The 1988 shooting down of Flight 655 as a user interface disaster • Hacker News Board

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

#601

Post by wavemode » Thu, Nov 30, 2023, 12:55 AM UTC

mrguyorama wrote: post #593

wavemode wrote: post #532

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"So... the fighter was in range of your missiles." "Yep." "And rapidly diving directly toward your fleet." "Mmhmm." "But you didn't fire on it? Why not?" "Well, it was an F-14, you see. Doesn't possess anti-ship missiles." "Yes... that's precisely the sort of tactical advantage you were put there to exploit." "Wouldn't have been sporting."

Meanwhile in reality: "So you got a radar track squaking civillian" "Yup" "And it never made any search or track radar emissions" "Yup" "And it was climbing out of the area, and despite all your instruments showing it continuing to climb, you all asserted it was diving for an attack run" "Right" "And instead of trying to further deconflict, or ask any of the other local navy vessels their interpretation, or just take…

Not one iota of what you've written here is relevant to my point. Go back and re-read the conversation.

All I was saying was that the fact that an F-14 doesn't generally carry anti-ship missiles, is irrelevant to the mission of an anti-air cruiser.

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

#602

Post by scotty79 » Thu, Nov 30, 2023, 1:36 AM UTC

mardifoufs wrote: post #590

scotty79 wrote: post #588

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 literall…

> Not getting conquered, invaded, or literally colonized is a good thing. Don't you agree?

Actually I don't. It depends on the circumstances and the price. Sometimes getting colonized is the best outcome possible. Especially if the alternative is getting wiped out by way stronger opponent.

US colonized large part of Mexico. Are people there better or worse because of that?

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

#603

Post by lmm » Thu, Nov 30, 2023, 2:42 AM UTC

angiosperm wrote: post #553

psunavy03 wrote: post #505

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Go read about the software bug that literally killed people by miscalculating the radiation dose given by a medical machine. There is software which can hurt or kill fellow human beings. Industrial controls, aircraft flight controls, the list goes on.

The number of people harmed by that ramshackle contraption never came anywhere near the number wiped out in just the one incident. Mis-operation of the Aegis system is, BTW, also responsible for the sinking of a British warship, HMS Sheffield, in the Falklands war, with at least 87 killed. It failed to identify an Exocet missile fired by the Argentines as a threat, even though the Navy was thoroughly aware Argentina…

> Mis-operation of the Aegis system is, BTW, also responsible for the sinking of a British warship, HMS Sheffield, in the Falklands war, with at least 87 killed. It failed to identify an Exocet missile fired by the Argentines as a threat, even though the Navy was thoroughly aware Argentina had them...

Attributing the failure to avoid the Exocets to "mis-operation of the aegis system" is pure speculation AFAIK, unless you have evidence that that was the cause?

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

#604

Post by lebed2045 » Thu, Nov 30, 2023, 2:51 AM UTC

simne wrote: post #546

Greetings from Ukraine, country at war. You may wonder, but computers extremely important in our life, I bet, you don't release how we depend on high tech now (was not such before war). I will list how I remember, not by importance. 1. Electric grid is core of infrastructure, and it depend on computers. Even if in many cases could use decentralized power sources, but need it to feed bank networks for money payments;…

that's truly incredible how much lives can be saved with good electronics and it-systems. I wish the war ends asap, before the autonomous ai-powered drones comes into play... because at that point this might become complete skynet-like hell.

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

#605

Post by cutemonster » Thu, Nov 30, 2023, 3:38 AM UTC

khazhoux wrote: post #538

cutemonster wrote: post #531

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder what "jobs that hurt or kill regardless" you have in mind

* I'm stressed from working at a game studio --> but no one will die * I'm stressed from working on avionics or medical software, or designing bridges/etc --> someone may die if I make a mistake * I'm stressed from working as a firefighter or police officer --> someone (or myself) may die even if I don't make any mistakes

Thanks, doesn't sound like the same thing though. The text was:

"hurt or kill regardless"

which to me sounds like "someone always die" (not "may die"),

which isn't supposed to be the case when firefighters or police are working.

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

#606

Post by cutemonster » Thu, Nov 30, 2023, 3:45 AM UTC

pesfandiar wrote: post #575

cutemonster wrote: post #531

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder what "jobs that hurt or kill regardless" you have in mind

Anything to do with "defense" industry

Ok, depends on how you look at it. But almost always, yes

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

#607

Post by ImPostingOnHN » Thu, Nov 30, 2023, 3:54 AM UTC

inferiorhuman wrote: post #597

ImPostingOnHN wrote: post #501

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I couldn't find any evidence of it happening either, which makes sense, a system which gives feedback there's a problem intuitively seems better than one which doesn't.

a system which gives feedback there's a problem intuitively seems better than one which doesn't. Except that your intuition isn't always correct. Airbus throttle levers don't move on their own, Boeing throttle levers (at least pre-FBW) were mechanically linked to the control system and would move in response to computer inputs. Sounds safer, right? Look at the Sriwijaya Air 737 crash (among others). Even with the thr…

Sticks (not throttles) mechanically linked to each other do indeed give feedback indicating there is a problem when the two sticks conflicted, compared to, it seems, the Airbus concept, which did not.

I see no reason the intuition here isn't correct: it's better to know about this problem when flying than to not know about it. Stories about throttles or automation are a distraction from what we're talking about: mechanically linked sticks.

On that note (back on topic), I still couldn't find any evidence of the crash mentioned above, but maybe I'm just searching wrong. Does anybody know about this crash supposedly caused by Boeing sticks being mechanically linked?

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

#608

Post by inferiorhuman » Thu, Nov 30, 2023, 4:03 AM UTC

ImPostingOnHN wrote: post #607

inferiorhuman wrote: post #597

Earlier quoted context omitted.

a system which gives feedback there's a problem intuitively seems better than one which doesn't. Except that your intuition isn't always correct. Airbus throttle levers don't move on their own, Boeing throttle levers (at least pre-FBW) were mechanically linked to the control system and would move in response to computer inputs. Sounds safer, right? Look at the Sriwijaya Air 737 crash (among others). Even with the thr…

Sticks (not throttles) mechanically linked to each other do indeed give feedback indicating there is a problem when the two sticks conflicted, compared to, it seems, the Airbus concept, which did not. I see no reason the intuition here isn't correct: it's better to know about this problem when flying than to not know about it. Stories about throttles or automation are a distraction from what we're talking about: mech…

So-called "side stories" about throttles that provide feedback are entirely relevant because they address the issue at hand: the supposed benefits of physical feedback in the controls. The Sriwijaya crash is additionally relevant as it happened during a phase of flight where someone's hands were likely to be on the throttle quadrant in the first place.

If you're going to double down on the idea that somehow feedback in a control column is a wildly different affair than feedback in the throttle quadrant, Air France recently had a go around where the two pilots provided opposing inputs without realizing it. The inputs were forceful enough to un-synchronize the controls, so yeah, physical feedback is less helpful than one's intuition suggests.

With Air France 447, there should've been an annunciator that conflicting input was being provided (as well as the ability to lock out one set of controls).

However, when you're task saturated it doesn't matter what you're flying — there are plenty of things you're going to miss. Were there strong benefits to feedback (or lack thereof) on FBW controls there would be some sort of mandate from the FAA or EASA one way or another.

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

#609

Post by Ma8ee » Thu, Nov 30, 2023, 4:35 AM UTC

hn_go_brrrrr wrote: post #571

Ma8ee wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

It's not ridiculous. Your statement reads as "I condemn it, but they really had it coming", which a reasonable person could understand to mean "I don't really condemn it".

Only if you read it in complete isolation. It was an answer to someone who praised Israel for its restraint, like Israel was this pure white dove in the region

Here I know it get too complicated for many: I admit, Israel had something coming. I don't support attacks on civilians. Those two statements can be simultaneously true.

Israel is an apartheid state. Hamas is a terror organisation, I don't agree with the actions of Israel. I don't agree with the actions of Hamas. I think Palestines have the right to resist. I don't think anyone, Hamas or Israel, has the right to attack innocent civilians.

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

#610

Post by Ma8ee » Thu, Nov 30, 2023, 4:51 AM UTC

red75prime wrote: post #287

Ma8ee wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Missing from your narrative is the treatment of the Palestinians by the Israeli settlers. The settlers are harassing and seizing land from Palestinians. Those settlers are protected by the Israeli Defense Forces. All of this is well documented and are repeatedly criticised by many well reputable human rights organisations. So, no, it's not restrain that is rewarded by these savage attacks. And while I condemn the ter…

> we should not pretend they came out of a vacuum And we shouldn't pretend that organized terrorism is justified by the things you've mentioned.

No, exactly. That is why I wrote "I condemn the terrorist attacks on innocent civilians by Hamas". But my comment was an answer praise of Israel's constraint, like Israel was completely innocent in this conflict.

And the following two paragraphs seems to be incomprehensible to many:

Israel is an apartheid state. Palestines have the right to resist that oppression. Hamas (or any Palestine organisation) has no right to attack innocent civilians.

Hamas is a terror organisation. Israel has the right to defend itself. Israel has no right to attack innocent civilians.