Earlier discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21459237

Huh. I thought that the submission system automatically redirected you if there was a recent post with the same URL.

"bbc.co.uk" vs "bbc.com" in this case.

I've often thought about standardizing on one of those (probably bbc.com) and then rewriting the other URLs. But we don't have any reason to believe that would always work, or that it would continue to work in the future.

It wouldn't. Some BBC websites are .com-only (BBC Reel for example), others are .co.uk-only (BBC iPlayer). But it would work for BBC News, which I imagine is the majority of BBC links on HN. UK users would be redirected to the .co.uk url.

Or would it be possible to change the duplicate algorithm to simply understand bbc.com == bbc.co.uk?

That last bit is a good idea. I'm embarrassed not to have thought of it, or at least to have forgotten if we did.

Ah... three little characters. I checked several times and didn't notice the difference. An obvious thing to double check for the BBC in hindsight.

Only if it's recent. After a certain amount of time, the software will allow reposts.

Well, that's what I was questioning since the other submission was only 16 hours ago (sure counts as recent in my book!). In this case it turns out that the URLs were not actually identical as pointed out by a sibling comment.

> In 2017, he complained to the US regulator, the FAA, that no action had been taken to address the problem. The FAA, however, said it could not substantiate that claim, because Boeing had indicated it was working on the issue at the time.

This is sounds very similar to what has been written in the past, that the FAA simply defers to Boeing on issues of safety. FAA had a lot more credibility back in 2017 than it does today. I hope the matter is investigated, because the FAA dropped the ball with the max and it and Boeing just don't have the credibility anymore to simply defer to Boeing's expertise.

This would be a fine response from the FAA depending on what is actually going on behind the scenes.

It is not like some guy in the FAA calls some guy at Boeing and gets "we're working on it" literally and that's all there is.

The would be a process, there would be reports, there would be plans. It would never be a matter of simple deferring. It would be something in that process of following up with a problem report that is missing.

Am I going to have to start a list of planes I shouldn't fly on?

It would statistically probably be a better use of your time to make a list of cars you shouldn't ride in