4 ms·

The way I read it they are not detecting malfunctioning sensors, but essentially a computer fault caused by it's inability to deal with erroneous input. Rather

by tus88 7y ago

The way I read it they are not detecting malfunctioning sensors, but essentially a computer fault caused by it's inability to deal with erroneous input. Rather than fixing the computer, they are essentially wrapping a great big try/catch around it....good God.

comex 7y ago
That interpretation seems like a stretch to me.
- selestify 7y ago
  The way it's worded, that's exactly the interpretation that a lot of us in this thread get. If this is not actually the case, they should really word it differently.
  - ethbro 7y ago
    This is the same Bloomberg that reported on the SuperMicro hardware "compromise."
raverbashing 7y ago
> are not detecting malfunctioning sensors Because most of the time you can't. There is no reliable way of knowing when the sensor is lying to you. You might try to reduce the probability of it happening and try to make it warn you (for example, redundancy, etc), but in aviation, even things that have a probability of failure of 10e-6 or even lower must be considered. 0% chance of reading an erroneous value doesn't exist. The computer can deal with suspected erroneous input: it can ignore it. There. That's the standard way.
linuxftw 7y ago
But what's erroneous input? A bit is flipped? A .1V increase over 0 makes it a logical 1, when it should be .3V? I mean, this is the domain of computer/electrical engineers in the first place, to prevent these kind of problems. This is what happens when you outsource your critical components to 3rd parties.