Live data from Hacker News

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

octodon.social

491–500 of 695 posts

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

#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 reading the IFF ping aside from looking for attack patterns like climbinb/decending, etc, it still seems possible for an attacker to get within missile range while still appearing on radar to be a civilian craft.

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

#492
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…

IIRC they got in trouble in Germany for this already because certain controls were mandated by law to be a certain way and they flaunted it. I just bought a new car and a make or break decision for me was the control layout. Too many automakers jumped on the touchscreen bandwagon. Its fine for some things like android auto. But all touchscreen all the time was stupid in star trek and stupid in real life. Having physi…

Even in Star Trek it wasn't this horrible. The touch buttons were mostly unchanged and in the same place. See the 'pilot' consoles in the first episode all the way to the last, they are exactly the same. No weird 'modes' or different screens.

It is not too farfetched to assume they had some form of haptic feedback (or something even better). They might as well feel like actual buttons to them.

The real life implementation is far stupider.

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

#493

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed it is! I'm fine with our name being mentioned. I didn't include it above because our website is trash, which doesn't bode well for a company with professional graphics designers and human factors engineers on staff haha.

The car of the best mechanic in town is usually drives a jalopy or the yard of the landscapers tends to be unkempt kind of a situation.

The cobbler's children have no shoes

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

#495

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I also destroyed my transmission by putting it in park at high speed. Worth it. absolutely not worth it. modern cars (ie, anything with abs and disk brakes) achieve maximum deceleration when you mash the brake pedal and allow the car to modulate the clamping force. using the emergency brake and putting the car in park just locks up the wheels. the whole point of abs is to avoid this. you destroyed your transmission…

You don't seem to understand the point of ABS brakes. The way to achieve maximum deceleration in a car IS to lock up the wheels. The reason ABS brakes exist is because when the wheels are locked, the car is sliding as opposed to rolling, which causes the car to skid instead of turn when you turn the steering wheel. Average drivers tend to struggle with this and end up spinning out of control. So ABS brakes pump the b…

> The way to achieve maximum deceleration in a car IS to lock up the wheels.

Very much untrue and it's a subject covered by school physics textbooks.

The wheels may not lock up simultaneously(often don't) and that is the reason why ABS will monitor wheels individually. And, if you are doing that, might as well do it all the time, and that's traction control.

ABS decreases stopping distance and increases controllability. It's a win win. These days you can't really do any better than ABS, "average" driver or not.

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

#496

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…

Thank you for clarifying. I just felt like sharing because I had no idea that windshield wipers could suddenly be as safety-critical as the steering or brakes, despite 24 years of accident-free driving. (Of course if it's raining, you need them, but every time I've driven in the rain there's still enough wiggle-room with partial visibility to pull over safely)

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

#497

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why is Russian army staffed by "evil nazis" exclusively, while actual Nazi army... wasn't? What do you mean by 'actual'? Just because the russian ruling party aren't calling themselves National-Socialists doesn't mean they aren't 'actual' nazis. Search for "rashism". russia is even more evil than Nazi Germany because Germany had one very bad episode in 1933-1945, while russia has been committing atrocities, oppress…

> What do you mean by 'actual'? I mean the historical Nazis from WW2. Again: you admitted that not all Wehrmacht soldiers were evil, monsters, or even Nazis (other than nominally). But, in your words, all soldiers fighting for the Russian Federation right now in their aggression on Ukraine - are all bad people. I'm asking, why do you agree to cut some slack for the former but are unwilling to do so for the latter? Ot…

> Again: you admitted that not all Wehrmacht soldiers were evil, monsters, or even Nazis (other than nominally).

I mostly meant that I don't think all of them should have been executed, 18 million Germans served in the Wehrmacht.

> I don't believe some Hans or Johann deserves to be hated 70 years later because of what happened back then.

The russians have been oppressing and killing Ukrainians for over 300 years, 1991-2014 was just a small pause. Nazi Germany, on the other hand, existed for only 12 years, and Germany is very different now, and most soldiers that fought in WW2 are dead. russians keep doing horrible things since a very long time ago and hating them is completely justified until russia is denazified and becomes a normal country. People like Ivan the Terrible, stalin, putin wouldn't keep coming to power if something wasn't very wrong with the russian nation, and by the way russia consists of many different nations that were subjugated by muscovites. russia has a much longer history of pure evil and that's why I consider most russians evil. While killing all of them is wrong, they should be occupied and reeducated, and never allowed to have a large military and nukes ever again. Given the low population density of russia, most of its sparsely populated lands should be shared between all countries to provide living space for billions of people that isn't affected by global warming.

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

#498

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The car of the best mechanic in town is usually drives a jalopy or the yard of the landscapers tends to be unkempt kind of a situation.

The cobbler's children have no shoes

The shoemaker's children have no feet.

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

#499

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do cars need to be patched OTA? Why isn't the code for something as mission critical as a car not written right before it was shipped? I never needed an ECU update on a car before? And my infotainment rarely needed one to the point where the handful of times it did get a firmware update it was handled during servicing just fine.

> Why isn't the code for something as mission critical as a car not written right before it was shipped? We OTA spacecraft. We update planes’ software as part of maintenance. We have never written software once. We just accepted the bugs and defects as part of the product’s basket of tradeoffs, marvelling when the occasional manufacturer got it right in the first manufacturing runs. > never needed an ECU update on a…

> We update planes’ software as part of maintenance

We don't OTA plane software updates.

> We OTA spacecraft.

Because we can't realistically bring them back and there's an incredible amount of work that goes into make those updates flawless. Spacecraft are not a mass produced consumer product driven by profits and are less likely to have corners cut.

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

#500

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…

I immediately thought of RFC-3514.

https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3514

Post reply on HN