People will move to selfhosted for a while, find out it's more expensive to maintain, switch to SaaS and then a couple years later will switch back to selfhosted. It's an endless cycle

Nah you don’t get it.

@grok is this true?

I have to say, all of these titles are much more interesting than the real ones

Clickbait WORKS.

There's a reason it's banned in HN submissions

There's a specific group of people that have this notion of thinking and I don't even need to explain further because most people will know who I am talking about

3D printing parts is FAA approved?

This occured in the UK, so not really relevant to the FAA.

In the US though, yes, the FAA would not have a problem with this. This plane would be registered as experimental, meaning you can install unapproved parts. It does have to be inspected, but that can be done by the builder (not the designer, just the guy who built that particular example), or an airplane mechanic.

I know quite a few experimentals with 3d printed parts (including my own). I don't know any where they are installed in a place where failure would result in a crash. Typically I see them used as convenience stuff, in my case I am using a 3d printed catch to hold my upward opening door while I load the plane. If it breaks in flight, I wouldn't even know. If it breaks on the ground, the door will close.

I'm not sure Gloucestershire is under FAA jurisdiction.

It was purchased at a U.S. airshow

Flea markets at US airshows are not under FAA jurisdiction.

I have attended said airshow for decades and occasionally buy stuff in the flea market myself. Old used scrapyard parts, next to some inventor’s homemade jet engine, next to tons of raw materials of unknown provenance, next to ginsu knives and miracle frying pans. Here’s what it looks like on video. Wow, I missed those hand grenades for only $10 each, what a bargain.

https://youtu.be/kKZ8Omj5cNA?si=bMQGS3VxN6ljyW19

https://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?do=main.textpost&id=cf1c...

They sold an entire UK county at an airshow?

Yes. I mean not this one, but the FAA has definitely approved 3D printed parts. SpaceX's raptor rocket engines, for instance.

Some of the most advanced aircraft engines for commercial airliners contain 3D printed parts: https://www.cfmaeroengines.com/leap

The FAA denying approval to parts based on how it was manufactured and not how it performed under testing would be totally ridiculous.

Lots of F1 parts are 3D printed, as well as many satellite rocket parts still flying. You just need the proper materials.

You may want to ask about the LAA: Light Aircraft Association.

It's almost 2026, you're supposed to keep gaming and personal PCs separate.

They are Isreali

'No politic here'

Exactly, they should be rational just like our secular politicians.

"As a Christian growing up in Sunday school, I was taught from the Bible, ‘Those who bless Israel will be blessed, and those who curse Israel will be cursed.’ And from my perspective, I’d rather be on the blessing side of things.”

- Ted Cruz, a U.S. senator

"There is a reason the first time I shook Netanyahu's hand, I didn't wash it until I could touch the heads of my children."

- Randy Fine, a U.S. congressman

And of course, there's the President of the United States who's known to be completely rational.

> Phishers pay to send the emails. You don't pay to receive no email. So that's the conflict of interest of these businesses.

> The "CA" for email is basically SPF/DKIM/DMARC as extensions but they're kind of useless because all email providers are lying about quarantine mechanisms anyways. Nothing happens if you report an abuse of spam policies.

So it sounds like these email providers simply won't do anything since they're not being paid or forced to do so. I don't understand why there isnt any push from financial institutions? Since access to their customer's accounts is usually the end goal for these phishing emails.

Or maybe the FTC/FCC should step in. Or some legislation is needed to enforce this.