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

541–550 of 695 posts

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

#541

Post by rurp »

InsomniacL wrote: post #330
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…

I have a disaster storey to share about this. Sometimes the car does not want to go in to drive/reverse for some unknown reason. Not long after I first got my tesla, I was making a 3 point turn to go on to my driveway. I moved forward, then stopped, turned the wheel, pressed the stalk to go in to reverse, pressed the accelerator and WENT FORWARD, right in to my old car denting the door. There was no indication the ca…

Holy cow! I have driven a Tesla handful of times and found the UX both terrible and dangerous, but this is a new one to me. Even with all of the other issues those cars have I'm shocked to learn that they will refuse to shift direction. I literally can't imagine myself ever owning a vehicle that would refuse basic commands by design.

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

#542

Post by [deleted] »

mlrtime wrote: post #171
toyg wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They could just send one rocket Putin could do the same to half of Europe, eh. The fact that he doesn't, doesn't mean his actions are justified. Not applying overwhelming force doesn't mean that applying any other type of force is justified. > Isreal has been trying to keep their morals for decades There are no morals left, in that conflict, since the 1982 mass murder of thousands of Lebanese civilians in Beirut at…

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…

[deleted]

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

#543

Post by PoignardAzur »

Towaway69 wrote: post #464
next_xibalba wrote: post #414

> every large aircraft in the world is equipped with a device called an IFF -- "identification friend or foe." This is weird, I'm sure I don't have all the facts. In a conflict, why would a military aircraft ever want to identify itself?

More interestingly why not fake it and claim to be civilian? Logically speaking: - no identification: risk being shot down by both sides - correct identification: risk being shot down by the enemy - fake civilian identification: no risk of being shot down?

Civilian flights get recorded from takeoff to landing. If you start pulling this stunt a lot, you'll get caught really quickly.

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

#544

Post by gpderetta »

aerostable_slug wrote: post #475
next_xibalba wrote: post #467

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would it need to be interoperable then? Presumably it tells adversaries that you’re friend OR foe though. The friend bit is obvious. The foe… still not seeing the logic.

There's a difference between civilian transponders which generally squawk all the time and military IFF, which typically only responds to a coded challenge (called an IFF interrogation). If a military IFF doesn't receive a valid interrogation, it remains silent. It is Very Bad if an enemy can either spoof a valid "friend" IFF response or cause IFFs to respond and give up one's position. The latter was done with great…

> spoof a valid "friend" IFF

Tricking an enemy plane to respond seems "fair", but would a plane disguising itself as friendly count as perfidy?

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

#545

Post by Lt_Riza_Hawkeye »

ImPostingOnHN wrote: post #472
immibis wrote: post #425

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It also caused one accident, where both pilots thought the controls were jammed because the other pilot was pulling in the opposite direction. This is no better than averaging. At least Airbus gives an alarm.

Which accident was that? Thanks!

It was an air france accident, it happened twice (both times to air france), one time it resulted in an accident, then it happened again later but it only resulted in an extremely stressful go around

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

#546

Post by simne »

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; water supply, heating, also need electricity. And Russians actively use hacker attacks to turn off power in Ukraine.

2. Air defense. God bless America and developers of Patriot! After last spring we received this wonderful tech, we could feel much safer, just periodically hear "Citizens may hear explosion, as system automatically intercept ballistic missile. Alarm siren was not triggered".

3. For our people in trenches, information is literally life, because Russians have large number old, but dangerous tech, like artillery and air approx 1960s. And now also got cheap new tech from East - most annoying drones (UAV).

So if one side got knowledge, where some opponent military unit, they immediately fire on it if possible.

Even become usual thing, artillery duels, when artillery units on each side, try to destroy each other. And as they are long distance units, they don't see opponent, just know from intelligence, that on some coordinates appear opponent.

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

#547

Post by sizzle »

vigormortis wrote: post #469
waihtis wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any good reading on this? Might be some interesting learning opportunities for (cyber)security monitoring, which is a total mess right now. Stakes are a bit less severe, but still.

I would recommend Ed Hutchins' "Cognition in the Wild". He examines the performance of the crew of a ship acting as distributed intelligence and the many factors that go into making them an effective unit (or not). Ed was also part of the UCSD Cognitive Science department at the time of the Vincennes incident and I suspect it was his work, along with Don Norman's, that drew the attention of the Navy. At the time, I w…

Loved his class at UCSD! It definitely was something that really sticks in your brain and never leaves cause of how unique the subject material and concepts were taught.

I wonder if they would update the theory of “distributed cognition” in an AI ChatGPT Turing complete world with ubiquitous computing. Thoughts?

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

#548

Post by sizzle »

subroutine wrote: post #436
jonah wrote: post #416

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Donald Norman's The Design of Everyday Things is a great intro to human factors and covers a number of high-stakes environments as well as more mundane things like door handles. Highly recommended reading. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Design_of_Everyday_Things

Indeed a seminal work. Don is also at UCSD, and is a founder of the UCSD Design Lab. https://designlab.ucsd.edu/

He retired (finally!) I believe. And indeed it is a seminal written work, User Centered Systems Design.. what a clever title!

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

#549

Post by jacquesm »

peppermint_gum wrote: post #271
locallost wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

actually I agree with itsoktocry. You assume all those things to be facts, but nobody discussing here was personally present in any of those events. I can assure you that the version of "Russians knew it was a civilian airplane" is not recognized as true in Russia. This even without being able to speak Russian, nor ever being in Russia. But of course, they are bad people :-).

Indeed, if you ignore all the evidence, including the declassified Russian documents [1], you can conclude that Russia did nothing wrong with regard to the KE007 flight. To be honest, the persistent blind contrarianism of this community is really tiring. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Air_Lines_Flight_007#So...

> To be honest, the persistent blind contrarianism of this community is really tiring.

s/this community/a small faction that is very active on this community/

It's not a lot of them but they are really doing overtime.

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

#550

Post by angiosperm »

lostlogin wrote: post #518
dmix wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fun fact the Captain of the Vincennes went to school for psychology and his father was a US Navy Psychologist in WW2.

From the wiki: “Rogers' next assignment was as commanding officer of the United States Navy Tactical Training Group at Naval Base Point Loma, a group responsible for training officers in handling combat situations.” Is having that guy train people genius, or moronic? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_C._Rogers_III

Arguably moronic, if as appears he disclaimed responsibility for the failure, and even criticized the captain and crew of the Sides for failing to replicate it. At the time of the incident, it appears he had driven his ship into Iranian territorial water, in violation of international maritime law, on an invalid pretext in violation of a direct order from fleet.

At least he was "passed over for promotion to flag rank", and retired three years later, at age 53. One wonders how much responsibility he admitted in his book, "Storm Center: A Personal Account of Tragedy & Terrorism". His wife might not have been exposed to the pipe bomb somebody put in his minivan just a year after the incident, had he demonstrated any contrition at the time.

Post reply on HN