3 ms·
It's a bit bizarre that you bring up incompetent engineers but then as an example you mention planes, which are incredibly safe, just because you have to reboot
by hsjqllzlfkf 3y ago
It's a bit bizarre that you bring up incompetent engineers but then as an example you mention planes, which are incredibly safe, just because you have to reboot them. It's as if your entire understanding of engineering is writing webapps, and for whom developer-niceties are the main goal, and the value to the user is secondary.
No, planes are a TERRIBLE example of incompetent engineers and your arrogance is breathtaking.
- godelski 3y agoI think there's a software engineering bias. Unless you work on critical systems you can generally "move fast and break things." But in the rest of the engineering world this kills people and is often illegal (e.g. aircraft). You're legally liable. We can even notice this with the difference in software on more critical systems vs non-critical. Compute systems on cars are not the same compute systems in your computer, and are way under powered in comparison. These systems don't fail often, but are slow and most complaints are about how they lack features. On the other hand, my laundry room app has washers in a semi-randomized order (room order 4,6,7,3,11,9,...) and the programmer clearly doesn't know about the sort function. You don't see planes falling out of the sky because of computer issues despite the whole system being fly by wire and that planes mostly fly themselves. Same goes for cars. But you do see washing machines and Twitter fail all the time. These things have different objectives and when you compare you have to consider the different goals.