3 ms·

Plants still have skilled human operators that know better what they need at that exact moment than whoever programmed the system ages ago, like a pilot should

Plants still have skilled human operators that know better what they need at that exact moment than whoever programmed the system ages ago, like a pilot should be able to fly a plane according to his inputs, so unless you are a system programmer that wants phone calls from all of the projects you have ever worked on saying “the system won’t let us do x” you give the owner all of the tools they might need to do whatever they might want with their equipment. Confirmations to ensure setting is entered accurately and logging of changing of settings and by whom are good ideas though.

cratermoon 6y ago
> you give the owner all of the tools they might need to do whatever they might want with their equipment Are you quite confident that is how engineering works?
- strgcmc 6y ago
  The 737 Max fiasco to me is a sign that yes, this is how engineering should work. For example, a well engineered plane allows the pilots to control the fuel flow to engines, but also does not allow pilots to dump fuel into the passenger compartment. Much engineering goes into, how to isolate the toxic chemicals of fuel or other fluids/gases away from the passenger compartment. So you have freedom, but you also have constraints. Likewise, a well engineered plane probably should allow pilots to fly the plane according to their needs, rather than overriding their inputs as they fight to point the nose up while the plane decides that no you really want the nose down right now. Of course the pilots should've disengaged MCAS, but in a crisis it's bad engineering to force operators to remember which unhelpful/murderous system needs to be disabled in order to avoid catastrophe. The system took too much agency away from the operators, and violated the principle as espoused by that comment you're quoting.
  - cratermoon 6y ago
    You're conflating "owner" with "operator". The airlines bought the 737Max because they calculated it could increase profits. The operators – pilots – were not sufficiently involved in designing, implementing, or documenting MCAS to even know they should be advocating for agency.
- rhodozelia 6y ago
  Do you have a different approach to providing equipment to utilities?
  - cratermoon 6y ago
    If "building in safety mechanisms to protect human life" is a different approach than what's done now, then yes. There's a reason the US never built and licensed commercial nuclear reactors like the RBMK, and it's not because the utility companies said they preferred the design that's more expensive to build and operate.
    - rhodozelia 6y ago
      Sure plants have safety mechanisms to protect human Life. So does your car, but it will still let you do stupid things with it. Sometimes they are ok: person in the car is injured and I need to drive in a way that might normally be unsafe. The machine can’t make the judgement calls about when it is ok to operate outside of the normal desired operating envelope. Machines have physical limits and usually they are built to protect themselves from damage, but you can still crash a plane or a car or put a brick on your gas pedal and leave the car in neutral and destroy your engine. In this specific case I imagine the plant wasn’t physically capable of dosing at that rate - and there should be alarms if the outgoing water is outside the desired operating parameters.

cratermoon 6y ago

> you give the owner all of the tools they might need to do whatever they might want with their equipment Are you quite confident that is how engineering works?

strgcmc 6y ago
The 737 Max fiasco to me is a sign that yes, this is how engineering should work. For example, a well engineered plane allows the pilots to control the fuel flow to engines, but also does not allow pilots to dump fuel into the passenger compartment. Much engineering goes into, how to isolate the toxic chemicals of fuel or other fluids/gases away from the passenger compartment. So you have freedom, but you also have constraints. Likewise, a well engineered plane probably should allow pilots to fly the plane according to their needs, rather than overriding their inputs as they fight to point the nose up while the plane decides that no you really want the nose down right now. Of course the pilots should've disengaged MCAS, but in a crisis it's bad engineering to force operators to remember which unhelpful/murderous system needs to be disabled in order to avoid catastrophe. The system took too much agency away from the operators, and violated the principle as espoused by that comment you're quoting.
- cratermoon 6y ago
  You're conflating "owner" with "operator". The airlines bought the 737Max because they calculated it could increase profits. The operators – pilots – were not sufficiently involved in designing, implementing, or documenting MCAS to even know they should be advocating for agency.
rhodozelia 6y ago
Do you have a different approach to providing equipment to utilities?
- cratermoon 6y ago
  If "building in safety mechanisms to protect human life" is a different approach than what's done now, then yes. There's a reason the US never built and licensed commercial nuclear reactors like the RBMK, and it's not because the utility companies said they preferred the design that's more expensive to build and operate.
  - rhodozelia 6y ago
    Sure plants have safety mechanisms to protect human Life. So does your car, but it will still let you do stupid things with it. Sometimes they are ok: person in the car is injured and I need to drive in a way that might normally be unsafe. The machine can’t make the judgement calls about when it is ok to operate outside of the normal desired operating envelope. Machines have physical limits and usually they are built to protect themselves from damage, but you can still crash a plane or a car or put a brick on your gas pedal and leave the car in neutral and destroy your engine. In this specific case I imagine the plant wasn’t physically capable of dosing at that rate - and there should be alarms if the outgoing water is outside the desired operating parameters.