4 ms·

I think software has existed in computer systems for 7 or 8 decades now - and the pitfalls are well understood. I think the problem is one of simplicity vs com

by anonu 8y ago

I think software has existed in computer systems for 7 or 8 decades now - and the pitfalls are well understood. I think the problem is one of simplicity vs complexity. New systems today rely on dozens - hundreds even - of packages and libraries - many of which are not written by the implementer. How can you ensure reliability in all these components? This is why engineering from first principles - even in today's software development environment - is important. Unfortunately, the trends are in the other direction.

dmead 8y ago
you would be wrong.
- AnimalMuppet 8y ago
  That's not a very useful reply. Can you explain where anonu is wrong? Can you explain why? Can you give some evidence? A bare dismissal is like five-year-olds arguing: "Did too!" "Did not!" It's not useful to advance the conversation, and it's not effective at persuading people.
  - noir_lord 8y ago
    It's quite possible that software creates new failure modes (as programmers I'm sure we all feel that to be true some days) while at the same time preventing more. When the software fails (if it did) we assume the software makes it more dangerous because we have a concrete example of what happened but not what could have happened in it's absence. This is what may eventually stall self driving cars for many years, the first time one does the PR equivalent of smashing through the local orphanage. We as a society are notoriously poor at assessing systemic risks. Now to address your point about evidence, I'm curious how you could control for other confounding factors. Airliners are safer today than ever before (based on passenger miles) but how do you control for better engines, material science, procedures if you compare say 1979 to 2019.
    - AnimalMuppet 8y ago
      Statistically? I don't know. But I have a friend who's an airline pilot. He was telling me about hitting windshear while coming in for a landing. The plane has software that not only tells him that he hit windshear, but also tells him what angle to put the nose at for best results. (The problem is airspeed. So you go to full power, but pitching the nose down also helps you gain airspeed. But the ground is down there, because you're coming in for landing. What angle is the best? The computer can figure it out and tell the pilot what to do.)
      - noir_lord 8y ago
        Aye, Things like that the G3000 (Garmin avionics suite for light aircraft) that now do real time 3D terrain generation so that less experienced pilots can avoid controlled flight into terrain (literally the way they describe when a pilot in control smashes into a mountain). My suspicion is that modern computerised avionics are on balance a life saver but I'd love to know by how much. I ended up watching videos of modern avionics in light aircraft on youtube a while back (as you do) and I find that kind of programming fascinating, couldn't find much out about the actual hardware/software side of things though I did gather it runs a custom OS.
Retra 8y ago
The trend has always been in the other direction. It's easy to reason from first principles when the principles are simple. As more people become experts on our problems, the correct solutions become much more diverse and specialized, and it becomes harder and harder to build integrated systems from first principles.
jacquesm 8y ago
> I think software has existed in computer systems for 7 or 8 decades now - and the pitfalls are well understood. This would be funny if it weren't tragically wrong. Time and again we learn that software is very much not yet well understood, especially in large and complex systems. And aviation does this a lot better than most other lines of business.

by anonu 8y ago

dmead 8y ago

you would be wrong.

AnimalMuppet 8y ago
That's not a very useful reply. Can you explain where anonu is wrong? Can you explain why? Can you give some evidence? A bare dismissal is like five-year-olds arguing: "Did too!" "Did not!" It's not useful to advance the conversation, and it's not effective at persuading people.
- noir_lord 8y ago
  It's quite possible that software creates new failure modes (as programmers I'm sure we all feel that to be true some days) while at the same time preventing more. When the software fails (if it did) we assume the software makes it more dangerous because we have a concrete example of what happened but not what could have happened in it's absence. This is what may eventually stall self driving cars for many years, the first time one does the PR equivalent of smashing through the local orphanage. We as a society are notoriously poor at assessing systemic risks. Now to address your point about evidence, I'm curious how you could control for other confounding factors. Airliners are safer today than ever before (based on passenger miles) but how do you control for better engines, material science, procedures if you compare say 1979 to 2019.
  - AnimalMuppet 8y ago
    Statistically? I don't know. But I have a friend who's an airline pilot. He was telling me about hitting windshear while coming in for a landing. The plane has software that not only tells him that he hit windshear, but also tells him what angle to put the nose at for best results. (The problem is airspeed. So you go to full power, but pitching the nose down also helps you gain airspeed. But the ground is down there, because you're coming in for landing. What angle is the best? The computer can figure it out and tell the pilot what to do.)
    - noir_lord 8y ago
      Aye, Things like that the G3000 (Garmin avionics suite for light aircraft) that now do real time 3D terrain generation so that less experienced pilots can avoid controlled flight into terrain (literally the way they describe when a pilot in control smashes into a mountain). My suspicion is that modern computerised avionics are on balance a life saver but I'd love to know by how much. I ended up watching videos of modern avionics in light aircraft on youtube a while back (as you do) and I find that kind of programming fascinating, couldn't find much out about the actual hardware/software side of things though I did gather it runs a custom OS.

Retra 8y ago

The trend has always been in the other direction. It's easy to reason from first principles when the principles are simple. As more people become experts on our problems, the correct solutions become much more diverse and specialized, and it becomes harder and harder to build integrated systems from first principles.

jacquesm 8y ago

> I think software has existed in computer systems for 7 or 8 decades now - and the pitfalls are well understood. This would be funny if it weren't tragically wrong. Time and again we learn that software is very much not yet well understood, especially in large and complex systems. And aviation does this a lot better than most other lines of business.