4 ms·

It's abundantly clear from the replies in this thread that people are thinking emotionally, not rationally. They're pissed off at their phone, and reaching for

It's abundantly clear from the replies in this thread that people are thinking emotionally, not rationally. They're pissed off at their phone, and reaching for the biggest stick they can find -- not to fix the problem, but to punish whoever caused it. Likely, they wouldn't even punish the right person, it would just be a scapegoat sacrificed to appease their wrath. Your comment is right on the nose when it comes to thinking rationally, and not emotionally. A smart phone is not like the flight computers on a 747. If you want guaranteed 911 access with the threat of criminal prosecution if it fails, I'll happily design you a device. It will cost $50k, and will have a monthly service fee of $1000 per user. It won't have any other features besides 911. But it will work! People just don't know what they're demanding.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
dessant 4y ago
There is a difference between initial product design (also needs to follow regulations, but not the main topic of discussion), and failure to act on repeated bug reports spanning years that clearly describe software bugs which disrupt emergency calls on Android phones. There is not much to defend in their conduct.
dagmx 4y ago
I would argue that you’re the one who’s having the emotional reaction , not the rational one, when it comes to involving authorities and legally mandated access to emergency services. You are clearly unaware of the legal requirements here.
- libria 4y ago
  > You are clearly unaware of the legal requirements here. I am definitely unaware. If you do know the specific law/infraction, please link to it as that would help the discussion. It doesn't help to vaguely hand-wave (emotionally I would argue) "Someone should go to jail!!". As I asked above, which people? How much jail? And what are the clearly defined laws? There are engineers that deal directly with code critical to public safety and the amount of verification, compliance, testing, authorization, permits, processes, legal reviews, etc involved in that pipeline increase costs and delays 10-fold, but they are extremely safe and reliable. Not saying we shouldn't do this for an emergency device, but it most certainly will not be cost-free, few engineers would want to be involved and consumers will not want to buy it.
  - dagmx 4y ago
    First of all…did you change to an alt account? I don’t see libria anywhere in my reply chain above but you’re responding as if you’re bjt2n3904 Secondly nobody mentioned jail. Criminal investigation doesn’t mean jail time especially for corporations. Criminal negligence can just mean fines and a requirement to resolve the issue You’re also acting as if people are saying the whole device and all software should be infallible. That’s not the requirement. Legally any cellular device needs to be able to contact emergency services as long as there are no extenuating circumstances (dead battery, no connectivity). This is federally mandated in many countries. That Google has repeated failures to do so, across multiple countries and across a long period of time means that they are in violation of government rules. You’re being intentionally obtuse on these points.
michaelmrose 4y ago
All phones likely have bugs which could lead to crashes which means it could in theory just happen to experience an issue concurrently with the users attempting to call 911 resulting in a failure. However your base image should have few to zero such bugs and such failures just happening to coincide with an emergency call are or ought to be statistically very unlikely. The issue is not that a crash could happen its that a specific crash happens specifically when the user tries to place an emergency call triggered by the code that is supposed to run when the user makes such a call making failure statistically much more likely. Worse this has been a known issue since 2021. People aren't asking for space shuttle quality engineering they are asking for the same statistical probability of failure as any other good quality phone. It is deeply ironic that while you insist others don't know what they are demanding you clearly have no idea what they are demanding.
omginternets 4y ago
You seem to be (intentionally?) missing the point, which is that a known-dangerous bug was not promptly fixed. The mental gymnastics required to turn this into something other than criminal negligence are ... olympic.
verisimilitudes 4y ago
It's really disgusting to see someone argue that people don't want to pay for quality, when old phones worked. Now, the pilpul here will be to claim that those old phones totally didn't actually work, they just appeared to basically always work, so it's totally the same thing; it's not. The fact of the matter is that old phones may not have been formally-proven to work, but basically worked. The new phones aren't formally-proven to work, and basically don't. > People just don't know what they're demanding. As a programmer, I want the cretins claiming to be programmers to face justice for their disgusting work, about which they're so smug and condescending.
dylan604 4y ago
>A smart phone is not like the flight computers on a 747. You're right. They're about as reliable as the flight computers on a 737 Max instead

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

dessant 4y ago

There is a difference between initial product design (also needs to follow regulations, but not the main topic of discussion), and failure to act on repeated bug reports spanning years that clearly describe software bugs which disrupt emergency calls on Android phones. There is not much to defend in their conduct.

dagmx 4y ago

I would argue that you’re the one who’s having the emotional reaction , not the rational one, when it comes to involving authorities and legally mandated access to emergency services. You are clearly unaware of the legal requirements here.

libria 4y ago
> You are clearly unaware of the legal requirements here. I am definitely unaware. If you do know the specific law/infraction, please link to it as that would help the discussion. It doesn't help to vaguely hand-wave (emotionally I would argue) "Someone should go to jail!!". As I asked above, which people? How much jail? And what are the clearly defined laws? There are engineers that deal directly with code critical to public safety and the amount of verification, compliance, testing, authorization, permits, processes, legal reviews, etc involved in that pipeline increase costs and delays 10-fold, but they are extremely safe and reliable. Not saying we shouldn't do this for an emergency device, but it most certainly will not be cost-free, few engineers would want to be involved and consumers will not want to buy it.
- dagmx 4y ago
  First of all…did you change to an alt account? I don’t see libria anywhere in my reply chain above but you’re responding as if you’re bjt2n3904 Secondly nobody mentioned jail. Criminal investigation doesn’t mean jail time especially for corporations. Criminal negligence can just mean fines and a requirement to resolve the issue You’re also acting as if people are saying the whole device and all software should be infallible. That’s not the requirement. Legally any cellular device needs to be able to contact emergency services as long as there are no extenuating circumstances (dead battery, no connectivity). This is federally mandated in many countries. That Google has repeated failures to do so, across multiple countries and across a long period of time means that they are in violation of government rules. You’re being intentionally obtuse on these points.

michaelmrose 4y ago

All phones likely have bugs which could lead to crashes which means it could in theory just happen to experience an issue concurrently with the users attempting to call 911 resulting in a failure. However your base image should have few to zero such bugs and such failures just happening to coincide with an emergency call are or ought to be statistically very unlikely. The issue is not that a crash could happen its that a specific crash happens specifically when the user tries to place an emergency call triggered by the code that is supposed to run when the user makes such a call making failure statistically much more likely. Worse this has been a known issue since 2021. People aren't asking for space shuttle quality engineering they are asking for the same statistical probability of failure as any other good quality phone. It is deeply ironic that while you insist others don't know what they are demanding you clearly have no idea what they are demanding.

omginternets 4y ago

You seem to be (intentionally?) missing the point, which is that a known-dangerous bug was not promptly fixed. The mental gymnastics required to turn this into something other than criminal negligence are ... olympic.

verisimilitudes 4y ago

It's really disgusting to see someone argue that people don't want to pay for quality, when old phones worked. Now, the pilpul here will be to claim that those old phones totally didn't actually work, they just appeared to basically always work, so it's totally the same thing; it's not. The fact of the matter is that old phones may not have been formally-proven to work, but basically worked. The new phones aren't formally-proven to work, and basically don't. > People just don't know what they're demanding. As a programmer, I want the cretins claiming to be programmers to face justice for their disgusting work, about which they're so smug and condescending.

dylan604 4y ago

>A smart phone is not like the flight computers on a 747. You're right. They're about as reliable as the flight computers on a 737 Max instead