Most flights I've taken in the last 5+ years use group boarding, which roughly approximates filling outside in (not front to back).
It only roughly approximates though because the first few groups are usually not outside-in (eg. first class, premium/rewards customers, veterans, families with small children).
In web development there is often a single place you can put a feature flag though.
For example maybe the feature flag just shows/hides a new button on the UI. The rest of the code like the new backend endpoint and the new database column are "live" (not behind any flags) and just invisible to a regular user since they will never hit that code without the button.
As far as "remembering" to clean up the feature flag, teams I've been on have added a ticket for cleaning up the feature flag(s) as part of the project, so this work doesn't get lost in the shuffle. (And also to make visible to Product and other teams that there is some work there to clean up)
I know someone who's an actuary, and the reality is much simpler: people who consent to tracking tend to be safer drivers because they aren't afraid of the insurance company seeing their driving habits.
It gives the insurance company a way to identify a lower risk group of drivers so they can charge that group lower prices.
IDK. I've declined the tracking with State Farm, and I drive pretty conservatively. I might speed by 5mph or so but I really try to watch traffic and minimize my need to accelerate/brake as it does result in better fuel economy (and saves wear on the brakes). The MPG on my cars absolutely drops by 2-3 MPG when my kids are driving. I just reject the tracking on principle. There's too much incentive for the companies to monitize this data once they have it, and most of us know that really anonymizing data can be quite difficult.
But it's not hard to see how nearly 100% of people who drive recklessly would avoid such programs, but less than 100% of good drivers would.
The statistical skew makes sense to me. I doubt that insurance companies are assuming that every driver who doesn't take part in such program are bad drivers, but insurance is purely a game of statistics.
> people who consent to tracking tend to be safer drivers because they aren't afraid of the insurance company seeing their driving habits
Is that true? The handful people I know who have/had these devices are definitely wouldn’t fit that category. And most removed it after a while because their premiums went back up (because of their driving).
They just chose it because it offered cheaper rates and they all said the companies promised it would not raise rates above what they were already paying. So it was a “what do I have to lose” decision.
Obviously anecdotes aren’t data. I think it makes sense that the drivers that are egregiously unsafe (and know it) will avoid them. But it would take seeing actual data to make it clear to me that the majority of people who consent are safer drivers.
That seems to support the point you replied to. You point to a group of people who opted out of monitoring and exhibited risky driving behavior, leaving leaving lower risk people in the monitored group
The problem with this tracking nonsense is that it doesn't change anything. The business model is still the same. Unless the insurance company pays out less claims there won't be any savings.
For the members, probably not. But if the insurance companies can more accurate determine who not to cover, they can see huge savings in payouts. That’s why they already have teams of actuaries determine rates based on the data they do have. They just want more specific data.
This is missing context: Microsoft made their browser free at a time when Netscape cost $49.
Apple giving away Safari for free at a time when all major web browsers are free is different. Sure, Apple might benefit from being the default but Spotify and Pandora, which compete with Apple Music, are both still in Apple's app store.
Why the quotes? Apps bundling their own outdated web views using old versions of Chromium or WebKit are a legitimate security threat. By forcing every web view to use the fully up to date system bundled one, you automatically eliminate dozens of security vulnerabilities.
Nothing forces anyone to buy an iPhone. They don’t even have a majority of market share. In the late 90s-2000s, Microsoft actually held a monopoly on PCs. Smartphones on the other hand are a very healthy duopoly with diversity and cross pollination of ideas.
I’ve had non-technical users, who used the application daily, ask me to implement a large form where every input was a radio button.
When I suggested using a more appropriate mix of drop-downs, checkboxes and radio buttons they readily accepted.
It turns out they thought radio buttons would be easier for me to implement. They aren’t stupid people, they just don’t have any idea of how things work outside their domain.
It is a similar problem with retail space. When a dense, urban neighborhood like those in Manhattan has 30+% of their retail space unoccupied it has huge impacts on how it feels to live there.
A block or two with empty retail space means no lights on at night which affects not just the 'vibe' but how safe it feels to walk around.
https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/486809/jewish...