3 ms·
yes. and to add to this, the fitness for use in some safety critical system, and we talk about functional safety here, is strictly regulated. functional safety
by froh 6y ago
yes. and to add to this, the fitness for use in some safety critical system, and we talk about functional safety here, is strictly regulated. functional safety requires process discipline at the system level, evidence based engineering and evidences for soundness of scrutiny, at the system level and then down to the components.
in that light it is a moral obligation to remind consumers of the technology about their obligations. The legalese may sound just evasive, and motivated by the us environment of litigations by stupid people, but seriously: fitness for use is am obligation of the systems engineer, not the provider of FOSS.
elisa.tech is a community to enable Linux in safety applications. even there, the responsibility is with the consumer of their work, they also just seek methods and inputs for system safety engineering, which, when used by a system safety engineer may lead to a certifiable, and then liability covered device. like an adas system powered by Linux.
- visarga 6y ago> the responsibility is with the consumer of their work This would also apply to the problem of web search and social network monopolies. The way I see it: let Google and FB develop or host a plurality of ranking, filtering and UI variants, and let the users decide their preferred flavor. Then they can't complain about bias. There would be a Republican Google and a Democrat Google and a EFF Google and a BLM Google to pick from. They are now like single TV channels with unified editorial stance, they should be more like cable networks. Give people the remote for content ranking, filtering and UI.
- froh 6y agomy google search results should be different from yours already, no? likewise our FB streams... and you choose your profile not via drop down but with your engagement with and liking and disliking of content?