6 ms·
For an external party, having access to the 45 GB is the easy part. Now, you will need to create a company and supplier base the size of Boeing to make any use
by npalli 3y ago
For an external party, having access to the 45 GB is the easy part. Now, you will need to create a company and supplier base the size of Boeing to make any use of this :-)
- hrdwdmrbl 3y agoChina
- bozhark 3y agoAlready had it
- npalli 3y ago1. They probably already have it :-) 2. Imagine the sheer pain of duplicating every single process and spec to the minutest detail, nobody is flying an airplane that only 'works' 99.99% of the time. Probably easier to start from scratch and learn it. BTW, this was tried by Russia in the all through the '80s, they tried to steal all advanced tech. but by the time they duplicated the stolen technology, the next generation appeared. A losing battle.
- reactordev 3y agoSounds a lot like software forks… cough Not the ones that were forked due to abandonment, but the forks due to “irreconcilable differences”.
- denimnerd42 3y agoor hadoop
- ethbr1 3y ago> nobody is flying an airplane that only 'works' 99.99% of the time Might I introduce you to the Tupolev Tu-134? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_incidents_involving_the_Tupolev_Tu-134 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_incide...
- throw0101b 3y ago> Might I introduce you to the Tupolev Tu-134? Also perhaps the 737-MAX. :) * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maneuvering_Characteristics_Augmentation_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maneuvering_Characteristics_Au...
- verdverm 3y agoGiven how much the max family and 8 are flown, I don't think this holds up. Some searching says... 1. >1000 flights per day for the family 2. 2 US carriers accounting for more than 200 Max 8 per day So one would have to get to 20,000 flights after two crashes to get 2 nines. We're well past that threshold
- Xixi 3y agoFrom inception to the second crash, numbers were abysmal. The 737 Max was crashing at a rate of about one per hundred thousand flights, two order of magnitude worse that the 737 NG (one fatal crash per 10 million flights). Said differently, the Max 8 was working safely 99.999% of the time, while the 737 NG was working safely 99.99999% of the time. An order of magnitude better than 99.99%, but two orders of magnitude worse than expected... It is certainly a lot safer now. Hopefully even better than the 737 NG.
- throwaway318 3y agoThe probability of not having a crash after 20,000 flights, with 99.99% chance per flight, assuming no serial correlation, is 13%.
- verdverm 3y agoYes, there is a better, more accurate method than my napkin math, which was only to provide a baseline most could understand to see we are well beyond the two nines
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- johann8384 3y ago> nobody is flying an airplane that only 'works' 99.99% of the time The 737 Max 8.
- deaddodo 3y agoAlready addressed in another thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38358542 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38358542
- thret 3y agoBoeing are a major defence contractor, I'm sure at least some of the information is secret.
- newuser94303 3y agoA defense contractor should have better security
- martinsnow 3y agoReally
- SomeRndName11 3y ago1. It was USSR, not Russia. For many who were USSR citizen till 1991, but neither ethnically or geographically Russians, this rubs very wrong way. 2. Aviation in the USSR was developing completely independent, and you can accuse USSR in stealing technology in many areas but certainly not in aviation.
- baz00 3y agoThat wouldn't even help. It'd have to be part of the original supply chain and certification chain for anything to be allowed out of the country that cloned any parts.
- panarky 3y agoIf it doesn't matter that it's public, then why did Boeing try to keep it secret?
- worthless-trash 3y agoBecause they can't tell the future, its better to have the cards than not.
- lallysingh 3y agoI can imagine this complicating any supplier contract negotiations. "you pay X $50/unit more for the same device, etc."
- alexpotato 3y agoI remember taking a procurement class in graduate school(MBA). One of the more interesting points of discussion was that when big companies negotiate purchase agreements for parts, the actual cost of the parts can be very transparent. The negotiation is generally about the actual markup e.g. "I think we should pay X% over cost. Someone, logically, brought up: "What if the company is not willing to share the cost upfront?". The professor responded: "Well, if it's a public company you can generally deduce a rough cost/part and use that as your starting point in the negotiation" Student: "Well what if the company says we're wrong?" Professor: "No problem: ask them what the correct number is. If they don't want to give it to you, ask them how you expect to have a long term partnership if you are not willing to talk openly and honestly about things like parts costs."
- wordpad25 3y agoThat's kind of a softball, can easily be counted with "part costs vary a lot based on the market" or something like, regardless of cost we guarantee you this price point No business wants to share it's internal costs, it's their prime competitive advantage
- nullindividual 3y agoWhen your only business is the Lazy B, you’re going to cooperate.
- aksss 3y agoIf the deal is big enough, it’s absolutely on the table. These are “cost plus” contracts. See Walmart and the federal government for examples of consumers that require these terms. Now, the federal government, particularly with drugs pricing, turns a blind eye towards the suppliers just jacking up the purported cost. E.g. Pharma:“we want to make $100 per pill, it costs us $5 to produce”. Fed: “we demand cost + 10%, because the people”. Pharma:”Fine, let’s say it costs $90 to produce.” Fed:”Where do I sign?” Whereas Walmart would say to somebody like Nabisco, “GFY; if you want your product on our shelves, you’ll open your books and give us audited cost + 10%”.
- toasted-subs 3y agoYeah the margins in that enterprise are pretty small not something you can franchise.
- qwertox 3y agoIt could be a real security issue, depending on the kind of data.
- photochemsyn 3y ago"Security by obscurity alone is discouraged and not recommended by standards bodies."
- clnq 3y agoAh, well so long as it's discouraged... I'm sure no one's critical systems would depend on it, right?
- justinclift 3y agoThis is Boeing we're talking about. They stopped being any kind of competent a few decades ago. :(
- qwertox 3y agoI'm not sure you could really add some kind of protection to somewhat unprotected cables, hoses or pipes which must run behind the passenger compartment walls.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- est 3y ago> Now, you will need to create a company and supplier base the size of Boeing to make any use of this China: hold my baijiu
- paledot 3y agoGuaranteed they already have the data they want.
- SR2Z 3y agoThen why hasn't COMAC produced a viable jetliner?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- dghlsakjg 3y agoBecause having the plans for something and having capability, materials and funding to do it are two different things.
- testrun 3y agoAccording to Wikipedia Comac has orders in the range of $26 billion for the C919.
- elsonrodriguez 3y agoThe same article notes that they are using an engine by GE/Safran, and that there was espionage involved in the development of the C919.
- pyuser583 3y agoIf only .001% of the population of China bought a 747.
- lolive 3y agoAirbus needed a corpus to train its LLM. Now they have.
- Thervicarl 3y agoThis should guide them if they want to modify existing airliners so they are better equipped to crash into the ground, 737 MAX style. No thanks.
- KRAKRISMOTT 3y agoThey just need to ask the British Prime Minister. His father in law's company is where those jobs get outsourced to for cheap.