Stop messing with certificates

IT won’t close. There’ll just be more Europe and multi-day trips. Zero talk of a 350 base in SEA so it will probably be covered by other bases.

But there’s been chat about ‘secondary cities” in Asia for the 330 and the 350 for the large hubs.
Never say never as we all know, but yeah I think it'll stay for a good long while with Euro destinations and allegedly we are keeping PVG for the time being. Gotta get to TPE before March too.

Our 6 and 7 days have entirely evaporated so hoping those come back toward the summer.
 
Getting back on the thread track...

Make all certificates including medical digital with a mandatory physical carry for X amount of years until full ICAO adoption. I'd be happy to bury my certs in my bag for odd occasions, but no reason why we can't go digital. Add the FCC to the digital pilot license and ditch that stupid piece of paper too.
 
Used it to buy a gun ;
Fine, I never have. Even for a Glock discount. Glock LE discount.

Well cool. Good for you?

Take our current medical records keeping system for example I have to keep the original signed medical certificate. Even though there is a digitized copy at my employer. If I lose the original signed certificate I can't work until I get another one. If you lose it in the first 3 months you can't get a replacement.

If everything was on blockchain all my certificates and records could be accessed immediately. No chance of fraud or tampering. I could just show the FAA examiner a bar code and he could see the records that were relevant to their privilege level.

Instead I have to keep original copies of everything in a bag that I can't lose on close to a thousand hours of traveling a year.

But we can be nostalgic about tailwheels or something and that makes sense?

You'd hate going through customs with Global Entry. A machine takes my photo and the officer sees all my records. I don't even have to show my silly outdated and extremely problematic passport.



Again it should be by blockchain. Encrypted. No fraud. Everyone is identified.
Blockchain is a pretty terrible choice for most things, really. . . it seems like you're using it as a stand-in for a proper trust model.

In this case, a regular old cert/signer model would work better.

Ultimately, I agree with your point though, minus the fad tech.
 
Blockchain is a pretty terrible choice for most things, really. . . it seems like you're using it as a stand-in for a proper trust model.

In this case, a regular old cert/signer model would work better.

Ultimately, I agree with your point though, minus the fad tech.

Encryption is just a way to keep things secure. Blockchain is an easy way to organize who has access. It seems great to me. At the end of the day I don't care how it is done. I just don't want to have irreplaceable paper copies of things that I MUST travel with and if I lose I can no longer work. Its doubly infuriating that these paper certificates are backed up as digital copy by my employer but the digital copies can not stand in as proof of certification. Other than a temporary period.
 
Encryption is just a way to keep things secure. Blockchain is an easy way to organize who has access. It seems great to me. At the end of the day I don't care how it is done. I just don't want to have irreplaceable paper copies of things that I MUST travel with and if I lose I can no longer work. Its doubly infuriating that these paper certificates are backed up as digital copy by my employer but the digital copies can not stand in as proof of certification. Other than a temporary period.
First, understand that there's a difference between authentication, authorization, and encryption. You can have a fully unencrypted method of authentication or authorization, or you can encrypt either or both.

However, cryptographic signing methods allow you to authenticate a document, a person or a bearer, from which point you can decide whether that entity is authorized; further, if you use a form of public key encryption to do so, you can then encrypt data so that only that individual can read it.

For example, https offers both authentication ("This host is trusted by someone I trust, e.g. Verisign"), and encryption ("The data passed between me and this host are unreadable by the outside world,"), but authorization ("This person or entity has access to this data") is another process entirely.

There are some (rather esoteric) problems that could, theoretically, be solved by a more efficient version of something akin to blockchain, but in general it's just a poor tool for most applications. But people treat it like a STM treats his favorite torque wrench: ratchet, prybar, lug wrench, crowbar, window rest, wheel chock, drift, bearing press, buss tie, hammer ... largely due to failure to understand what it is, and more to the point, what else is out there.
 
Encryption is just a way to keep things secure. Blockchain is an easy way to organize who has access. It seems great to me. At the end of the day I don't care how it is done. I just don't want to have irreplaceable paper copies of things that I MUST travel with and if I lose I can no longer work. Its doubly infuriating that these paper certificates are backed up as digital copy by my employer but the digital copies can not stand in as proof of certification. Other than a temporary period.
Blockchains are immutable by design. That is great if it were actually used as it was originally designed (ledger system for what should just be a currency alternative) but is horrible in most scenarios.

Personally I don't care that much. Digital is fine if implemented properly with actual acceptance worldwide.

First, understand that there's a difference between authentication, authorization, and encryption. You can have a fully unencrypted method of authentication or authorization, or you can encrypt either or both.

However, cryptographic signing methods allow you to authenticate a document, a person or a bearer, from which point you can decide whether that entity is authorized; further, if you use a form of public key encryption to do so, you can then encrypt data so that only that individual can read it.

For example, https offers both authentication ("This host is trusted by someone I trust, e.g. Verisign"), and encryption ("The data passed between me and this host are unreadable by the outside world,"), but authorization ("This person or entity has access to this data") is another process entirely.

There are some (rather esoteric) problems that could, theoretically, be solved by a more efficient version of something akin to blockchain, but in general it's just a poor tool for most applications. But people treat it like a STM treats his favorite torque wrench: ratchet, prybar, lug wrench, crowbar, window rest, wheel chock, drift, bearing press, buss tie, hammer ... largely due to failure to understand what it is, and more to the point, what else is out there.

Anything related to crypto is automatically given some sort of magic status. I honestly can't wait till the entire thing crashes. It is 100% speculation and is doomed to fail. The only question is, how long will take? When will people realize there is literally zero substance in buying a Bitcoin?
 
Anything related to crypto is automatically given some sort of magic status. I honestly can't wait till the entire thing crashes. It is 100% speculation and is doomed to fail. The only question is, how long will take? When will people realize there is literally zero substance in buying a Bitcoin?
All I know is that reading about the Hawk Tuah coin made me want to go back to the days where Rome must burn.
 
Blockchains are immutable by design. That is great if it were actually used as it was originally designed (ledger system for what should just be a currency alternative) but is horrible in most scenarios.

Personally I don't care that much. Digital is fine if implemented properly with actual acceptance worldwide.



Anything related to crypto is automatically given some sort of magic status. I honestly can't wait till the entire thing crashes. It is 100% speculation and is doomed to fail. The only question is, how long will take? When will people realize there is literally zero substance in buying a Bitcoin?

Why does encryption make people so mad?
 
Why does encryption make people so mad?

I’ll volunteer.

Encryption making people “mad” is a false narrative.

Personally, through life experience, it sounds like a spouse coming home with a box of 45 electrical outlet covers on your day off and saying ‘we’re going to a new stainless steel look I saw online, all the pilot wives are doing it!”

Now, you’re going to work your ass off all day, maybe two days changing them from off-white to that “new” stainless steel look.

At the end of the day, you’ve blown a crap-ton of time, literally gained no extra utility and simply satisfied, maybe, strangers online IF she brought the proper brand that pleases them.

Having my certificates and medicals on “blockchain” does absolutely nothing other than please some tech bro who wrote an article for “Wired” and creates a potential for unforeseen problems.

There, not fear, not anger, just my middle aged “That shark is not nearest the boat, it’s in a whole different ocean”
 
Last edited:
I’ll volunteer.

Encryption making people “mad” is a false narrative.

Personally, through life experience, it sounds like a spouse coming home with a box of 45 electrical outlet covers on your day off and saying ‘we’re going to a new stainless steel look I saw online, all the pilot wives are doing it!”

Now, you’re going to work your ass off all day, maybe two days changing them from off-white to that “new” stainless steel look.

At the end of the day, you’ve blown a crap-ton of time, literally gained no extra utility and simply satisfied from strangers online.

Having my certificates and medicals on “blockchain” does absolutely nothing other than please some tech bro who wrote an article for “Wired” and creates a potential for unforeseen problems.

There, not fear, not anger, just my middle aged “That shark is not nearest the boat, it’s in a whole different ocean”
The person posting this message appears to be expressing frustration and skepticism about the trend of adopting new technologies, particularly blockchain, without a clear, tangible benefit. Their psychology seems to involve a few key elements:

1. **Frustration with Unnecessary Change**: The analogy to being asked to change electrical outlet covers reflects a sense of frustration over being forced into a change that seems to lack real value. The individual feels that they are being asked to invest time and effort into something superficial or unnecessary, without seeing any clear, long-term benefit.

2. **Skepticism Toward New Technologies**: The person questions the practical value of blockchain for storing certificates and medical information. They suggest that these innovations may primarily benefit those who stand to profit or gain attention from promoting them, rather than the end user. This suggests a healthy skepticism of new tech trends, particularly when they seem to be pushed by "tech bros" or other influential figures without clear, user-focused benefits.

3. **A Sense of Being Out of Touch with Trends**: The mention of "the shark is not nearest the boat, it’s in a whole different ocean" indicates a perception of being out of sync with what others are focusing on. This could reflect a feeling of being disconnected from the current tech buzz, not out of ignorance but because they don't see it as relevant or necessary in their personal experience.

4. **Cynicism**: The person hints at a disillusionment with trends being pushed by others (e.g., "satisfied from strangers online" and "tech bro") and a preference for a more practical, grounded approach to life. They seem to view the adoption of these technologies as more about social validation or following trends than providing real value.

5. **Middle-Aged Pragmatism**: Their use of "middle-aged" suggests they are at a stage in life where they have seen enough trends come and go to be wary of being swept up in them. They may prioritize efficiency and personal utility over following what they perceive as fleeting trends.

Overall, the poster seems to be expressing a blend of frustration, skepticism, and a desire for practicality, grounded in personal experience and an awareness of the broader tech landscape.
 
The person posting this message appears to be expressing frustration and skepticism about the trend of adopting new technologies, particularly blockchain, without a clear, tangible benefit. Their psychology seems to involve a few key elements:

1. **Frustration with Unnecessary Change**: The analogy to being asked to change electrical outlet covers reflects a sense of frustration over being forced into a change that seems to lack real value. The individual feels that they are being asked to invest time and effort into something superficial or unnecessary, without seeing any clear, long-term benefit.

2. **Skepticism Toward New Technologies**: The person questions the practical value of blockchain for storing certificates and medical information. They suggest that these innovations may primarily benefit those who stand to profit or gain attention from promoting them, rather than the end user. This suggests a healthy skepticism of new tech trends, particularly when they seem to be pushed by "tech bros" or other influential figures without clear, user-focused benefits.

3. **A Sense of Being Out of Touch with Trends**: The mention of "the shark is not nearest the boat, it’s in a whole different ocean" indicates a perception of being out of sync with what others are focusing on. This could reflect a feeling of being disconnected from the current tech buzz, not out of ignorance but because they don't see it as relevant or necessary in their personal experience.

4. **Cynicism**: The person hints at a disillusionment with trends being pushed by others (e.g., "satisfied from strangers online" and "tech bro") and a preference for a more practical, grounded approach to life. They seem to view the adoption of these technologies as more about social validation or following trends than providing real value.

5. **Middle-Aged Pragmatism**: Their use of "middle-aged" suggests they are at a stage in life where they have seen enough trends come and go to be wary of being swept up in them. They may prioritize efficiency and personal utility over following what they perceive as fleeting trends.

Overall, the poster seems to be expressing a blend of frustration, skepticism, and a desire for practicality, grounded in personal experience and an awareness of the broader tech landscape.

That is, yet again, exactly how I feel, which is hilarious! :)

“We’re going to use blockchain to secure your front yard’s landscape”

“It’s dirt. Gravel, some various desert-appropriate succulents, barrel cactus and simple. Why?”
 
That is, yet again, exactly how I feel, which is hilarious! :)

“We’re going to use blockchain to secure your front yard’s landscape”

“It’s dirt. Gravel, some various desert-appropriate succulents, barrel cactus and simple. Why?”
Oh, absolutely—because nothing says "cutting-edge security" like encrypting your gravel and succulents. God forbid someone hacks your barrel cactus and rearranges it without permission. Better slap a QR code on that agave before it goes rogue.
Written by AI (which i feel should be a requirement to all responses, articles, reviews written by this technology no one asked for)
 

Attachments

  • DALL·E 2024-12-28 06.36.09 - A minimalist desert-themed front yard featuring gravel, dirt, va...webp
    DALL·E 2024-12-28 06.36.09 - A minimalist desert-themed front yard featuring gravel, dirt, va...webp
    494.8 KB · Views: 5
The person posting this message appears to be expressing frustration and skepticism about the trend of adopting new technologies, particularly blockchain, without a clear, tangible benefit. Their psychology seems to involve a few key elements:

1. **Frustration with Unnecessary Change**: The analogy to being asked to change electrical outlet covers reflects a sense of frustration over being forced into a change that seems to lack real value. The individual feels that they are being asked to invest time and effort into something superficial or unnecessary, without seeing any clear, long-term benefit.

2. **Skepticism Toward New Technologies**: The person questions the practical value of blockchain for storing certificates and medical information. They suggest that these innovations may primarily benefit those who stand to profit or gain attention from promoting them, rather than the end user. This suggests a healthy skepticism of new tech trends, particularly when they seem to be pushed by "tech bros" or other influential figures without clear, user-focused benefits.

3. **A Sense of Being Out of Touch with Trends**: The mention of "the shark is not nearest the boat, it’s in a whole different ocean" indicates a perception of being out of sync with what others are focusing on. This could reflect a feeling of being disconnected from the current tech buzz, not out of ignorance but because they don't see it as relevant or necessary in their personal experience.

4. **Cynicism**: The person hints at a disillusionment with trends being pushed by others (e.g., "satisfied from strangers online" and "tech bro") and a preference for a more practical, grounded approach to life. They seem to view the adoption of these technologies as more about social validation or following trends than providing real value.

5. **Middle-Aged Pragmatism**: Their use of "middle-aged" suggests they are at a stage in life where they have seen enough trends come and go to be wary of being swept up in them. They may prioritize efficiency and personal utility over following what they perceive as fleeting trends.

Overall, the poster seems to be expressing a blend of frustration, skepticism, and a desire for practicality, grounded in personal experience and an awareness of the broader tech landscape.
10,000 trees destroyed in the generation of this message.
 
Back
Top