761–770 of 770 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Really, why do you know that? I would expect a car to have tons of code. Think of all the functions... Engine management, Engine monitoring, Powertrain control, Emissions, Diagnostics, Infotainment, Satnav, Climate Control, Traction Control, ABS, Anti-collision radar, Cruise control, Lane keeping, Backup camera, Parking sensors... Now keep in mind that these hundreds of components exist in many many possible configur…
Perhaps because cars ran just fine (albeit with fewer features) for a long time with zero lines of code.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was just trying to make an illustrative example of why I think static interfaces are safer and therefore better, at the end of the day it comes down to subjectivity for the part of a positive user experience, but when it comes to safety the trend is, to me, worrying. I also imagine that there are other reasons for both airliners and cars to replace buttons with touchscreens, namely that of cost instead of prioritiz…
If you believe that aviation not having touch screens means that cars should not either, then evidence to the opposite should change your mind. The A350 and 777X both have touch screens now. It's not just Boeing, who you accused of being backwards who are doing this, Airbus is too, along with every other manufacturer. Garmin and BendixKing now offer touch screens and it's clearly the future of GA as well not just com…
Furthermore, tactile feedback is safety. The fact that each switch has a feel, a size, a position - that let's your brain know what you are doing without having to take eyes off the road.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Absolutely not true. In cruise, stabilized, especially with AP - the margins are MUCH MUCH higher. Pilots have fallen asleep (two of them) - overflown airports still landed etc.
I think major difference is commercial airliner vs say fighter jet. As a layman it still seems pretty wrong to make most of the screen highly dynamic. Maybe designated one on the side. Back to the topic - in car, unless specifically intended for other passengers, driver should never stare on some stupid screen in a place way off the line of sight for driving. Whenever I do that even for a split second in my 15-year o…
Deaths and injuries per mile traveled supports the idea that flying is MUCH MUCH safer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Appeal to authority is an informal fallacy of logic. It can/should never be used to prove an argument.
Sure, if everyone is an expert on the subject, or is willing to spend the time to become one, you should never appeal to authority. That's not most people on most subjects. If someone appeals to authority and says "climate change is real, here's 100 scientists with PhDs who agree" I accept that. I am not willing to become an expert on the subject to be able to spend the time to review the facts for myself. Citing sou…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For making a phonecall they are crap in comparison to buttons.
One could argue that, despite still being called "phones," their primary purpose is not making phone calls anymore. I personally use my device for making phone calls less than 1% of the time I use it (and this includes talk time).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps because cars ran just fine (albeit with fewer features) for a long time with zero lines of code.
Yeah, and so did banks, and so did airplanes.
With cars, there are certainly many things where it did improve things: satnav, reverse camera, traction control etc, but also some where it made a perfectly working system worse (ie the “fixed” something that wasn’t broken): touchscreen dashboards.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Mechanical switches and rotary controls require debouncing which is no picnic. I can 100% tell from your comment that you've never had to work with one. It's less science than black magic to avoid double presses or missed presses.
I've done a bunch of debouncing switch inputs, keypad, keyboard, rotory switches. And wrote some test code for capcitive touch display (long time ago) It's the kinda problem that will tend to bite you in the butt if you aren't aware of all the gotchas. Difficulty is they are application specific. But I wouldn't describe the code as particularly complicated. Most of this stuff a crusty old neckbeard embedded programme…
OP was saying that mechanical switches could be deterministic, which is something that I haven't experienced.
I do agree that there is less to go wrong than a complicated touchscreen interface however.