161–170 of 402 posts
"...central database for all NOTAMs (Notice to Air Missions) nationwide" No. NOTAM is "notice to airmen."
Nope. https://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/notam/what_is_a_notam
Imagine something like this happening at the NYSE, CME, et. at. Or, simply think about the last time you heard about a nationwide credit/debit card outage...
Why can't we have our national infrastructure systems running at least as reliably as the Amex network?
These systems are all information clearinghouses at the end of the day. If we have matching engines that flawlessly process millions of trades per second every day and mainframes that provide resilient source of truth, I think we could consider the same for a life safety critical system as well.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I spent a lot of time at the FAA writing software. (6+ years) there is a huge culture of process, policy and not a whole lot of thinking or analysis or actually understanding the problems that they are working on. it is maddening. imagine a spreadsheet with 700 lines in it telling you that you need to do ABCDEFG each of those lines is instructing you to write a document detailing a procedure with the chain of custody…
It sounds like it would be very simple to implement correctly if it was literally spelled out like what your describing?
That's one problem with treating the implementer as a machine to run code. The whole procedure can't be tested, so when parts are changed they can break the whole. It relies on the human in the loop to resolve the conflicts, which is not repeatable.
The other problem is the "mind-numbing" part. No-one can maintain 100% perfection all of the time. And in the context of presenting to people who don't know what it all means, I can see why mistakes would be made.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nope. https://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/notam/what_is_a_notam
You are both right: https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/7930.2S_Chg_...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is common for government agencies. I worked at Labor and your second paragraph hit very close to home. The only plus side was the insane amount of free time you spent waiting. I tried to go back on the civilian side of the contracts and I nope'd out of it as soon as I hit red tape
This is by design, it meets the primary goal of the government which is funding patronage jobs that make few, if any, demands on the worker.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is common for government agencies. I worked at Labor and your second paragraph hit very close to home. The only plus side was the insane amount of free time you spent waiting. I tried to go back on the civilian side of the contracts and I nope'd out of it as soon as I hit red tape
This is by design, it meets the primary goal of the government which is funding patronage jobs that make few, if any, demands on the worker.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is by design, it meets the primary goal of the government which is funding patronage jobs that make few, if any, demands on the worker.
People who want a job like that should just be on UBI instead. Then at least we'd have systems that could change to meet the needs of their users in a timely way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are both right: https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/7930.2S_Chg_...
Looking at the response in the rest of the comment chain I wonder if it's such that he knows but does not accept the change.
I was recently rewatching some old Taleb talks about fragility. Our software systems are extremely fragile. I wonder if there is any way we can make them anti-fragile? What would this look like?