Boeing's board has dismissed its CEO, Mullenberg, who risked plane crashes in order to save money.

It may not be easy for Boeing to find a new CEO who gives safety priority. His leadership would not have trained subordinate managers to adopt that attitude, and Boeing has no US large competitors to get one from.

The statement by Carl Tobias raises a different moral concern: "The CEO just seemed to be insufficiently responsive to deep public concerns about [safety]." Should the executives of an aircraft manufacturer prioritize "public concerns" about safety, or safety itself? The former is part of a somewhat broader idea of business success.

There are so many words that various people demand we treat as taboo, replacing them with an initial, that it is difficult to tell which word some initial letters stand for.

If you would like people to change their terminology, you should present it as a request, not a demand, and offer reasons aiming them to convince them. For instance, I ask people to refer to the operating system which is basically GNU with Linux added as "GNU/Linux", rather than confusingly and unfairly calling it "Linux". I show reasons why this is the right thing to do.

Likewise when I ask people to call security-breaking "cracking" to distinguish it from what we hackers do.

But I do not make this a demand. When people decline, without hostility, to make the change I ask for, I do not rebuke them for that refusal, and I will cooperate with them in many ways (there are a few exceptions relating to publicity) nonetheless.

A: Next time a group of people asks me to run a nonfree program with them, I will say "No thanks."
B: Why so negative?
A: It's not negative, it's dispositive.

Bangladesh is cutting off communication for Rohingya refugees. This helps conceal the conditions that the refugees have to live in.

The London Stock Exchange has a list of "ethical investment" suggestions which includes companies that work on fossil fuel, even coal, as well as a prison company.