Technology

59174 readers

3700 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

597

Whistleblower 'would not' put family on Boeing 787 jet (www.bbc.com)

submitted 6 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

79 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] -2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Which, given the context that planes are necessary, you continue to ignore the OP:

Having the public lose trust in the safety of flying is absolutely not something you want to happen.

And then your justification for not privatizing is cronyism. So the government contracts for air travel = bad, but the ones for your project are... good??

Your comment was really just a soap box to say air=bad, trains=good. I'm not going to argue trains are bad, but maybe make an honest argument for it.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 6 months ago

I didn't claim that at all. I claimed that competition on travel is good. If people don't feel safe flying, there should be another, viable option, like trains. If enough people take trains instead of airplanes, airplanes will need to improve to get those customers back.

Trains have a lot of advantages vs airplanes, but I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing that we should have viable alternatives.