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

561–570 of 695 posts

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

#561

Post by krisoft »

gpderetta wrote: post #539
toast0 wrote: post #506

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Patrol ship sees and engages a foreign warship inside the patrol's territorial waters and radios for help. First fighter available launches and flies that way to investigate. Sees the warship engaged with the patrol boat and takes initiative, while other fighters are prepping for launch for follow on attacks in case the invading warship does not retreat or surrender.

The issue is "single". Does scrambling a single fighter ever happen, don't they always fly in pairs? A single attack or recognisance plane would make sense. Of course they might have known that their ability to properly identify the threat was limited, but that raises even more questions...

> Does scrambling a single fighter ever happen, don't they always fly in pairs?

The USS Stark was hit by missiles from a single aircraft just a year before the incident in question. So no, they don’t always fly in pairs.

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

#562

Post by m463 »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #225
ImaCake wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its not just Tesla. Recent Jeep models have a digital speedometer with no analog backup. From an engineering perspective these changes just introduce needless risk of complex failure for no real gain. Surely the speedometer is not the make or break cost item on a car?

> these changes just introduce needless risk of complex failure for no real gain Analog speedometers are more complex and can’t be patched OTA. Eliminating them from the fleet means one less part to procure and inventory for manufacturing and service. Given the downside is losing precise speed awareness (you should still be able to judge rough speed visually—that’s the back-up), this seems like a fair trade-off. Cont…

Need car tires patched OTA!

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

#563

Post by angiosperm »

dmix wrote: post #331
berdario wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These are two separate incidents, with similarities but also important differences. We don't know how the US military would've reacted if Iran Air 655 would've overflown restricted airspace above the US. For sure the Soviets fucked up by not trying to call on 121.5 MHz, but is that worse than the US fucking up by being so close (arguably intruding) another country space, and yet not having equipment to monitor civili…

> and yet not having equipment to monitor civilian air traffic control in the area? I'm not sure. Did you not read the linked article in the thread you’re replying to? The US did have an IFF detection system, it was a core part of how it worked. The issue was a UI failure which confused identification by mixing up two different (real) IFF indicators one from military and one from civilian and made it seem to the capt…

Yet, the USS Sides steaming nearby identified it correctly as a civilian flight with no difficulty.

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

#564

Post by registeredcorn »

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…

The idea of a car "refusing" to do what I tell it to do infuriates me. I already have enough problems with various computer programs trying to second guess my decisions. I don't want my toaster, vacuum, or metal buggy telling me it knows better, too!

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

#565

Post by xp84 »

eadmund wrote: post #407
davidmurdoch wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Using a "comma" to refer to the decimal separator when talking about USD while writing in English about software (written in a computer language that uses a decimal point) took me on a mental rollercoaster. So much so that it led me to read the Wikipedia page on the decimal separator. My favorite part: > Unicode defines a decimal separator key symbol (⎖ in hex U+2396, decimal 9110) which looks similar to the apostrop…

>> Unicode defines a decimal separator key symbol (⎖ in hex U+2396, decimal 9110) which looks similar to the apostrophe. This symbol is from ISO/IEC 9995 and is intended for use on a keyboard to indicate a key that performs decimal separation. Egad, settling the ./, issue by selecting ⎖ is like settling the debate between 0-based arrays and 1-based by numbering them from ½. Or between little- and big-endian by choosi…

Note the keyboard part. I think this is meant to be what they can physically print on the numpad section of an international-style keyboard. When you're typing numbers in a Euro locale you'd get `,` but in US English you would get a period. (At least, I hope that's what the decimal key on the numpad does when you set your locale to a certain locale. It would be obnoxious if when typing numbers in an English context, you had to go find the period key on the other side.)

I don't think we're meant to normally switch to actually putting that character in our numbers though. If so, clearly nobody has agreed to do it!

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

#566

Post by HFguy »

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…

Aegis is a particular system. Not a generic term for these systems. I don't believe UK ships used it.

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

#567

Post by hn_go_brrrrr »

angiosperm wrote: post #563
dmix wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and yet not having equipment to monitor civilian air traffic control in the area? I'm not sure. Did you not read the linked article in the thread you’re replying to? The US did have an IFF detection system, it was a core part of how it worked. The issue was a UI failure which confused identification by mixing up two different (real) IFF indicators one from military and one from civilian and made it seem to the capt…

Yet, the USS Sides steaming nearby identified it correctly as a civilian flight with no difficulty.

Presumably because their operator did not make the same mistake as the one on the Vincennes?

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

#568

Post by hardlianotion »

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…

The anti-aircraft/missile defence on Sheffield was Sea Dart. The Argentinian pilots were familiar with the type 42 destroyer type and its radar, and practiced against the Argentine's own type 42s. This might have some bearing on their success as well.

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

#569

Post by psunavy03 »

angiosperm wrote: post #550
lostlogin wrote: post #518

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Of course he was passed over for flag. At Commander and above, it's more or less expected that you have a successful Commanding Officer tour in rank order to promote. A few Commanders that don't get command make Captain, but it's the exception rather than the rule. And it's virtually unheard of to make flag without a successful Captain command, because there are so many more Captains than there are slots for Rear Admiral (Lower Half) that most end up retiring anyway. If your CO tour blows up in your face, it's basically a guarantee that you will be expected to retire at the earliest possible opportunity.

The best quote I've ever heard on the subject is "the Navy doesn't have hospitals for careers. It has leper colonies."

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

#570

Post by mahkeiro »

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…

Christian have been living in Gaza and West banks for the last 2000 years… (and a Church was bombed in Gaza killing 18 Christians). In fact the number of Christian has only started to decrease for the last 70 years as they suffer the exact same treatment as Muslims.
Post reply on HN