2 ms·
Except when they do matter, like the Therac-25 deaths or those 737 MAX crashes.
by crooked-v 3y ago
Except when they do matter, like the Therac-25 deaths or those 737 MAX crashes.
- nawgz 3y ago> 737 MAX crashes To imply this was a software bug is a pretty silly representation - the system was poorly engineered and didn't have proper contingencies for sensor disagreement. This is pretty clearly a design/engineering error with a software component. Besides, the guy said "rarely ever matter" for a reason, not "explicitly never impact things"... Bit of a silly comment from you IMO
- bumby 3y agoTo view software in isolation is an equally silly representation. In the physical world, software is part of an overall system that needs to be considered holistically. Most major safety-critical mishaps are the result of several failures, often across different domains. In the case of the 737MAX, the software was a design around a physical constraint; that doesn't mean the software doesn't matter. Most software is designed as a workaround of a certain physical or mental constraint.
- BossingAround 3y agoIf you're referring to MCAS in 737, the software itself wasn't the main problem; I'd say that the main problem was that it wasn't even a documented feature (let alone the engineering of the system itself). The pilot couldn't even turn MCAS off originally. That's not a software thing, that's a "who the F designed this" thing.