible for these.
What exactly does Boeing gain from murdering whistleblowers after the fact? At this point Boeing's reputation is already tarnished and they're already going to be under a microscope, so what does murdering whistleblowers even achieve?
A deterrent to prevent additional whistleblowers from coming forward? If the issues are as massively systemic as facts to date suggest, it seems like there might be a number of other shoes that could drop. Boeing's reputation (as well as that of its higher ups) could get a hell of a lot more tarnished and even breach further into legal culpability territory.
I'm not fully convinced that's what's happening here, but two whistleblowers on a massive US company that also happens to be a defense contractor dying in suspicious and unusual ways (especially that first one "killing himself" after he said if he died it wasn't suicide and also smack in the middle of his deposition days...) certainly warrants a non-trivial amount of concern and a deeper investigation.
This assumes the risk of getting caught offing whistleblowers is less than the risk of more whistle-blowers coming out. Does it really make sense that you'd risk exposing a whistle blower murder program as opposed to whatever corporate problems they have? Not to mention, it's a lot easier to smooth over corporate screw ups than getting caught hiring hit men.
If these are hits, i would think it's one or two rogue execs or stakeholder with a lot of personal money to blow doing this, OR they are leveraging US military contacts to get it done. It's probably impossible to keep an assassination program from leaking carried out in any other way.
I think if Boeing care's about their reputation so badly, they'd get out of the defense contractor business. But there's too much money to be made there. Silencing whistleblowers could be very beneficial to their bottom line:
* Protects their existing IP, as well as any classified information the whistleblower may have had access to.
* Prevents further leaks from the whistleblower, which could impact existing/future contracts, or the company's ability to win them.
* Sends a chilling message to future would-be whistleblowers.
* Sends a reassuring message to the defense industry: "we have a zero-tolerance policy for leaking information and your business is safe with us."
>I think if Boeing care's about their reputation so badly, they'd get out of the defense contractor business.
Huh? Boeing's defense products are a separate division from commercial aviation. And those products are the best out there. Maybe expensive, I guess, and the usual criticism of scope creep and project management applies.
That may be the case, but I think many people will hear "Boeing" and immediately classify them along with Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grunman, Raytheon etc.
I mean… isn’t the obvious answer a “chilling effect”?
If you were to subscribe to the idea Boeing murders whistleblowers, how is the most obvious reason for why not to prevent more people from speaking out?
I don't know which sites you use, but Kayak and Google Flights both let you input the number of checked and carry-on bags you're traveling with and include those fees in the comparison.
Right, and they don’t take into account things like “my credit card gives me 2 free checked bags on United”. So in the end it’s still too opaque to really compare prices easily.
AA will make you pay extra to "choose your own seat" ($75-$150 extra per ticket for basic economy -> main cabin) and then block off all but 3 rows as "premium seats" so that you can pay $30+/leg/person to sit with your party/travel companion after paying already paying extra. Better get to the airport early and beg the gate attendant or spend an additional $240+ (1 layover, 2 passengers)!
If you book a codeshare they don't even try to let you choose, they simply put in the fine print that the choosing your own seat perk "may not apply to partner airlines".
Of course it's not a serious suggestion; it's just a pointed way to state their case.
And almost every country does wildlife management by killing some animals. I feel their point of "okay, so we can't do that according to you – then are you going to take care of the animals?" was well taken.
Send them on a barge across the Med, and German-funded rescue boats will drop them off in Italy or other coasts in Europe. Tattoo them with "To Germany with Love" and a few might find their way there. Hannibal brought elephants over the Alps, could be a great time for reenactment filming.
If they had a ready alternative market they could just do that instead of flipping out over Germany decided what can and can't be imported into their own country.
> If they had a ready alternative market they could just do that
Botswana is flipping out over Germany threatening their trophy hunting business. Presumably if they go full poaching/ivory, they write off that business for good. They’re trying to defend the status quo.
There are reasons to want your own modem, to avoid overpaying via rental fees, for example, but what security or privacy do you imagine you're getting by buying your own modem?
You're literally plugging it into their network and they can see everything that goes on the pipe whether they are on the LAN side of it or the Cable side.
There's a stronger privacy argument for using your own WiFi access point though.
In my experience, Jira isn't great out of the box but it's pretty good if you take a few hours to understand how to configure workflows, field configurations, forms, and boards.
For example, at my last company I had the development project configured with about a dozen different ticket states, but you created a ticket with a simple form with the title as the only mandatory field but there were optional fields for details and screenshots.
Developers could move a ticket into "in progress" or "can't reproduce". The latter transition showed a form with a mandatory explanation field, and it would automatically get assigned back to the person who created the ticket.
On completing the ticket, the developer has to put in a pull request and can only moves it to the Code Review state and had to pick a different developer to assign it to.
It sounds a bit tedious when you describe it but in practice everyone worked off a board with three or four columns appropriate to their role. They move tickets to the right to advance them or to the left to reject them. There were also automated transitions triggered by things like CI tests, deployment etc.
Children are capable of understanding the difference between pretense and reality.
My 4 year old loves playacting scenes and games from Bluey but he also understands that I'm not an anthropomorphic dog. Or, for that matter that our dog can't do most of the things the dogs on Bluey can.
it's not literal. we're in a mass extinction that's only going to get worse. earth as shorthand for the environment that supports all these creatures (including us).
This is also misleading. What's disappearing is a sustainable environment suitable for humans without advanced technology and globalized trade.
Humans are living in climate-controlled environments in Phoenix, but they wouldn't last long without (fossil-fuel based) external energy sources. Or at least there wouldn't be that many.
