Confidentiality. Or porn. One of those things.
I worked in a wine shop that had banks of conputers that people could ise to look up reviewer’s rating on wines or place orders on our website. I ended up having to get IT to lock them down to only 6-7 websites because people would use them to try to access their banking. I had to explain to way too many people with jobs in high finance the risks of them doing this on a public computer. Too many idiots would do banking on a flight only to get robbed.
When I bought my house it took the old owner ages to reroute all of her mail to whatever her new address was. At one point sje had a credit card sent to her and it came to my house along with the PIN number.
If I’d been so inclined I could have withdrawn all the money from her account.
Meanwhile when I moved in I spent the first 2 days basically doing nothing other than making sure all of my mail was coming to my new address.
People are just really bad at thinking
The article is about extended displays though. No traces left.
And The last time I flew the displays had viewing angles tht made it so only you could see the display, sp they were actually more private than laptops.
I’ve never seen angle protection on those screens and I’ve flown multiple carriers with them.
I’ve definitely seen them in American airlines at least in the business class. That was about 2014 ish so I’d be surprised if it hasn’t become anything other than more commonplace.
Are we talking about united in specific or carriers in general?
Because I am 99% certain that my last british airways flight had those protected angles
One of them was a BA flight.
No traces but you are still sharing your financials on a screen
Bro, relax
I never recline my seat, but if I was sitting infront of that guy I would move it down for a bit. Then up again. Then down again. Etc for however long the flight is
Reason is a shit rag, and I don’t think their slop should be posted.
I think they’re one of the better ones since they tend to cite their sources clearly. Media bias fact check agrees with me as well.
They are super biased though, and you’ll get something between a libertarian and Republican lite perspective (think socially liberal Republicans). They absolutely shouldn’t be your only source of news and they’re very selective about what they cover, but when it comes to factual accuracy, they’re pretty good.
Perhaps you disagree with their political bias, but that doesn’t make them inaccurate. I highly recommend reading some high quality news sources with a different political bias than your own to get a broader perspective. It doesn’t have to be Reason, but Reason is a decent option for left-leaning people because the factual accuracy is pretty high and the perspective is so different.
Reason is libertarian and MBFC has a massive libertarian bias. Reason is a poster child for lying with facts.
It absolutely has a strong bias, but my point is that they do a great job with citing facts, whereas a lot of large media orgs don’t bother. That’s why they get a strong factual rating.
I certainly could never recommend Reason as a primary news source (even as a libertarian myself), but it’s fantastic as a secondary to whatever mainstream media source you like. It offers a different perspective and sometimes facts that other sources leave out (for their own biased reasons), and I find that really valuable. If you’re not libertarian, it’ll challenge some of your assumptions and hopefully make you think.
So you make a point with great arguments.
Care to elaborate?
I’m already annoyed when someone is using their phone in the dark and doesn’t adjust the brightness settings.
If you do this during night flights, sincerely, fuck you.
How?! How can they stand it themselves and not feel like they’re being blinded?
I just want to know when I can connect my noise-cancelling Bluetooth headphones to the display instead of the tinny pair of wired “maraccas” that I keep in my travel bag.
Idk, 150 people in a tin can all using Bluetooth could cause issues.
It would be better to get noise cancelling headphones with a 3.5mm headphone jack. I had some until my daughter broke them, and I loved them.
Loads of people use Bluetooth devices on airplanes already. Are there any reports of destructive interference as is?
Idk. But from my experience, it’s usually something like 20 people (me included). If you made that the default way to connect, I think more people would use them.
Or maybe it’s not an issue, idk. I don’t know a ton about Bluetooth and airplanes.
I would expect a plan to have a lot more than 20 people watching something on their phone with AirPods (or a clone thereof). Just about everyone that’s watching or listening to something on their phone nowadays is using BT headphones, because most phones don’t have 3.5mm jacks anymore.
The second we get a better short range wireless protocol so there aren’t a hundred Bluetooth devices jamming each other on the plane.
If you travel a lot they do make airplane headphones that have a 3.5mm connector and run noise cancelling.
Number of stews who have the time to help you figure out the pairing rigamarole or why the radio on this unit is fucked: ZERO.
Number of issues with regular fucking headphones: zero.
Cases where the tinniness will impact your enjoyment of visual spooge: zero
People stopping you from buying some $15 apple 3.5mm pods for your earballs: zero
I’m thinking you’ll be fine. Leave the air safety officers alone so they can do their job.
3.5mm earphones don’t block 85db of plane noise
The ones that seal do provide sound isolation
And they’re lots of fun when there’s a cabin announcement.
I don’t care about them, the seatbelt light is either on or off, don’t bother me with what the temperature is at our destination
It doesn’t work that way. They’re piped through all audio channels at maximum volume.
Number of stews who have the time to help you figure out the pairing rigamarole or why the radio on this unit is fucked: ZERO.
No help necessary. Leave it as an advanced option and provide those who request assistance a cheap pair of 3.5 mm headphones. SOLVED.
Number of issues with regular fucking headphones: zero.
-
Wire gets caught in my limbs because the seating area is so tight.
-
Wire jack is tucked up from people pulling headphones at odd angles. Wortsst case scenario (has happened to me): the jack is inoperable, incapable of holding headphones without continuous, upwards pressure.
-
No active noise canceling (you might still be able to find ANC wired headphones but they are a niche product if they still exist).
-
An extra item to pack, since my phone requires a dangle to use 3.5 mm headphones, so I either pack a dangle, or another pair of headphones for using with my phone.
Cases where the tinniness will impact your enjoyment of visual spooge: zero
I’m sorry you’re not able to appreciate hifi sound but that’s a a you problem.
People stopping you from buying some $15 apple 3.5mm pods for your earballs: zero
Those sound like shit compared to the expensive pair of wireless ear buds that I already own.
I’m thinking you’ll be fine. Leave the air safety officers alone so they can do their job.
Of course I’m fine. But what’s this nonsense about bothering air safety officers? Nobody is berating airline employees about bluetooth headphones lol.
Found these pretty quickly.
-
Rule 34.
People can’t behave themselves in public. Even more so on airplanes.
What a jackass.
Ahh yes, the Volokh Conspiracy:
We’re clever enough to come up with a superficially consistent frameworks that permit our awfulness, therefore we should!
