Is this like those photos of apple store where the employees stand outside to high-five anybody who bought an item from the store?

I feel sad for those who are so insecure that they need constant approval from their peers.

Absolutely nothing like it. I'm not sure that you actually read the top post on this thread. We are talking about a company's particular way of ensuring that changes are documented and shared with the rest of the team. Their method is to encourage team members to share their ship details in an internal mailing list.

It's an internal procedure that helps build company knowledge and information sharing. It has a side requirement for acknowledgement for peers, but it is nothing like an optional purchase being high fived...

But you travel to get somewhere not to be in a vehicle for X amount of time. So why would any metrics besides per-distance be more relevant.

As a traveler, I care about the trip, not the time nor the distance. If I take this trip, what's my probability of dying if I fly it versus drive it.

Airplane travel have fixed segments (takeoff and landing, ascent, descent) and variable segments (the coasting phase that varies by distance traveled). Car travel is only the variable segment. Hard to compare apples to oranges.

The problem is fixed by extending the flap one notch to turn off the MCAS. no big deal.

Flap deployment speed limit on the 737 Max is 230kts. ETH302 was already at least 50% beyond that.

So now you have an aeroplane with its flaps ripped off, perhaps asymmetrically for additional control challenges. Next step?

That's not a fix it's a workaround. The pitch being off is the problem. Turning off mcas solves it but it does no4 fix mcas

I’ve been trying to understand how the vertical pitch measurement is supposed to be suitable for use as part of the MCAS decision process at all. Seems to me wind shear and other atmospheric effects are going to make an airspeed based measurement of angle of attack _always_ subject to condition dependent measurement error. The fact that the pilot is assumed to have a more navigationally useful estimate for angle of attack (in that they are able to know when the angle of attack measurement from the sensor is wrong) makes me think there is something fundamentally flawed about the way this quantity is being estimated by the existing sensor — the modality of measurement might not be an appropriate way to control this flight process if atmospheric effects can bias the measurement in a way that can be calibrated by pilot knowledge but with these corrections not reintroduced into the flight process ...

Planes can have multiple AoA sensors, and often do. An indicator which makes the pilot aware of divergent AoA sensor readings is a paid upgrade.

Though I also have to agree, as soon as this sensor's input became crucial to determining operational boundary conditions, the system needed some rather stringent hardening. It's a bit like leaving your auto-scaling load balancing infrastructure exposed and getting upset at your AWS bill the first time someone DDoS's it to inflate your hosting footprint.

Yes, like if your car overaccelerates what you have to do is just turn the volume one notch up.

This is more like car over-accelerates, open the boot door.

I'm sure no offence was intended, but I'd be quite upset if I heard an engineer say a fix is "no big deal" if I were grieving a lost family member.

Pretty sure that was sarcasm. Boeing is basically saying, there is an automated system that causes planes to crash, and to turn it off you need to perform some completely unintuitive sequence of actions. These planes should not be allowed to fly.

This is the most deadpan comment I've ever read.

So if I don't like a black person I can just arrest them because he seems shifty?

Effectively yes, you can do that as a cop in most justice systems if you can dress up the "seems shifty" in a bit more concrete terms.

But if there is nothing to back it up, the guy will be realeased very soon, and if you do it repeatedly, you'll eventually get problems (and rather quickly and seriously if you lied and it can be proven).

A little bizarre to see "them" followed by "he"...

I guess the question here is what about him makes him seem shifty to you. One would at least hope his skin color would not be factoring into that and that your judgment would have been the same for anybody else exhibiting the same behavior.

Just another case of humans being unable to accept the fact that computers are better than them.

I will keep this in my monetisation handbook. "If I had cancer I would be wiped out which is why XYZ is no longer free. thx for your support"

But the non-pretty version of Dwarf Fortress is still free and will continue to be free. If that weren't the case there would probably be quite some backlash from the community.

Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments to Hacker News?

The point I am making is that war has and will always be part of human societies and therefore all technological progress will be applied to warfare. There's no point to complaining about potential use of new tech in war the same way that there's no point in complaining about the laws of physics.

I just thought I didn't need to spell it out.

then we will communicate in the shade

modern open-sourcers don't care about software freedom. They want free contributors and marketshare so they can 'monetise' and 'exit'.

Gotta learn to spot the fakes.

well my secret document says you're wrong and i'm right.