7 ms·

You would think that equipment valued at $12m would have safety features to prevent damage from rogue commands. Interesting.

hga 13y ago
Given that he has the source code to the controlling software it's probably a home brew system. He's no doubt learned some important lessons, but I can't find destroying $12 million in equipment in any way funny. [c0deporn has updated his original to the more accurate and appropriate "interesting".]
- c0deporn 13y ago
  Good point about a home brew setup. I suppose my "funny" statement was insensitive. I only meant it was an interesting situation.
- CaveTech 13y ago
  It is however very unlikely that he actually lost $12m in equipment. Most likely there was some damage done, but no where near that amount. If someone broke a $12m machine, surely their career would be over.
  - ajross 13y ago
    This is an important point. We're so accustomed to the low-margin consumer world sometimes that we forget that equipment can be repaired. Broken physical enclosures can be replaced, dead motors can be replaced, PCBs can be replaced and in extreme cases even the SMT components on them can be reworked for much less than the total cost of production (which likely included things like service agreements already).
  - tlarkworthy 13y ago
    hopefully the code they posted was not theirs.
  - dagw 13y ago
    If someone broke a $12m machine, surely their career would be over. Who would you rather have working on your $12m machine, someone with no real experience with that sort of hardware or someone with plenty of experience and some painfully learned lessons about exactly how careful you have to be when working with brittle $12m machines.
    - saalweachter 13y ago
      Eh, sometimes you fire the guy. There are two philosophies of justice: retributive and utilitarian. Retributive justice is about punishing the guilty. If you destroy a $12 million machine, you deserve to have $12 million taken away from you. Most people don't have $12 million, so the retributive boss will take away as much as he can: fire you and file suit if he can and badmouth you to other companies so you never work again. Utilitarian justice is about preventing future harm. It's not about punishing the guy who pushed the button on destroying $12 million of hardware, it's about preventing future hardware losses. You fire the guy if you think he's likely to destroy more hardware in the future, because maybe he was negligent and careless or even malicious. You keep the guy if he was just in the wrong place at the wrong time, and any other competent employee would have made the same call and inflicted the same loss. So while the "$12 million in training" line is a great ice-breaker for making the poor guy feel better, if someone broke a $1 million machine, then a $2 million machine (after all, he has $1 million of training now), then a $3 million machine, then a $6 million machine, would you say, "Great, he's got $12 million of training! Let's put him in charge of our $12 million machine!"?
  - ivix 13y ago
    Why do you say so? Do you suppose that a test pilot gets fired if their plane crashes?
    - joering2 13y ago
      If they pilot recklessly (reckless java code?), then yes they would either not make it out of flight simulator or barely make any flights until they grounded for a long time.
    - neurotech1 13y ago
      Lockheed test pilot Tom Morganfeld didn't. After crashing a YF-22 prototype, he was selected for the first X-35 test flight. Another Lockheed test pilot wrecked a F-16E at an airshow practice and ejected with injuries now flies F-35s.
      - fencepost 13y ago
        As punishment?
  - bigchewy 13y ago
    actually, they just received $12M in training on how to not make that type of mistake ever again. Sounds like a great hire to me, especially if they will be undervalued in the market by others
- tootie 13y ago
  It's funny because it's not me.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
mpyne 13y ago
Those who do not read the history of Therac-25 apparently are doomed to repeat it. If the hardware can be destructive under the control of software then you must have hardware interlocks, not just software safety features.
- kwantam 13y ago
  Huh. I learned a different lesson from Therac-25: "never write mission-critical software." :) For those who haven't read it, http://sunnyday.mit.edu/papers/therac.pdf http://sunnyday.mit.edu/papers/therac.pdf
  - mikeash 13y ago
    There are three kinds of programmers: 1. Those who read about Therac-25 and decide never to work on any systems where bugs could threaten lives (your chosen course, and mine). 2. Those who read about Therac-25, get frightened, and work very carefully on such systems. 3. Those who read about Therac-25 and think, "Those idiots! Good thing I'd never make a mistake like that." The prevalence of (3) in all professions and walks of life is kind of frightening.
    - hga 13y ago
      Your 3 is a bit more complicated, I think: If you dig into the details of why its programmers and their managers killed people, it's very easy to say "I'd never be that irresponsible", but still screw up with much more subtle bugs.
      - mikeash 13y ago
        They may have been (2) and just weren't sufficiently careful. The inclusion of (3) isn't meant as a criticism of the Therac team, but rather humanity in general.
        logicallee 13y ago
        "My comments were not aimed at the Therac team, but at humanity in general." :)

hga 13y ago

Given that he has the source code to the controlling software it's probably a home brew system. He's no doubt learned some important lessons, but I can't find destroying $12 million in equipment in any way funny. [c0deporn has updated his original to the more accurate and appropriate "interesting".]

c0deporn 13y ago
Good point about a home brew setup. I suppose my "funny" statement was insensitive. I only meant it was an interesting situation.
CaveTech 13y ago
It is however very unlikely that he actually lost $12m in equipment. Most likely there was some damage done, but no where near that amount. If someone broke a $12m machine, surely their career would be over.
- ajross 13y ago
  This is an important point. We're so accustomed to the low-margin consumer world sometimes that we forget that equipment can be repaired. Broken physical enclosures can be replaced, dead motors can be replaced, PCBs can be replaced and in extreme cases even the SMT components on them can be reworked for much less than the total cost of production (which likely included things like service agreements already).
- tlarkworthy 13y ago
  hopefully the code they posted was not theirs.
- dagw 13y ago
  If someone broke a $12m machine, surely their career would be over. Who would you rather have working on your $12m machine, someone with no real experience with that sort of hardware or someone with plenty of experience and some painfully learned lessons about exactly how careful you have to be when working with brittle $12m machines.
  - saalweachter 13y ago
    Eh, sometimes you fire the guy. There are two philosophies of justice: retributive and utilitarian. Retributive justice is about punishing the guilty. If you destroy a $12 million machine, you deserve to have $12 million taken away from you. Most people don't have $12 million, so the retributive boss will take away as much as he can: fire you and file suit if he can and badmouth you to other companies so you never work again. Utilitarian justice is about preventing future harm. It's not about punishing the guy who pushed the button on destroying $12 million of hardware, it's about preventing future hardware losses. You fire the guy if you think he's likely to destroy more hardware in the future, because maybe he was negligent and careless or even malicious. You keep the guy if he was just in the wrong place at the wrong time, and any other competent employee would have made the same call and inflicted the same loss. So while the "$12 million in training" line is a great ice-breaker for making the poor guy feel better, if someone broke a $1 million machine, then a $2 million machine (after all, he has $1 million of training now), then a $3 million machine, then a $6 million machine, would you say, "Great, he's got $12 million of training! Let's put him in charge of our $12 million machine!"?
- ivix 13y ago
  Why do you say so? Do you suppose that a test pilot gets fired if their plane crashes?
  - joering2 13y ago
    If they pilot recklessly (reckless java code?), then yes they would either not make it out of flight simulator or barely make any flights until they grounded for a long time.
  - neurotech1 13y ago
    Lockheed test pilot Tom Morganfeld didn't. After crashing a YF-22 prototype, he was selected for the first X-35 test flight. Another Lockheed test pilot wrecked a F-16E at an airshow practice and ejected with injuries now flies F-35s.
    - fencepost 13y ago
      As punishment?
- bigchewy 13y ago
  actually, they just received $12M in training on how to not make that type of mistake ever again. Sounds like a great hire to me, especially if they will be undervalued in the market by others
tootie 13y ago
It's funny because it's not me.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

mpyne 13y ago

Those who do not read the history of Therac-25 apparently are doomed to repeat it. If the hardware can be destructive under the control of software then you must have hardware interlocks, not just software safety features.

kwantam 13y ago
Huh. I learned a different lesson from Therac-25: "never write mission-critical software." :) For those who haven't read it, http://sunnyday.mit.edu/papers/therac.pdf http://sunnyday.mit.edu/papers/therac.pdf
- mikeash 13y ago
  There are three kinds of programmers: 1. Those who read about Therac-25 and decide never to work on any systems where bugs could threaten lives (your chosen course, and mine). 2. Those who read about Therac-25, get frightened, and work very carefully on such systems. 3. Those who read about Therac-25 and think, "Those idiots! Good thing I'd never make a mistake like that." The prevalence of (3) in all professions and walks of life is kind of frightening.
  - hga 13y ago
    Your 3 is a bit more complicated, I think: If you dig into the details of why its programmers and their managers killed people, it's very easy to say "I'd never be that irresponsible", but still screw up with much more subtle bugs.
    - mikeash 13y ago
      They may have been (2) and just weren't sufficiently careful. The inclusion of (3) isn't meant as a criticism of the Therac team, but rather humanity in general.
      - logicallee 13y ago
        "My comments were not aimed at the Therac team, but at humanity in general." :)