Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The 1988 shooting down of Flight 655 as a user interface disaster

octodon.social

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

581–590 of 695 posts

Re: The 1988 shooting down of Flight 655 as a user interface disaster

#581

Post by m463 »

rootusrootus wrote: post #447
gosub100 wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> there are NO stalks. turn signals are touch areas on the steering wheel. so are high beams, horn, wipers I didn't realize how important wipers were till last winter. I was on a 2-lane road at highway speed going into a turn. There had been light snow the previous day which was thawed on the roads, so it was wet and muddy conditions. A truck in the oncoming lane either hit a puddle or otherwise deposited a large spl…

I'm not a fan of the removal of the stalks, but this deserves clarification. On the 2017-2023 Model 3, there's a button at the end of the left stalk that immediately activates the wiper. It's basically a mist button, which is also common on most every other car I've driven. So you can always get the wipers to activate instantly without getting anywhere near the touchscreen. On the 2024 Model 3, with no stalks, there…

what I hate is that stalks, even overloaded with too many functions, were in a specific place you could reach for and activate.

the steering wheel buttons move depending on which way you are steering.

maybe not a big deal when the radio volume is wrong when backing up.

Critical when you need to use the horn when backing out of a parking space.

Re: The 1988 shooting down of Flight 655 as a user interface disaster

#582

Post by 8372049 »

edrxty wrote: post #517
Johnny555 wrote: post #491

There seems to be a lot of trust in IFF in this incident, what would stop Iran from reprogramming their F-14's IFF to identify as as civilian aircraft (or if reprogramming isn't feasible, retrofitting a stolen civilian airliner's IFF system into an electronics pod on their F-14, I'm sure the Iranian government wouldn't have any trouble getting an aircraft from Iranian Airlines)? Do warships do any verification beyond…

First, very slight correction to the thread, most civilian craft have transponders, not IFF. They're kinda the same thing in practice but transponders just give out a static number, IFF is a cryptographic challenge response. I don't know how the navy does it when abroad, but anything entering or leaving a sensitive area will generally be on an ICAO style flight plan (entering US ADIZ/TFRs/DC SFRA etc) and it's a simp…

Great answer! For anyone wondering, NCTR is non-cooperative target recognition.

> If the aircraft is not responding at all to transponder interrogations you can assume it's hostile and presently attacking you or the pilot is forgetful and didn't flip the switch (choose wisely).

Unless the transponder is bent, M4 is badly updated for some reason, etc. etc. Better do a RAYGUN call or ask AEW&E to declare.

Re: The 1988 shooting down of Flight 655 as a user interface disaster

#583

Post by m463 »

dmix wrote: post #284
mavhc wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The left scroll wheel can: play/pause/next/previous/vol up/down in Normal mode If you press the wiper button on the steering wheel it can change wiper speed Long press is a custom function When there's a call it answers/declines, mute/unmute, and ends a call The right one actives autosteer/tacc/fsd, adjusts follow distance and max speed There's 3 buttons for left/right/high beam on the left, and on the right, buttons…

Yeah I’ve always been suspect of these critiques of Teslas UI. Besides the climate control you don’t really need to tap on the tablet for anything critical to driving WHILE driving. At least that was my experience in my brief experience with a 3. I’d still add maybe another physical dial for stuff like climate, maybe even make them programmable. But that’s for convenience. I find the rare times you need to use xdrive…

defrost is the big one with me.

not only is it on the touchscreen, it doesn't have a dedicated location, is hard to locate visually, then hard to hard to actually press (small target), all in a moving car and without affecting other controls.

also, turn on cabin lights? flash headlights off and on? sigh.

Re: The 1988 shooting down of Flight 655 as a user interface disaster

#584

Post by Nekhrimah »

xp84 wrote: post #551
grotorea wrote: post #98

Since we're on the topic, you know how much HN complains about touchscreens on cars? Now find out how replacing old school analog controls with software touchscreens UI partly led to the USS John S. McCain colliding: https://features.propublica.org/navy-uss-mccain-crash/navy-i...

This is a fascinating article. I feel like I am in my life constantly fighting against either haphazard UI like the one featured there, and the Apple-style UIs which attempt to optimize for beauty by shoving nearly everything (regardless of usefulness) into layers of "••• junk drawers" or little (i) icons. On a ship worth hundreds of billions of dollars, it was never considered that the Big Red Button should have a p…

What's the bet that there was no single approved requirements document covering this design.

Re: The 1988 shooting down of Flight 655 as a user interface disaster

#585

Post by Stratoscope »

m463 wrote: post #94

I wonder when a tesla will show up in a courtroom with a situation like this. I'm not talking about autopilot. I'm talking about the continuous (past ridiculous) removal of physical controls from their vehicles. For example, the original model S/X had dedicated controls for lots of functions - turn signals, gear shift, wipers, autopilot, steering wheel tilt, etc. On the steering wheel, there were two buttons and a sc…

This makes me appreciate my Kia EV6.

One side of the steering wheel has buttons for driving functions: cruise control, following distance, lane assist, etc. The other side has audio controls for radio channel selection and volume, voice input, start/end phone call, and a customizable button that I set to record a voice memo.

Behind the wheel are a pair of regenerative braking paddles that work much like the paddle shifters on some gas cars: left paddle increases regen, right paddle decreases it. That left button comes in handy on the rare occasion when I may want to slow down in a hurry without lighting up the brake lights. (I will leave it to the reader to speculate on why I may want to do that) The drive mode button (eco/standard/sport/winter) is below the horn button.

Two stalks for headlight/turn signal/etc. and wiper/washer control.

Dual screens: one in front of the driver with driving info: speed and speed limit, how much battery you're using or regening, etc. A touchscreen in the center for infotainment stuff.

Below the center screen is a dual mode touch panel for climate controls or radio/map/nav controls. I just leave this in climate mode. Physical knobs at each end of this panel that change roles for the two modes. The left side of this panel has front/rear defrost, recirculation, and auto climate which remain there in both modes.

The center console has physical buttons to turn the EV on or off, a physical R/N/D knob, and physical buttons for parking camera/auto parking and a couple of related features.

At the front of the center console are dedicated buttons for driver/passenger seat heating/ventilation and steering wheel heat. Oddly, these are touch buttons in my GT-Line but physical buttons (better!) in the lower-end Wind trim. In Australia the GT-Line keeps the physical buttons here.

Behind the steering wheel next to the door are physical buttons for panel illumination level, charge door and rear hatch opening, and a couple of other things.

The driver door has traditional buttons for mirror adjustment, lock/unlock, windows, and child lock.

After driving gas cars all my life, the first time I got in an EV6 it felt very comfortable, like a real car and not a science experiment.

Re: The 1988 shooting down of Flight 655 as a user interface disaster

#586

Post by harshbutfair »

pesfandiar wrote: post #579
subroutine wrote: post #457

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure what you are implying. The nature of the work described above was to prevent a disaster like the shooting down of commercial Flight 655 from ever happening again.

Nothing personal, just interesting to see how engineers think about how their work can harm other humans, yet some jobs are about creating machines or weapons meant for destruction.

In my previous job writing a naval combat system (not Aegis) I figured that I couldn't prevent warships from existing, but I could make the combat system better, safer, easier and less error-prone to use which would ultimately reduce the likelihood of people being killed inadvertently. But I totally respect people who choose not to work in defence.

Re: The 1988 shooting down of Flight 655 as a user interface disaster

#588

Post by scotty79 »

mardifoufs wrote: post #355
mlrtime wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not a "both sides" issue. Thought experiment for you. Q: What would happen today if Hamas and supporters permanently gave up all their weapons and surrendered? A: Israel would immediately stop any wartime action. Q: What would happen today if Israel gave up it's defenses and military, took down the borders? A: Iran and Hamas would kill every last Jew in Israel. They have to, it is their charter. Also, how man…

Yes that's exactly what happened in the west bank. Once they stopped fighting, they were left alone! Oh wait no, it just led to massive colonial projects backed by the Israeli government. Oopsie!

If you had to choose, would you prefer to live now in Gaza or the West Bank? Which community made the better choice then?

Re: The 1988 shooting down of Flight 655 as a user interface disaster

#589

Post by michael1999 »

smcl wrote: post #239

> they saw this contact heading towards them labeled as an F-14 fighter. What's wild to me is the assumption that Iran would suddenly launch a single F-14 fighter to attack a ship. Was there no moment where they thought "maybe there has been a mistake?" - like where Stanislav Petrov chose to interpret the Soviet early warning system telling him an ICBM was incoming as being a result of some faulty instruments. Grante…

All evidence is that Captain Will Rogers was a very different kind of person than Stanislav Petrov. The US military is famous for preferring "forward leaning" types.

https://admiralcloudberg.medium.com/the-long-shadow-of-war-t...

Re: The 1988 shooting down of Flight 655 as a user interface disaster

#590

Post by mardifoufs »

scotty79 wrote: post #588
mardifoufs wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes that's exactly what happened in the west bank. Once they stopped fighting, they were left alone! Oh wait no, it just led to massive colonial projects backed by the Israeli government. Oopsie!

If you had to choose, would you prefer to live now in Gaza or the West Bank? Which community made the better choice then?

That's an odd question. Obviously I'd rather live in the more peaceful side, but that has nothing to do with anything. If you had to chose between living in nazi occupied Paris and Stalingrad, which one would you chose? Does that mean that the Russians made a bad choice resisting the invaders?

For some people, living comfortably isn't the most important thing they can have. Not getting conquered, invaded, or literally colonized is a good thing. Don't you agree?

If Israel wants peace, it shouldn't push for massive colonization efforts and shouldn't use its army to back any colonist living in the Westbank when an armed group finally decides to lay down arms.

If psychopathy is the only way for a group to prevent its own annihilation (whether it happens now or slowly), you will almost always get psychopathic behavior. That's true for everyone, hell in fact even Israel has that embedded in it's very own defense strategy with the Samson option. Which makes the Israeli side even less credible

Post reply on HN