fwiw, Bunny are the people that announced S3 compatibility for their object storage in Q2 2022 [1]
> We can’t wait to have this available as a preview later in Q2 and truly make global storage a breeze, so keep an eye out!
then apologised for missing that in September 2023 [2]
> We initially announced that we were working on S3 support for Bunny Storage all the way back in 2022. Today, as 2023 is slowly coming to an end, many of our customers continue to follow our blog, hoping for good news about the release.
changing the roadmap to early 2024 [2]
> But we are working aggressively toward shipping S3 compatibility in early 2024.
That same post also has the beautiful "At bunny.net, we value transparency." quote.
It's early 2026, and they're literally ignoring my support requests asking about what the roadmap is looking like for this now.
So, do not trust their product or leadership at all.
I agree that this decision is insane and the whole Optimus/xAI bullshit is tiring, especially with the shareholders actually voting against the xAI investment, but you should try today's FSD. It's genuinely good and shouldn't be discarded wholesale because the guy sucks.
Yeah I strongly emphasise with them getting their money - the only problem with headless components being behind a paid license is that you cannot build a design system on top of them and open source it.
A 787 can still climb with flaps up and two healthy engines. In the video that was posted everywhere, you can CLEARLY hear the RAT spin, which gets deployed automatically when both engines go out.
ExDoc is arguably one of the nicest documentation systems out there, and Erlang moving to it means two things:
1. The Erlang devs do not need to implement and maintain their own anymore.
2. ExDoc will improve faster since people previously working on Erlang’s documentation system shift to it.
Neither. It’s an error by whoever last did maintenance on the engine and didn’t latch the door properly, and the pilot doing the walk around missing that error. Not a Boeing issue whatsoever.
Because Boeing didn’t have the same issue Airbus did. The latches on A320 family cowlings were kinda hidden from view, which made them less likely to be seen during the pilot’s walk around before departure. The EASA (and then subsequently the FAA) issued an airworthiness directive [1] that required the visibility to be resolved.
For this case, it’s simply both the mechanic forgetting to latch it properly _and_ the pilot missing that fact during the walk around. Either way, it’s not really a safety critical incident, just rather embarrassing.
[1] https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/06/29/2017-13...
Whoever did not latch the door properly after doing maintenance checks. Which is either a mechanic at the airline itself or someone at a maintenance hub that is contracted by the airline. Not the job of the manufacturer whatsoever.