Has th3j35t3r been unmasked? - <AUTHOR> http://www.scmagazine.com.au/News/300824,has-th3j35t3r-been-unmasked.aspx

<comment><USER2> Looks like some sort of charade.

The red truck image was taken directly from [http://www.beckhamsautos.com/web/used/Chevrolet- Silverado-15...](http://www.beckhamsautos.com/web/used/Chevrolet- Silverado-1500-2000-Milledgeville-Georgia/1951320/) (Not th3j35t3r's Facebook as claimed)

Here's the truck's VIN number (2GCEK19T2Y1374502): [http://photos.ecarlist.com/gK/SH/wn/jz/QY/rC/O3/mf/Lk/Z1/yQ_...](http://photos.ecarlist.com/gK/SH/wn/jz/QY/rC/O3/mf/Lk/Z1/yQ_800.jpg)

The truck in the picture doesn't have plates. It has a Beckham's Auto placard.

There is a decent Carfax history on the VIN. Georgia.

More soon...

</comment><comment><USER3> Unveiling real identities of hackers, or "doxing", is fairly standard behavior between competing hackers or groups. But there's a matter of proof and falsification of information that makes it incredibly hard to ever verify the claims being made.

Without verifying the identity of "cubespherical" and his claims via alternate means and sources of data, how can we be sure this isn't a ploy by th3h35t3r himself to leave a false trail and make a quick $100k?

The best hackers aren't just masters at digital systems. They must be masters of manipulating other people first and foremost.

<comment><USER4> "how can we be sure this isn't a ploy by th3h35t3r "

exactly...

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Well, I guess that depends on whether or not people are going to pay 20k bitcoins into the supposed Bitcoin account of the purported unmasker, doesn't it?

Is unmasking this person really worth what basically amounts to $100k USD?

<comment><USER6> Good point. He's probably suffering more now with his paranoia over being identified than he would be after his identity was released.

The worst things he's likely to face from being unmasked, given his targets, is a book deal, a handful of right-wing TV and radio interviews, and a sweet computer security gig.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I'd support the jester more than any of those other groups. I'd rather see a guy take down jihadist websites, the westboro website, etc. than whatever the random crap anon and such attacks.

You could make the argument that Anon, Lulz, The Jester, etc. are all bad, which is fair. But I don't think there's much of an argument for Anon over The Jester.

<comment><USER3> Wasn't Anon the group that took down the Westboro site? From what I remember they took down the site while an Anon "spokesperson" and a Westboro representative were both being interviewed live on a talk show.

<comment><USER7> Eh, to be fair, they probably both have.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This is such a bummer! I hope it's not true. The Jester is kind of like a mini-hero to me. He constantly trolled those 'anon' guys and somehow made them look even worse than they manage to make themselves look on their own.

Reading his blog posts was like reading an engaging book. He has to be the only one of "these guys" that is even remotely cool.

<comment><USER9> Did you root for the Empire when you watched Star Wars?

<comment><USER8> Are you asking me if I typically root for the evil side? No.

When The Jester started making headlines it was amidst constant LulzSec and Anonymous attacks and retaliations all on very stupid targets for selfish reasons. The climate on here was unbearable. So many people would gang up on you if you spoke out against anon. It was ridiculous.

The Jester poked fun at those people and exposed them for the lame script kiddies that they are (not that it took much to figure this out, but he paraded it). The IRC logs were hilarious.

I like The Jester for this. He's an anti-hero of sorts. Even if he is still a "bad guy."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Either this person has actualy been unmasked and the person has left the public sphere or he wants to cash in and get 20k bitcoins. Why are people suddenly now revealing people for profit when in the past they just did it for fun?</comment>


Dr. Dre as the voice of Siri - <AUTHOR> http://www.tuaw.com/2014/05/29/dr-dre-as-the-voice-of-siri/

<comment><USER2> Hell yeah!</comment>


How a big movie studio (unfairly) forced a student to give up his senior thesis - <AUTHOR> http://www.reddit.com/r/SOPA/comments/pq8ra/this_is_why_i_oppose_the_mpaa? <comment><USER2> Back in '97 I was the CTO of a VC funded startup. Within weeks of our funding closing a company we had been working with for about a year initiated litigation over an IP matter.

Even though it was the company, and not me personally, who was being sued that time was the most stressful time of my life - the sheer injustice of it all left a deep scar on me. However, we had a good law firm and money in the bank - our lawyers more or less told them there was no case to answer and both sides backed down (although we did have to pay our own legal costs).

It was bad enough being involved in litigation with supportive colleagues, money and good lawyers - being in a similar, actually worse, situation as a broke student would be infinitely worse.

[Edit: as to the timing of the litigation, I believe the first rule of litigation is "sue people who have money"].

<comment><USER3> I used to jump at a very small skydiving operation. When the owner dropped his insurance, the lawsuits disappeared. No one wants a 1957 Cessna.

<comment><USER4> Uhmm... what were the lawsuits about before he dropped his insurance? Parachute not opening?

<comment><USER3> Not lawsuits right and left. Just people getting hurt once in awhile landing, twisting ankles and stuff. Not often. But there's always a lurk of lawyers waiting to help you "get what you deserve." It's a physical sport.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Question for any lawyers present: If a lawyer threatens to "ruin your life with litigation", etc., can't that be construed as a threat/bribe?

I would think it would be illegal to call a student, who doesn't know any better, and threaten to ruin their life, especially if the threats you're making aren't actually true.

In any case, the obvious next step in the student's situation is to contact a lawyer, and see if there's any merit to the threat. For all he knows, a lawyer would have told him that it's a totally empty threat and he shouldn't worry about it. It is naive to listen to the word of someone who is obviously opposing you.

<comment><USER6> I don't know whether such extreme talk is legal, no, but it's quite common for lawyers to talk in this way.

Remember those letters you got when you forgot to pay for something on time? You know, the ones with a nice little addition saying "if you do not pay before X, we will be forced to take legal action."

It's the same thing, whether they will take action or not. The intent behind the statement is 'this will make it more likely that our victim is going to pay, so we don't have to deal with expensive legal stuff.'

<comment><USER7> > It's the same thing

Not exactly. The debt letter states, "If you do not fulfill our legal contract, we will pursue legal and established means to come to a resolution."

The lawyer threat states, "I am turning a business issue into a personal one, and I will abuse the law."

<comment><USER6> In the case of the OP, I agree. I was speaking in more general terms what the general intent of 'lawyers threatening you' tends to be.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> > He told me that I was technically in my legal right to use Isaac Asimov's > material. However, if I chose to proceed, they would file multiple lawsuits > totaling over 2 million dollars against me.

Hmm, if the lawyer admitted he was technically in the right, I wonder if recording that phone call could've gotten any lawsuits thrown out as frivolous.

<comment><USER9> Not only is it frivolous, he should have recorded it for a countersuit in districts that have anti-SLAPP legislation.

<comment><USER10> The one time I was on the bad end of a phone call with a record industry lawyer (I was 21 at the time), I recorded the call. I had heard of previous encounters with this particular PR lady that involved lots of bullying and bullshit, so once the conference call between the lawyer, the PR flack, and myself began, I announced that "For the protection of all parties involved, I am recording this conversation."

It was like I had cast a spell. Everything got VERY professional. By the end of the call, I had schooled said lawyer on fair use and the DMCA - which was at the time still very new - and after the call wrapped, that was the end of the thinly-veiled legal threats.

I didn't even need a lawyer, but I had enough free time to do ample research on related laws, and was very confident that I was completely in the right. I was nervous as hell on the phone, but felt like THE MAN when I got off that call.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Some observations:

1\. If the studio had filed a lawsuit, there's a very good chance that, after seeing the Asimov estate's permission, the judge would have quickly tossed the case on summary judgment --- and quite possibly awarded the student his attorneys' fees under section 505 of the Copyright Act,[1] as happened recently in several of the _Righthaven_ copyright-troll cases.[2]

2\. A copyright lawyer might have been willing, for little or no money, to explain the facts of life to the studio lawyer on behalf of the student. The student then might have been able to respond to the studio lawyer (with utmost politeness, of course), "do what you gotta do." He could then have started making his movie and waited to see what the studio did.

3\. It's likely that any lawsuit by the studio would have been quickly resolved one way or another, without much in the way of legal expense:

• If the student had won quickly on summary judgment, the odds are that his lawyer would have been paid by the judge.

• If the student had found he wasn't going to win quickly on summary judgment, _then_ he could have caved to avoid further expense. The odds are that the studio would have gone along --- and might even have been willing to pay the student's legal fees just to get rid of the matter.

4\. Either way, both the student and his lawyer would have gotten at least some reputational benefit from the resulting publicity.

5\. Heck, they could have proposed settling the case along the lines that Southwest Airline's CEO settled a trademark dispute years ago over the term "Just Plane Smart": Herb Kelleher arm-wrestled the other side's CEO for charity, resulting in good PR for both sides.[3]

6\. All this assumes, of course, that the article accurately states all the relevant facts. Lawyers know from hard experience that this always has to be confirmed.

[1] <http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/505>

[2] [http://www.copyrighttrademarkmatters.com/2011/11/01/righthav...](http://www.copyrighttrademarkmatters.com/2011/11/01/righthaven- loses-another-battle-over-attorneys-fees/)

[3] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southwest_Airlines#.22Just_Plan...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southwest_Airlines#.22Just_Plane_Smart.22)

[Edited for style]

<comment><USER12>
      > It's a pity the student didn't talk to a copyright
      > lawyer (with litigation experience) before caving.

How much would that cost him in the US?

And how likely is that the court would actually grant him the money? The link says "at court's discretion". Has it actually ever happenned before?

<comment><USER13> I'm somewhat surprised (given that all the faculty were sympathetic) that nobody directed the student to the university's counsel.

<comment><USER14> Just saw your comment after posting mine. Agree.

Unfortunately, in my anecdotal experience schools not infrequently do not fulfill the role of advocate well. (Sometimes, they do, though.)

In a case like this, I think it can somewhat be "luck of the draw". With the initial/primary contact point with the school being the professor, some professors know what to do or at least will tackle the problem. Others are at a loss, or don't care. (I'm not saying that's the case, here; they did pass him, although leaving him without a thesis project.) Remember, you're dealing with an _academic_ , when what you may need is a _lawyer_.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> > I responded by sending them the consent form from the Asimov estate, and > _explained that it was a student project, not a commercial venture worth > litigating. I turned over our script, our shooting notes, our shot list, > copies of our tapes and even the concept art drawings._

I think the moral of the story is: Don't give the studio more information than you have to. The consent form would have been enough.

If the studio's goal had been to take money from you, you would have been right to let them know you had no money. But it wasn't: What they wanted was to stop you releasing the film. In that situation you want to appear as professional as possible. Just sending a cover letter from a lawyer with the consent form would be a start.

<comment><USER11> Another perspective: If the studio had sued, they'd have gotten the information in the discovery process anyway. So you might as well give them the information early; that will increase the chances that someone at the studio will make a sensible informed decision. (If the information were confidential, you'd want to insist on putting an NDA in place first.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> I presume by "One download at a time" the author is referring to the downloading of his own films? Downloading Hollywood films won't kill Hollywood, as it only spreads Hollywood's influence and makes the problem worse.

The way to kill Hollywood is to ignore it. That's got to be more terrifying to a studio than being pirated. Paul Graham had it right in his "Kill Hollywood" piece: it's not pirating that will kill Hollywood, but irrelevance. Startups, new ways to entertain people and new ways to make movies.

<comment><USER17> People with money have influence. If we give them less money, they'll have less influence.

<comment><USER18> By downloading a film, even if you don't pay for it, you are contributing capital to that film. You'll cache the the plot, characters, actors in your mind and likely talk about it with your friends & collegues --in social situations re-enforce the film's value and reify the investment others have made by paying for the film.

If you don't see the film, and one of your friends has a film reference you don't recognize, you're actively not helping the film monopoly since the time your friend invested in the film has no value to you. In this way, you're denying the network effect.

The films don't need _everyone_ to pay for it, only a fraction. By pirating a film, you contribute the most important thing you have: your mind and social attention.

<comment><USER19> You convinced me.

I got more time than money, and I am willing to spend that capital in exchange for a movie. A fair exchange (unless the movie sucks, in which case i want my time back, or in lieu of time, i am willing to get payed by the MPAA to watch crap movies.

Now that i realize I am actually giving the movie industry my most valuable assets, re my mind and attention, I feel Compelled not to give them my money, enough is enough.

<comment><USER20> But at the end of the day, you share your time on earth for only a brief moment with the rest of us. Is it possible that you derive more value sharing the film consumption experience and discourse with your friends and peers than some crusade against Hollywood? At what point would you rather see a movie with a girl, your family, or your friends after work rather than reject the opportunity to feel like you're contributing to Hollywood's demise.

<comment><USER19> I can do both at the same time. A win win scenario. I get the movie for free and save money for my friends to.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> This is an incredibly ridiculous story. This student is exactly the type of person Hollywood should be nurturing: a creative student with vision, perusing his creative 'dream' and not letting his limited means get in the way of his vision.

It's a real pity that this happened, and a lost opportunity for the film industry. It could have been simple for them to take this as an opportunity and make something great out it. Instead, they alienated the type of person they need.

That said, I don't think this is an excuse to take 'revenge' on these companies, "one download at a time".

<comment><USER22> >That said, I don't think this is an excuse to take 'revenge' on these companies, "one download at a time".

If this isn't, I don't know what is.

Note that the author was talking about the fragment of his own film that he uploaded (and subsequently took down). "one download at a time" is referring to the downloads of that fragment (which, by the other party's admission, he had the right to shoot, and holds the copyright to). He is not talking about anything illegal (such as pirating content).

<comment><USER23> That seems like a retcon. He originally posted a different telling of the same story under the title "This is Why I Pirate". That's gone now, the only trace is a pointer to this new version: [http://www.reddit.com/r/SOPA/comments/poqvn/this_is_why_i_pi...](http://www.reddit.com/r/SOPA/comments/poqvn/this_is_why_i_pirate/)

<comment><USER24> This is the original:

<http://pastebin.com/0gRzqBxq>

Edit: Formatting

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> There are some simple things that could be done to protect against this kind of abuse:

\- Loser pays the winner's costs, but capped such that the loser won't be bankrupted. This effectively means that when a big company loses, they get to pay for all of the trial, but individuals can still lose without being totally doomed.

\- A judge could be allowed to grant "free trial" if he thought the case had merit and one of the parties couldn't afford the legal costs. This would mean that the state would cover the legal costs of that party no matter the outcome.

<comment><USER26> Loser pays a proportion of the winner's costs equal to the loser's costs (i.e. loser spends £100 in legal fees, winner spends £1500 in legal fees, loser has to pay £100 of the winner's costs, leaving the winner with £1400 to pay) has some nice properties.

<comment><USER27> Even better - loser pays the winner the exact amount they paid their legal team. By their own admission "at arm's length" so to speak, that was the value of the litigation to them.

<comment><USER26> Thanks, that's a better way of phrasing what I meant. :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Forced or _bullied_? It may seem like a small distinction, but it sounds like he backed down after a single threatening phone call, without calling their bluff.

 _It's important to note that the film was based on one of Asimov's short stories, "Reason", but was not a direct interpretation. It was not titled "I, Robot", and barring the inclusion of the laws of robotics, was almost wholly original._

If that's the case, then why not remove any Asimovian references, disavow any connection with "I, Robot" and complete the film?

Don't get me wrong, the studio behaved badly and this guy didn't deserve the treatment he received from them, but it sounds like there were perfectly acceptable options available that didn't require shutting down the project completely.

</comment><comment><USER29> It seems like the best course of action here would have been to take down the website... and then just finish filming anyway. It wasn't actually worth it to the studio to send somebody there to confirm that filming had stopped. They were just tying up loose ends and getting rid of online promotion that was competing with them. If the film was really good and got a distributor, then there would have been a bigCorp there to swat away this frivolous lawsuit. If not, then it would have just flown under the radar.

</comment><comment><USER30> Why isn't anyone mentioning the fact that if this kid (at the time) owned the rights to the I, Robot via permission he could have sued the producers of "I, Robot" for a portion of their profits.

This was a defensive lawsuit that had nothing to do with shutting down his student project -- it was to protect themselves from a party that could have potentially tied them up for years in court demanding money if he had properly lawyered up.

<comment><USER31> He probably had 'Non exclusive' rights to make the movie.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> Americans, why don't you introduce the concept where courts are encouraged to award all costs against the loser? This culture is widespread in the commonwealth, and strategic court actions are less common. It should be a really simple change.

<comment><USER9> Because it discourages people with a valid case and little money from filing the suit in the first place. So now if you think you've been wronged not only do you have to worry about winning you also have to worry about losing.

Nothing is stopping the defending counsel from getting a team of high priced lawyers, verses the 1 you could afford, and stuffing you with the bill of not only your lawyer, but all of theirs.

There is nothing fundamentally wrong with the US civil court system.[1] Just like there isn't a knifing epidemic in the UK. People see these cases in the media and get the idea this is common when it really isn't. This is what people that want to reform the tort system are trying to convince you. It's not the small businesses that have a problem with the current system. It's Macdonalds and ATT that believe they shouldn't have to pay millions in class action suits.

[1]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_Coffee_(film)>

<comment><USER33> The MacDonalds hot coffee case should rightly be viewed as a textbook example of a frivolous lawsuit, and it baffles me that it has been used to actually argue against tort reform.

The Hot Coffee film was produced by a plaintiffs lawyer, and presents little more than emotional appeals. As a group, plaintiffs lawyers _hated_ the publicity originally given to the MacDonalds suit, so perhaps it makes sense that some of them try so desperately to revise the standard interpretation.

<comment><USER34> > The MacDonalds hot coffee case should rightly be viewed as a textbook > example of a frivolous lawsuit

It's McDonalds, and I wonder if you know the actual facts of the case. McDonalds had received over 700 reports of burn victims from their coffee. They knew they were injuring people by the hundreds yet maintained policy that franchises should keep the coffee 40 degrees hotter than other establishments, a temperature so high it would cause 3rd degree burns in under 2 seconds.

Have you seen what that kind of burn looks like? Here's the plaintiff (NSFW image): [http://neufeldlawfirm.com/blog/wp- content/uploads/2011/08/st...](http://neufeldlawfirm.com/blog/wp- content/uploads/2011/08/stella-liebeck-mcdonalds-coffee-burns.jpg)

<comment><USER33> McDonalds received 700 complaints out of _10 billion_ cups of coffee served. There will always be some number of people complaining regardless of the temperature, just like there will always be people foolish enough to put said coffee between their legs and fiddle with the lid. How many people do you suppose complained that their coffee is served too cool? If you say none I'm tempted to call you naive.

McDonalds coffee was not "40 degrees hotter" than other establishments. This came from her attorney during the trial and it's laughably false. Out of thin air it seems, he invented the axiom that coffee should never be served hotter than 60 deg C. McDonalds' corporate policy was, and still is, to serve coffee at around 80 C.

My coffee maker brews at 95-100 C. Your's does too. At all other times, your coffee maker maintains a temp of at least 85 C. Guess who else does this? Fucking everybody. The National Coffee Association recommends coffee be served at around 80 C. Starbucks, Daz Bog, Peaberry all serve coffee at or around... you guessed it: 80 C. Tell you what, go to a Starbucks and see what kind of reaction you get when you tell them they should lower the temperature of their coffee to help keep you safe. Remind them that you just might be stupid enough to squeeze the cup between your legs.

Stella Liebeck put a cup of hot coffee between her legs, and acted surprised that 1.) it spilled, and 2.) it burned. The arguments at trial were a textbook example of farce. Her lawyer monkeyed around about exactly how many seconds it takes for coffee at various temperatures to cause a burn. All the while dancing around the unspoken notion that Stella Liebeck did some kind of mental calculation based on some assumption of the temperature of McDonalds coffee, and rationally concluded that putting it between her legs was unlikely to cause pain or injury if it spilled.

Trying to argue your point using a picture of her legs is nothing more than an appeal to emotion. Yes, that burn looks bad. Yes, it's too bad she chose to put a cup of hot coffee between her legs in order to fiddle with the top.

How about this: I'll show you a picture of my daughter's friend after she accidentally stabbed herself in the eye with a paring knife, and then you can politely agree that the knife maker should be sued for negligence.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> I think the student made one big mistake here: he didn't ask _why_ (or at least, didn't disclose the answer to such a question). Aside from legal threats that appear to hold little if any merit, there's no reason this student should have let his career end. Irrespective of the choices he made, let this be a lesson to many. When you're talented and smart, you have much more leverage than you think. You have to go beyond the bs and if not to eliminate it, at least justify why someone is trying to harm you.

P.S. This doesn't just apply to "Hollywood," it happens everywhere.

</comment><comment><USER36> This would be "protecting the artist", yes?

</comment><comment><USER37> The (American) judicial system is broken when this type of class justice arises. This is a dangerous development.

<comment><USER38> when it comes to the little guy been screwed over by the ones with the cash to pay lawyers i don't think the usa has any monopoly in this area.

my favourite case of the big guy losing despite the resources they bring to bear is the mclibel case (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McLibel_Case>)

<comment><USER39> The loser paying for the winner's costs might alleviate the problem a little.

<comment><USER40> I'm not so sure. If I have 100 million and I'm suing a student and lose..my costs might be what $30,000? $50,000? and like the MPAA lawyer said, it might take 10 years.

I reminds me of the story from "a flash of genius". Yeah, he got a ton of money in the end, but he lost everything in his life that was important to him over the course of 10 years.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> What the studio lawyers did was typical and it stinks. This is a valuable story to be told. But i hate to say it, this guy would probably not have made it in the movie business as a director (if that is what his aspiration was).

First of all, having one failure and then giving up - that business is constant rejection and having to overcome difficulties with every project. Projects fall apart all the time. Lawsuits happen all the time. You have to stick out your neck financially over and over.

I'm not judging him, it's a crappy thing he went through, but if you want a career in the arts you have to be undeterred by situations like this.

</comment><comment><USER42> This is exactly why SOPA / ACTA et al must be stopped.

If this happened me, in 2012, I would go straight onto kickstarter to get donations for the legal fees and fight these dickheads tooth and nail.

<comment><USER43> _If this happened me, in 2012, I would go straight onto kickstarter to get donations for the legal fees and fight these dickheads tooth and nail._

You don't _know_ what you will do until you're actually presented with the choice. It's easy to say such things when your only emotion is outrage, because you read about the story happening to someone else. It's not as easy when you also have abject fear of financial ruin.

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> That's an unfortunate, sad story.

However, in situations like this where you might have some legal leverage, it never hurts to attempt some sort of negotiation. He could, for instance, negotiate himself into some sort of production position in the upcoming shoot or on some other set.

This is going to sound really harsh: Aside from nepotism and sheer luck, people do really make it in the film industry based on pure will and this could have been his opportunity. However, in the end he murdered his darling and packed it in. With an attitude like that (harsh, I know) his chances were slim. The film industry is not a meritocracy, and his art alone would not have carried him to success. He needed to hustle, in both senses of the word.

If he did try something like that, then I feel doubly worse for him, though.

</comment><comment><USER45> This is apropos the story, albeit slightly tangential. I don't remember all the specifics, but during my time at university, I remember a student being sued by some outside party related to his academic work. My university mobilized every resource at their disposal to defend the student and the lawsuit went away. The OP mentions attending a "small private college"; maybe my story is a hidden benefit of the large institutional machine. I would have expected the school to provide him counsel at a minimum.

</comment><comment><USER46> ...don't universities have lawyers, and honestly shouldn't they be a free resource to students in cases like this?

</comment><comment><USER47> I wonder how the movie studio would have liked the publicity over ruining a film students life.

</comment><comment><USER48> Threatening to bankrupt someone with a nuisance lawsuit that has no merit is not looked favorably on by judges, and a lawyer who says as much risks sanctions from both a judge and the bar association.

</comment><comment><USER49> That's... that's just so sad. And so infuriating.

</comment><comment><USER50> guerilla tactic: if the trial ever proceeded it would have launched this guy's film career by giving him immense public exposure instead of just another sob story on reddit.

why did it take the lead of the studio's lawyer's team to make the phone call - it would imply how seriously they were concerned about real potential risks.

instead his surrender was exactly what the studio lawyers aimed for.

btw since this was 10 years ago it's conveniently outside the statute of limitations for slander - so he doesn't have to prove this story is even real and not just viral promotion bs for his lame student project.

</comment><comment><USER51> ... and that's why loser pays system is better. This guy would just get one of those lawyers who you have to pay only after the case (that is if you lose) and have them eat their C&D letters.

</comment><comment><USER52> Beat you by 5 hours :P

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3593031>

</comment><comment><USER53> Absolutely shocking story. It must have been gut-wrenching.

This sort of shit is like a red rag to a bull for me. I would have went ahead and called their bluff and let them get it into court; I would have hoped against the odds that with all the evidence you had the judge would have thrown it out and it would have cost those bringing the action dear.

Of course, reason might _not_ have triumphed and you would have lived to regret it.

But that's just me, and I'm an idiot. Though, I like to think, an idiot with principles.</comment>


Security vulnerability found in Nginx - <AUTHOR> http://mailman.nginx.org/pipermail/nginx-announce/2012/000076.html <comment><USER2> Arch Linux already has the 1.0.14 release available in the community repo[1].

There are still no new patch level version of 0.7.67 available for Debian Squeeze[2] or Ubutu 10.4 LTS' 0.7.65 version[3]. EPEL for RHEL and derivatives also lack a new upstream version[4].

[1]: [http://projects.archlinux.org/svntogit/community.git/commit/...](http://projects.archlinux.org/svntogit/community.git/commit/trunk?h=packages/nginx&id=9fa938f3189c65b4d4e30d6f82868f59b8dce503)

[2]: [http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/n/nginx/?C=M...](http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/n/nginx/?C=M;O=D)

[3]: [http://changelogs.ubuntu.com/changelogs/pool/universe/n/ngin...](http://changelogs.ubuntu.com/changelogs/pool/universe/n/nginx/?C=M;O=D)

[4]: [http://dl.fedoraproject.org/pub/epel/6/x86_64/repoview/nginx...](http://dl.fedoraproject.org/pub/epel/6/x86_64/repoview/nginx.html)

<comment><USER3> Re [Debian/Ubuntu], wait, they incorporated the fix on 17 June 2011, but the patch is being exposed now on the nginx mailing list?

Edit: changed [2] to [Debian/Ubuntu]

<comment><USER2> The vulnerability from last year sounded similar and I therefore initialy mixed them. Updated my comment.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I may be misinterpreting the patch, but it seems like this is a NULL byte injection vulnerability, all stemming from '\0' termination in C-strings. I wonder if length-buffer pairs are more practical when security is a consideration?

Similar issues in Perl: [http://www.phrack.org/issues.html?issue=55&id=7#article](http://www.phrack.org/issues.html?issue=55&id=7#article) and other languages: [http://hakipedia.com/index.php/Poison_Null_Byte#Perl_PHP_Nul...](http://hakipedia.com/index.php/Poison_Null_Byte#Perl_PHP_Null_Byte_Injection)

<comment><USER5> IMO, zero-terminated strings are, and always have been, a bad idea. Discriminating against a certain character instead of just regarding it as opaque blob of data will bite you in unexpected ways, and strlen() taking O(N) is another drawback.

The string functions in the C standard library suck. bstring is a better alternative: [http://bstring.cvs.sourceforge.net/viewvc/bstring/tree/bstrl...](http://bstring.cvs.sourceforge.net/viewvc/bstring/tree/bstrlib.txt?pathrev=HEAD) . Glib also has a good string library...

<comment><USER6> Something to bear in mind regarding non-standard string libraries: syscalls (like open[1] on POSIX or CreateFile[2] on Windows) use null-terminated strings, which means that you have to be careful about embedded nulls, no matter what library you use, when a string gets passed to a syscall somewhere in the chain.

[1] [http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/000095399/functions/ope...](http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/000095399/functions/open.html) [2] [http://msdn.microsoft.com/en- us/library/windows/desktop/aa36...](http://msdn.microsoft.com/en- us/library/windows/desktop/aa363858%28v=vs.85%29.aspx)

<comment><USER7> It may be interesting to note that Windows syscalls (i.e. to the NT kernel rather than the Win32 layer wrappers like CreateFile) do not actually use null-terminated strings - they use UNICODE_STRING[1], which is a structure containing a 16-bit length, 16-bit buffer length, and pointer to a buffer of 2-byte characters.

NtCreateFile[2] (and the kernel-side implementation of ZwCreateFile[3]) take a file name in the form of OBJECT_ATTRIBUTES, whose ObjectName field is of type PUNICODE_STRING. CreateFile is implemented in terms of NtCreateFile; CreateFile enforces Win32 semantics like case insensitivity that NtCreateFile does not; POSIX semantics can be implemented on top of NtCreateFile, but not easily with CreateFile.

[1] [http://msdn.microsoft.com/en- us/library/windows/hardware/ff5...](http://msdn.microsoft.com/en- us/library/windows/hardware/ff564879%28v=vs.85%29.aspx)

[2] [http://msdn.microsoft.com/en- us/library/bb432380%28v=vs.85%2...](http://msdn.microsoft.com/en- us/library/bb432380%28v=vs.85%29.aspx)

[3] [http://msdn.microsoft.com/en- us/library/windows/hardware/ff5...](http://msdn.microsoft.com/en- us/library/windows/hardware/ff566424%28v=vs.85%29.aspx)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This is a very bad bug, and you should fix it ASAP. Don't wait.

<comment><USER9> What are the possible implications?

<comment><USER8> You can safely trust me on this. Also, if you're concerned, the patch is very straightforward, minimal, safe, and fairly unintrusive. It's not going to break anything.

Just patch it.

<comment><USER3> Hopefully Red Hat, Debian, FreeBSD, etc. maintainers are reading this.

<comment><USER10> Red Hat Bugzilla is tracking this for both RHEL (EPEL) and Fedora:

Master tracking bug: <https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=803856>

EPEL: <https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=803859>

Fedora: <https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=803858>

RPMs for 1.0.14 are available in koji at those second two links, or you can grab it via "yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update nginx" once the mirrors all pick it up.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> This is particularly interesting because in a lot of deployments, nginx sits out in front of a lot of other stuff as a load balancer, where it is nicely exposed.

You REALLY should be using multiple boxes if you're running load balancers (especially sw load balancers) with some kind of heartbeat failover. That way you can upgrade single boxes easily, and are ok in case one of them dies. With a bug of this severity, you won't have time to test the patch, so it's probably best to upgrade one at a time in production.

Remember, even if you're running Apache or something else for your actual web server, you can easily have something like nginx sitting in front as a proxy/load balancer. Often in front of your security monitoring devices... and you may have forgotten about it.

</comment><comment><USER12> This only matters if your backend is going to set a header that contains a null byte. Since some people echo back user data in headers (ugh) this could cause an issue. Rails is more than happy to let you put NULLs in response headers, btw. Of course, all of the ASCII CTL characters (0..27) are forbidden by the spec: <http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2068.txt>

</comment><comment><USER13> Hey guys,

Looking for a consensus on the most stable way to update nginx installations from source.

Thanks!

<comment><USER14> I prefer to custom build deb packages (on Ubuntu myself) using a project called brew2deb:

<https://github.com/tmm1/brew2deb>

It provides a DSL for describing how to build and package something, including patching, and already has a nginx formula:

[https://github.com/tmm1/brew2deb/blob/master/packages/nginx/...](https://github.com/tmm1/brew2deb/blob/master/packages/nginx/formula.rb)

Will likely be adding in this patch today...

<comment><USER15> I second the idea of building your own deb.

But if you're going to learn a DSL for building debs, why not just learn how to build debs? Your distro already provides the necessary build formula, along with well-integrated startup scripts, etc.

To start out, just build as given:

        apt-get build-dep nginx
        apt-get source nginx
        cd nginx-$VERSION
        dpkg-buildpackage

Then to customize, go into the source tree and update whatever you want to update, and rebuild. You'll see there's already a debian/patches directory where you can drop patches to apply automatically.

I tend to just keep the "debian" directory in source control, so I can take a fresh upstream tarball, check out my debian rules into it, and kick off the build.

<comment><USER14> I've done custom debian packages from scratch and always found it a pain. I've also done customized source builds and still prefer this approach because its simple, slimmer, easily version controlled, and wrapped up in a single command.

But there are many ways to fry an egg. I prefer this way, but overall having a package is a big plus for commonality between systems and convenience vs simply building from source.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> The ides of march bug.</comment>


Chrome warns you when typing anything into non-secure sites - <AUTHOR> https://www.engadget.com/2017/04/28/chrome-http-not-secure-warning/ <comment><USER2> Firefox on at least Mac has been doing this for a while as well. In fact, it displays the warning very prominently right below the password field.</comment>


AV? Google says no - <AUTHOR> http://www.google.com/trends?q=%22yes+to+av%22%2C+%22no+to+av%22

<comment><USER2> Matches with the current Opinion Polls

<http://today.yougov.co.uk/politics/views-av-stable>

It's a shame as the no-to-av camp is using scare tactics to win the argument and the press are lapping it up.

</comment><comment><USER3> Hi, HN. What is AV?</comment>


A/B testing: a comprehensive guide to getting started - <AUTHOR> http://lukethomas.com/ab-testing/ <comment><USER2> I found the section about why more companies for do A/B testing particularly interesting. It's true, when outside marketing firms suggest something like A/B testing to executives, they get upset. They wonder, "Why should we devote engineering time/resources to some testing scheme? Isn't that what we hired you to do?" This is one of the problems with making marketing and engineering too modular and not supporting enough communication between the two.</comment>


737 Max Explanation by a Software Engineer - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/trevorsumner/status/1106934369158078470?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1106934369158078470&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fnews%2F2019-03-17%2Fbest-analysis-what-really-happened-boeing-737-max-pilot-software-engineer <comment><USER2> I'm an assistant professor of aerospace engineering and I find this analysis quite spot on, in which this is representative of a much larger issue of economic and regulatory negative incentives, rather than just a "software issue" as some news outlets have reported. What I find downright criminal is this:

> _Boeing sells an option package that includes an extra AoA vane, and an AoA > disagree light_

The fact that the redundancy of a sensor on which a system capable of sudden, large control inputs relies is an optional package to be purchased separately... I simply have no words.

How was this package advertised in the brochure? Pay extra and when the airplane nosedives at high speed, this useful indicator will helpfully warn you it's because AoA reading disagreement?

<comment><USER3> I was amazed at that. Boeing used to be known for overdesign for safety. The B-747 had four redundant hydraulic systems. Here's a 787 doing aerobatics at the Farnborough air show to show that it can operate way outside the normal passenger aircraft flight envelope.[1]

Boeing used to be an engineering-first company. HQ was at Boeing's own airport near Seattle. Then they got new management and moved corporate HQ to Chicago.

[1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzr313wSY_Y](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzr313wSY_Y)

<comment><USER4> Similar video with a test pilot pushing a 707 pretty hard. Includes a barrel roll, which isn't hard on the aircraft, but unusual to see with a passenger aircraft.

[https://youtu.be/Ra_khhzuFlE](https://youtu.be/Ra_khhzuFlE)

The 707 was pretty similar to the 737...same main fuselage dimensions, similar pax capacity, etc.

<comment><USER5> Love the 4k footage.

<comment><USER4> Ah, well, it is from 1955.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I really wish people would wait for the report before drawing conclusions like this. These investigations take a long time, and it's often not the issue that gets circulated on Twitter.

AirAsia 8501 was widely suspected to be caused by a thunderstorm. Wired [1] and WaPo [2] still have articles up blaming the weather. When the investigation came out a year later, it turned out to have nothing to do with weather. The fly-by-wire system malfunctioned and the pilots got confused.

[1] [https://www.wired.com/2014/12/airasia- qz8501-thunderstorms/](https://www.wired.com/2014/12/airasia- qz8501-thunderstorms/)

[2] [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather- gang/wp/...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather- gang/wp/2014/12/28/the-challenging-weather-conditions-when-airasia- flight-8501-disappeared/)

<comment><USER7> The analogy does not make much sense because the majority of what is in this twitter thread is not new information or disputed. We also know that boeing is fixing it by a software patch already.

<comment><USER8> Eh, we still don't really know if MCAS is the cause of the Ethiopian crash, though. Some things point to it (flight fluctuating up and down, jackscrew found with full nose down trim), but some things are different, too, like crazy acceleration and handling issues right from takeoff, when the flaps would still be up and MCAS inactive.

<comment><USER9> Even if it Egyptian Air didn't crash their plane, Lion Air investigation alone exemplifies systemic negligence, not from the software standpoint, but from the top-down executive level and the negligence of the FAA.

So, your point is valid about that we need to wait for Egyptian Air's investigation, but misplaced because of the aforementioned argument.

<comment><USER10> *Ethiopian

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> This is a "Twitter sucks" off-topic rant comment, so if you're not interested in that, just move along. At no point in my reading on this topic or any other, did I say to myself "Boy this thing would be great if it were broken up into a series of small brainfarts and served up one at a time on a bloated, slow-as-molasses web platform." I'm embarrassed every time someone tries to express a complex thought on Twitter. It's like a machine that turns your thoughts instantly into listicles. And every time I go view something there, I'm astonished all over again at the dismal user-experience people put up with in exchange for "access" to a "network." (Facebook is worse... it looks like some crap I built for my big-company employer. sic. I'm not much in the front- end department, so yes, my UI sucks balls. But _my_ users _have_ to use my app, and they get _paid_ for doing so. Facebook users, I can only weep at the thought. But I digress. This was supposed to be about Twitter.)

<comment><USER12> I'll take a contrary opinion -- forcing each thought into a tweet is a nice constraint that compels people to get to the point. This would probably be less well-written as, say, a Medium article.

<comment><USER11> I actually agree with that - it's an interesting exercise to communicate concisely within a limit. (Sort of like Vine, which Twitter destroyed, but oops there I go getting smart-assy again.)

It's just, if that's your game, stick to the game, don't cheat by sprawling across 14 of those. It fails as an instance of the Tweet artform because cumulatively it's too long, and it fails as a longer-form piece because it's all broken up.

If I strung together 1780 Vines to make Fellowship of the Ring (and yes, nerdily, the math works out there), what have I proven? My powers of conciseness and economy? My respect for rules and limits? My ability to choose the right tool for the job?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Often times as a Software Developer I encounter a bug which has an obvious two line fix. Rather than implementing that though I often spend another few minutes digging into how and why that bug was introduced. Often times I'm left with a greater understanding of the problem or encounter a requirement that the previous developer was trying to implement that my fix would have broken.

Other developers will simply assume the previous developer was an idiot and bash in the fix.

I feel like in this case a lot of people are assuming the engineering team were idiots, or criminally trying to make an aircraft which didn't pass safety standards. Rather than taking a look at what caused the bug in the first place.

<comment><USER14> I deal with this constantly. Someone gets a bug report for a crash, let's say a null pointer dereference, so often I see:

> if (pPointer == nullptr) { return; }

> Crash is fixed!

I mean sure... but that's not the problem. Why was pPointer null here in the first place? So few people take the time to understand that :(

<comment><USER15> >So few people take the time to understand that :(

Because "fix this null pointer exception" is ticket number 14 this week, and your PM just wants it checked off. They don't want to hear that you need another week of digging through layers of spaghetti to track down the source; that doesn't bode well for their KPI goals.

This is a systemic issue in the way software companies function.

<comment><USER16> We can blame management but sometimes the developer just doesn't give a f* or it doesn't fit their agenda. I guess both are ultimately management issues, but it's a shared responsibility.

<comment><USER17> Ultimately it doesn't matter if your engineers don't give a fuck if management will sabatoge their efforts when they do care. Only if you have management who won't forgo quality for ticks can you really blame the dev.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> More information about the MCAS than you probably ever wanted to know: [http://www.b737.org.uk/mcas.htm](http://www.b737.org.uk/mcas.htm)

That page includes this noteworthy and unusual design decision:

"MCAS is implemented within the two Flight Control Computers (FCCs). The Left FCC uses the Left AOA sensor for MCAS and the Right FCC uses the Right AOA sensor for MCAS. Only one FCC operates at a time to provide MCAS commands. With electrical power to the FCCs maintained, the unit that provides MCAS changes between flights. In this manner, _the AOA sensor that is used for MCAS changes with each flight_."

<comment><USER19> > the AOA sensor that is used for MCAS changes with each flight.

My first thought was that, in the Lion Air case, it happened both on the crash flight and the one before - but an attempt was made to fix the problem between flights, so the FCC may well have been powered down (alternatively, maybe both senors were faulty.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> One of the trends I find most disturbing in business over the last few years is the nonchalant passing of the buck on hard business problems, down the food chain to software engineers.

The Silicon Valley mantra of "software can change the world!" has infected every corner of our lives but frequently people misinterpret this as "software can solve anything! (so I don't have to)".

Software engineers also tend to eagerly say "yes" to solving every problem with code, when sometimes a problem just can't be solved with code. Thus compounding the issue.

I'd argue that many of the macro problems in our world right now stem from this cycle.

My PSA to all devs - if someone asks you to patch a major business problem with software, push back. Sometimes a puzzle to solve, isn't _your_ puzzle to solve. Send it back up the food chain. You don't have to say yes to everything.

<comment><USER17> That's easy enough to say while talking about crashing airplanes. Harder when your H1B or family's dinner relies on you keeping your job.

I think everything keeps pointing to more punishment for management and corporate decisions. I mean management doesn't really do the work, they should at least be responsible. Otherwise it's just a system to attenuated blame.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> The failure of the MCAS system does not indict using automatic controls to adjust the flight envelope of the airplane. Lots of systems do that already:

1\. The autopilot

2\. The feel computer

3\. The device that reduces elevator authority at high speeds

4\. The stall stick pusher

5\. Hydraulically boosted controls

Modern jets would not be flyable without these, and the net effect of them is to make the jet much safer.

The failure of the MCAS system does not indict the purpose of the MCAS system, either. The problem with it was it continued operating with a failed sensor.

</comment><comment><USER22> "Hey, Bob, we need you to write the software for this system. It's based on one, non-redundant sensor and can move the elevator trim to an extreme position. Sound good?"

"Sure, no skin off my nose."

Isn't software engineering a wonderful field to be in?

<comment><USER23> Except that's not really how it works

Bob to team: "What should happen when the two AoA sensors disagree?"

Team: "We should alert the pilot"

Manager: "We can't alert the pilot because the manual will need to change. What if we only use one sensor?"

Bob: SMH

Team: "That's not a good idea. We need redundancy."

Manger: "Well, we're not alerting the pilot. Use the one sensor."

Bob: Writes the code to use only one sensor.

<comment><USER24> This shouldn't happen in a vacuum. Who's writing the requirement? The test case?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> AoA = Angle of Attack [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angle_of_attack](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angle_of_attack)

</comment><comment><USER26> Just in case anyone is wondering why more efficient engines are bigger: the energy is quadratic in speed (mv^2/2) while the momentum is linear (mv). For a given amount of energy (which comes from burning fuel) you can choose to push the airplane forward by pushing air back in 2 ways: 1. less mass, more speed, 2. more mass, less speed. It turns out 2 is better, for example you can push 4 times as much mass for half the speed, which results in twice the momentum of the air pushed backwards. Now the amount of air you can push is the amount of air you can get, and that's proportional with the front area of the engine. So, you always want to have as large an engine as possible. Bonus: the larger the engine, the slower the air moves through it, and so the less noise it produces. When you read that engines have become both more efficient and more quiet over the years, the second part was just a nice side-effect of the first.

<comment><USER27> This is one of the reasons I don't poo poo hybrid electric aircraft. With electric you can drive two or more fans off one turbine. Which allows you to increase the bypass ratio. As you mentioned the gains from that are quadratic where the efficiency penalty is linear.

Notable is using larger diameter high bypass ratio engines is what lead to the 373-MAX design compromises.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Sure, it's a system failure not strictly a software failure, but I don't think the Boeing software engineers are off the hook here. Software is where the whole system comes together. Software is what can mitigate sensor failures. Software is the top of the stack that gets certified for reliability.

A good safety culture will not have even a whiff of a "not my job" attitude. The software team should never have signed off if they noticed that a single sensor failure could cause their "correct to spec" program to crash the darn plane (if that's indeed what happened).

<comment><USER29> I think when people say software error it is in a general sense. It mean the problem is in the software as opposed to hardware. The are different types of software errors. A software error can be a coding error or a bad requirement. In the case the requirements are the issue. In my career we had safety, systems and software engineers. An experienced software engineer might have challenged the requirement in this case but the design safety would fall more on the system and safety engineers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> I think a lot of the discussions are missing the point. The mcas system itself is indeed just a duct tape for a _known_ design defect, ie using a new engine on an old body. It is like you replace a part in your car, find it over heating, and put an ice bag on it. The planned software "fix" is something like changing the volume of ice. I think it is a dead end and it is scary.

<comment><USER31> >ie using a new engine on an old body.

Would you ever be surprised if an old car got brand new tires? No? Then why do you find it so surprising that engine manufacturers would build new engines for existing airliner designs?

<comment><USER32> That's more like fitting oversized wheels / tires that will rub into the well / body every time you hit some proper bumps. Sooner or later they will fail, spectacularly.

<comment><USER31> Obviously the analogy breaks down once you start unpacking it.

Question to you though, what makes you so sure that this is in fact what happened here?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> All of this stems from a pointy-haired marketing decision to push the MAX as an upgrade to current technology requiring no new training for airlines. If they had made the ethical decision to seek a new type rating and force every pilot to be trained in the MCAS system, 400 people would still be alive. Those executives have blood on their hands, and they know it.

<comment><USER33> The ET pilots were trained with the MCAS system.

But to speculate: ET pilots seem to have experience issues before the MCAS would be active, so it's not unlikely that there was another issue with the plane, compounded by the MCAS kicking in when pilots where already fighting the aircraft...

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> No new information here, just another person pretending to be some authoritative source on this.

There's 0 proof the software worked correctly or that it's fit for purpose whatsoever.

</comment><comment><USER35> Fixing an "aerodynamic" problem with a "software" solution is already cutting over to a different problem domain and it will lead to unforeseen circumstances. What can go wrong, will go wrong.

People at Boeing who made decisions for this project whether it is a team lead or a test lead or a project manager or a sales exec or a CEO; are all equally blamed for this. These deaths are on their conscience.

<comment><USER31> >Fixing an "aerodynamic" problem with a "software" solution is already cutting over to a different problem domain and it will lead to unforeseen circumstances.

I have a hard time parsing this. A modern airliner is a conglomerate of physical aerodynamic design, electronics and software. I am not convinced that something like MCAS is so out of the norm from modern aviation design principles.

>People at Boeing who made decisions for this project whether it is a team lead or a test lead or a project manager or a sales exec or a CEO; are all equally blamed for this.

Maybe. Or maybe there is no actual underlying problem. Or maybe the problem has nothing to do with the MCAS system. Let's wait a little and see how it plays out.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> What's the reason people write long stuff like this on Twitter? Literally unreadable.

</comment><comment><USER37> With this line of argument pretty much nothing is a software issue since software is mostly there to compensate for something else: speed, errors, efficiency, manual labour, etc?

Highlighting the facts behind the design decisions of 737Max 8 is good for general knowledge but doesn't help with much else in this context.

To follow this line of argument, I'd claim that this is the fault of old airports that didn't have jetways so 737 had to be designed with lower body to allow folding stairways and so on...

<comment><USER38> Yes... and furthermore: it seems that a key problem was:

> MCAS can make huge nose down changes

This, to me, is really odd. All the hardware changes could not, AFAICT, require that. It seems really dumb that the MCAS system was made to be capable, in principle, of completely overpowering pilot input.

Is it a software problem...? Well, if the MCAS was limited to making only small changes in the stabiliser position, that could be counteracted by pilot's input to the elevators, these accidents would not have happened. AFAICT. It does seem that software contributed to the accidents.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> I read the entire thread, but the summary is that this is a harsh indictment of Boeing, its handling of this aircraft and the accidents. It describes Boeing as cutting corners in many places, and makes it seem like what has happened was inevitable (in retrospect).

<comment><USER40> We don't have the official word on what happened yet.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> I'm a frequent flier and I'm scared. I try avoid companies with low standards reading all the news about incidents related to the use of used or counterfeited parts, lack of maintenance, etc. But now it's clear that, in times of low cost companies, cheap airplane are requested and even the redundancy in critical subsystems is sacrificed both by the producer and the flight company that didn't pay for a "optional" that actually is a lifesaver. How many critical subsystem haven't redundancy to reduce the costs of airplanes ? Maybe some regulation in this market is needed to avoid other disaster like this one, imposing standard for the critical system and denying the routes to the airplanes that do not meet the specifications. I don't think that the market can play with human lives.

<comment><USER42> This kind of compromise is made all the time. In the past you needed 4 engines to cross oceans, now it is normal to just have two. It saves lots of money, and has been a massive success in terms of safety. The industry generally seems to get these compromises right when you look at the amazing safety record.

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> _" we're ... called on to fix the deficiencies of mechanical or aero or electrical engineering"_ __

As an embedded and firmware developer, I can tell you that this happens almost every day. If you ask how it is even possible to fix mechanical issues with software, know that it is true.

But, you know, this time the electrical engineer screwed up the power supply and there's noisy glitches everywhere, _we just can fix it with software_ they say. Or the mechanical engineer designed the cover plastic with the wrong material and LEDs light comes out _ugly_ : no problem, _let 's arrange the weirdest PWM sequence with SW so it looks nice_.

This time, people died. Don't throw at us badly designed system so easily because _it 's just software_.

</comment><comment><USER44> This makes Boeing sound like VW - "We don't want people to have to refill AdBlue except at oil changes"

<comment> Iwan-Zotow Do you mean DEF Blue?

<comment><USER44> Yes

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> I think this is perhaps a serious design flaw with the plane.

Boeing wanted to make the 737 more fuel efficient, but they didn't want to re- certify the frame, and design a new body. So, they put bigger engines on the wings. This sounds simple enough.

Except that the engines were too powerful for the frame to handle. So on take off, these extra powerful engines would push the nose of the plane up, to such an extreme angle that it could cause the plane to stall, and risk falling out of the sky.

In order to compensate for this, they introduced software and sensors that would mechanically adjust the flaps of the plane, in order to help "level out" the plane. This is probably ok for inherently unstable fighter jets, but for commercial aviation, a single crash is devastating.

So, this issue is not just a software defect, that can easily be fixed with code. This is a serious design flaw, where the planes are a death trap just waiting to happen. There is a mismatch between the geometric placement of the powerful engines, in relation to where it should be on the plane, in order to achieve balanced flight, without the need for software to auto-correct for an excessive nose-up pitch. It was probably only a matter of time, before sensors start to fail, and the software can no longer handle the situation.

<comment><USER46> This is incorrect. The engines are not too powerful for the airframe. The problem is that the engines themselves create lift at high Angles of Attack, pitching the nose of the plane up.

"This new location and size of the nacelle causes it to produce lift at high AoA; as the nacelle is ahead of the CofG this causes a pitch-up effect which could in turn further increase the AoA and send the aircraft closer towards the stall."

[http://www.b737.org.uk/mcas.htm](http://www.b737.org.uk/mcas.htm)

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> I wonder how this will affect pre-sales and sales of the Boeing 797. Apparently, they're going to pull the trigger on whether to build it this year: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_New_Midsize_Airplane](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_New_Midsize_Airplane)

I think it would be a good decision to do this. Not only because the 757 design in 50 years old, there's no planes Boeing offers that easily substitute for the 757, it would fit well alongside the business direction of the 787 (which has proven itself out quite well), but also because it would be a completely new plane, with few to no band-aids. I would trust a 797 over a 757 refresh, because Boeing would be much more terrified of a new plane with so much invested capital never achieving market acceptance than an older plane that has already been sold with money in the bank.

I would also hope Boeing's sales/marketing department understands planes falling out of the sky is bad for current and future sales growth, and now appreciates the difference between a properly safe plane and an unsafe plane with lots of band-aids.

<comment><USER33> The 757 production line doesn't exist anymore, so a 757MAX is completely off the table. Boeing even refused to build more passengers 767 even though the line is still running (for freighters and KC-46). The 797 as it is currently showed to prospective airlines is closer to a 767 replacement than a 757 replacement.

The real kicker is: if 737MAX becomes a hard case with lots of cancellations, or Boeing simply cannot sell it any further without cutting the price too much, Boeing will have to build a replacement from scratch sooner rather than later. The nickname for this project is NSA (New Single Aisle, I think). Or Boeing could try to build both at the same time (similar to what they did with 757 and 767).

The 797 is in an interesting situation: I believe Boeing is sitting on an incredible plane from a technical perspective, but the business case is hard to close. Of course the engineers want to build it: it's an incredible plane. But in my completely uninformed opinion it would be a mistake: no matter how great an airliner is from a technical perspective, and how alluring it is to engineers, it should not end up being a perfect solution looking for a problem.

Delta really wants the 797, but the design might be a little bit too US- centric, as if I understand correctly the capacity to haul cargo is sacrificed to keep flying costs low. But that makes it a complete no-go in the asian market, and is arguably not very forward looking (assuming ongoing rise of cargo needs). If the business case is hard to close, Boeing should just move on and build the NSA.

Airbus did that mistake with the A330NEO. They didn't have a clear business case, but a couple of customers and lessors kept pushing because they really wanted it, so eventually Airbus agreed. At least it's a "cheap" mistake, compared to a clean sheet design...

<comment><USER48> Do you have pointers to A330Neo problems which put it into this fail bucket? I found stuff about delayed delivery, and I found some scuttlebutt about the RR engines, but I can't find something which says its a fundamentally flawed idea. Bearing in mind that the 787 did not exactly have a stellar launch, having an Airbus A330 in the space feels to me logical: Many airlines have pilots trained in the A330.

Oh wait.. Is that what you mean? That there may be lurking differences in the flight envelope in a NEO to any prior experience on 330?

<comment><USER33> The problem is very simple: the A330NEO is not selling well at all. It was supposed to be a cheap alternative to the 787: not quite as good, but much cheaper. The problem is that Boeing has managed to reduce the manufacturing cost of the 787 so much that you can essentially buy a 787-9 for the same price as an A330-900.

The A350 is also suffering from the cheap price of the 787: it is too expensive, so Airbus has to work hard to lower the manufacturing cost...

<comment><USER48> This is declaration by fiat. Do you have pointers to back this up?

Web searches are much more equivocal. Many pro Boeing but not all. Observations that by type and training and flexibility an a330 fleet with a mix of ranges can suit.

Emirates has made big orders.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> If you have 20-ish minutes to spare, I suggest this video about the same topic by Mentour Pilot who is a 737 NG captain: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlinocVHpzk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlinocVHpzk)

It's not very technical, but very easy to understand. Assumes you have some basic aviation knowledge e.g. what a stall is and how weight & balance affects flying.

</comment><comment><USER50> > If the pilots had correctly and quickly identified the problem and run the > stab trim runaway checklist, they would not have crashed.

I'm curious how long it takes to run that checklist, and how much altitude would be lost while doing this? How long does it take to reach sufficient altitude to have time for this?

Also, I have a question about stall recovery and altitude. Are there any altitudes for which it is better to go ahead and stall and fall flat out of the sky than to nose down and risk flying into the ground at above terminal velocity? If so, do any automatic systems on any planes recognize you are in such a "must crash" situation and try to pick the least worst crash?

<comment><USER51> Video of training for runaway stabilizer trim: [https://youtu.be/3pPRuFHR1co](https://youtu.be/3pPRuFHR1co) (time 2:45)

* The clanking sound is the stabilizer trim "runaway". In the video, it starts while the video is zoomed in; when the video zooms out you can see the trim wheels (next to their legs) spinning.

* The trainer (left hand seat) says "rudder", but he means "stabilizer" (he says it correctly later in the video)

* The pilots in a real plane would likely not hear the noise because they will have noise canceling headsets on, but the manual trim adjustment is the big wheel next to their leg that spins very visibly and they would feel the trim pushing the plane's nose down

* The stabilizer trim adjustment is relatively slow - it takes just under 10 seconds to travel end-to-end, so runaway time is going to be at least five seconds.

</comment></comment><comment><USER52> URL has a load of junk on the end of it.

Suggest change to: [https://twitter.com/trevorsumner/status/1106934369158078470](https://twitter.com/trevorsumner/status/1106934369158078470)

</comment><comment><USER53> Is used to think aerospace industry was the most safesty conscious industry because people trust manufacturers with their lives but now Boeing is selling an essential feature like sensor redundancy as a option to make extra money .

<comment><USER54> Kind of how Mixpanel used to sell single sign on security at an extra price and free users didn't get it.

Then they got hacked and shit blew up on their face.

Safety and security aren't add-ons. It seems that in the name of making a bit of $$$, Boeing cut corners and led to loss of life.

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> Given given the relative shortage of talented software engineers in a world where software is eating the world, I find worrying that aircrafts are increasingly relying of software systems to make them airworthy.

</comment><comment><USER55> Whilst this is an interesting read and is almost certainly largely true it does not entirely square with the fact that Boeing are working (and the FAA expect the certify) a software fix by April - as noted in their press release.

Software bugs or not - it does seem a major factor was the lack of an extra "AoA sensor" and a "sensor disagreement indicator". Presumably a very low cost option in reality that Boeing should have made standard fitment at least for the first year or so whilst they worked out any kinks in the MCAS system.

<comment><USER56> The fact that Boeing is working on a software fix doesn't contradict the thread. It's explicitly mentioned in the thread.

[https://mobile.twitter.com/trevorsumner/status/1106934422249...](https://mobile.twitter.com/trevorsumner/status/1106934422249582593)

> Nowhere in here is there a software problem. The computers & software > performed their jobs according to spec without error. The specification was > just shitty. Now the quickest way for Boeing to solve this mess is to call > up the software guys to come up with another band-aid.

(some related follow up tweets)

> I'm a software engineer, and we're sometimes called on to fix the > deficiencies of mechanical or aero or electrical engineering, because the > metal has already been cut or the molds have already been made or the chip > has already been fabed, and so that problem can't be solved.

> But the software can always be pushed to the update server or reflashed. > When the software band-aid comes off in a 500mph wind, it's tempting to just > blame the band-aid.

> Follow @davekammeyer if you want to dig in.

<comment><USER57> I don't get this thinking, if you're in the bandaid making business, maybe make sure it doesn't cause an infection ?

In this case the software was developed to compensate for the system characteristic,it did not fully do that. Of course, it is immensely frustrating that software is always called upon to the papering up, but that is another issue.

<comment><USER56> Sure, I'm not necessarily endorsing the thread.

I'm just saying the existence of an in progress software patch in no way contradicts the thread itself.

It's part of the premise of the thread itself.

<comment><USER57> I was looking at it from the narrow view that it was to do A (the papering over), and it did not do that (fully).

On second thought, it's more a systems engineering issue not to take that case into account. Software engineering doesn't get off scot free though, as they are an important voice.

With the presumably tight engineering controls that are practised, I can speculate that it may have fallen into "the pilot disables and takes over control" branch. The gap would then be that they did not think that the airlines would be given the option to "not" install the sensor failure warning.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER58> [https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1106934362531155974.html](https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1106934362531155974.html)

</comment><comment><USER59> What worries me is if we're going to see some kind of relevant similarity with the 777X which afaik is 'type rated as the same as the existing 777', despite having new mechanical processes to fail (wing fold) and entirely new undercarriage.

Still, the 777X is still some way from hitting customers, so maybe Boeing will spend some time contemplating the way they gamed type rating with the MAX before hitting customers.

</comment><comment><USER60> What do you expect? Boeing is so integrated with the government that it's hardly surprising that poor regulatory decisions influenced the crashes. In fact, that's like every project. Nobody willing to assert themselves and say no. So they start integrating a bunch of unnecessary systems to compensate for flaws until you get one, big giant mess that you can't control with a deadline looming.

</comment><comment><USER61> Whenever there's talk about "causes" of things, it makes me wish that more people had studied Aristotle and his four causes:

* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_causes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_causes)

This was a pretty good example of material, formal, efficient, and final causes.

</comment><comment><USER62> This story keeps getting worse and I was already shocked and stunned beyond belief.

\- Boeing recycles 737 airframe moving the engines. This seems largely about reducing costs, decreasing time-to-market and (importantly) maintaining a common type rating.

\- To compensate for the engines moving, which could cause the nose to dip, they add a software solution (MCAS) that could dip the nose without really telling any pilots or airlines. Worse, it's based on a single input (well, one of two but it only listens to one at a type), this being the AoA sensor.

\- Blaming pilots for the Lion Air disaster. Whatever the truth, that's certainly premature.

\- Boeing refusing the ground the aircraft after the second crash.

\- The FAA apparently complicit in this until it finally capitulates to the inevitable and grounds the plane after Europe and several others already have.

\- The hubris of not wanting to appear wrong or like they're capitulating to public pressure, Boeing sticks to their guns til the better end.

\- An AoA sensor upgrade as an option for what is arguably a critical system.

What's also fascinating is all the Boeing apologists who have come out of the woodwork (eg [1]). I've seen comments about how the airlines "demanded" the 737 MAX. There might be a demand for a low-cost narrow body passenger jet and I'm sure that's the reason the 737 MAX was developed. Anecdotally, it seems to be terrible for passengers (eg [2]), which would certainly be compatible with the idea that this is a low-cost solution.

It's also worth mentioning the rudder issues of the 737 that was posted here a few days ago [3].

I honestly don't understand how Boeing's management can be so reckless with the hard-earned reputation for safety. They've done so much damage to their brand with this that if it wasn't for the fact that hundreds of people have died here, Airbus would be laughing all the way to the bank (or at least it would take the edge off the giant A380 boondoggle).

As much as pilot error has been a significant cause of air disasters (eg experienced pilots pulling the plane up to cause a stall as in the Air France crash), you get a sense of how hard it would be to fully automate piloting a plane. What I find disturbing is how hard overriding automated systems seems to be. When a plane's automated systems fails, shouldn't a pilot be able to easily take full manual control? I would've thought so. You see examples of this like Qantas Flight 72 [4].

And flying a plane is in some ways a much simpler problem than driving a car. You takeoff, you fly a predetermined route and you land. There are some adjustments for weather and other factors and occasionally you have to turn around or deviate and make a landing. I'm obviously oversimplifying here but cars seem to have so many more corner cases here. People seem to think autonomous cars are right around the corner. I'm not so sure.

[1] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19389791](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19389791)

[2] [https://thepointsguy.com/2017/11/first-look-aa- boeing-737-ma...](https://thepointsguy.com/2017/11/first-look-aa- boeing-737-max-8/)

[3] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19385980](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19385980)

[4] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qantas_Flight_72](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qantas_Flight_72)

<comment><USER63> > To compensate for the engines moving, which could cause the nose to dip

The engines could cause the nose to go _up_ , leading to a higher chance of stalling the plane. The reason why the nose would pitch up is because the engines are below the center of gravity and that's what more engine power would cause the plane to rotate around. To offset that they came up with the idea of changing the trim.

</comment></comment><comment><USER64> * Management problem. The senior executive who smooth-talked every department into bending their own rules, using phrases like "working together as a team", "focusing on the solution, not the problem", "agile" and "MVP", was hailed as a hero and financially rewarded.

</comment><comment><USER65> It's not a software problem. It's a software _engineering_ problem. It's the attitude of "it met the specifications, so I did my job and it's not my fault" that separates this kind of software "engineer" from the likes of William LeMessurier and Bob Ebeling.

</comment><comment><USER66> Are attitude indicators or gyroscopes used as as inputs to automated systems? Or are only external sensors used?

</comment><comment><USER67> If you found it difficult to read the twitter thread, this is the same thing in blog format. [https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1106934362531155974.html](https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1106934362531155974.html)

</comment><comment><USER68> Yet more deaths because people aren't looking at what the software controlling their lives actually does (in this case, ignoring extra sensor readings that could indicate a failure of one of the sensors.)

I feel like it's getting better in most industries but not in things like aerospace.

</comment><comment><USER69> Likely, the reason the 737max story receives so much attention is because software devs (consciously or not) feel this could affect our industry.

There may even be some guilt involved (justified or not), if it involves software in any meaningful way.

Various community members have been warning for some time that we'll face regulation sooner or later; all that needs to happen is a sufficiently large disaster. The dependence between life-critical hardware and software will only increase in scale.

Whether or not this begins our "Iron Ring" moment, I think it's something devs implicitly feel, and is culturally resonant for them.

\---

> my brother in law @davekammeyer, who's a pilot, software engineer & deep > thinker.

> I'm a software engineer

The thread does feel a little defensive, no?

I'm not saying that software was the cause, or even the main cause; though even if the other causes appear to be the precipicating factors, we should be on the watch out for defensiveness, without knowing the _whole story_

* I don't care that in this case, the software was not to blame - that is not the main point i am making.

<comment><USER70> I wouldn't say defensive, but rather informative.

The main point of that thread is not actually to "solve the mystery" of the crash, or even to point fingers at where the fault lies.

The point I took away from the thread is to show that these issues are complex, and there is never one single thing you can point to as "the problem". In most cases, it is really a series of interconnected events.

Our media (and I think many of us - so I'm not singling them out) loves to simplify problems in an effort to make them understandable by the average person, and while that may be necessary for them to get people to pay attention, it does us all a disservice in the long-term I think.

<comment><USER22> ...as long as you aren't pointing at the software engineer, whose products did exactly what they were supposed to do.

<comment><USER69> Ah yes.. the code meets the requirements. It follows the spec. No further involvement necessary.

And if Boeing does release a 'software upgrade', what is there to say about why the software wasn't required to be that way in the first place?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER71> "EVERY HARDWARE BUG IS _FIXED_ IN SOFTWARE" \- Motorola Iridium management in the late 1990s. The hardware was so bad when they upgraded from 68040 cpus to powerpc 603 they got a 0% improvement in performance despite the ppc603 being 2x faster ...

</comment><comment><USER72> So someone built a (traditional) weight scale. Then he can't find the balance. Thus he added a gyro sensor and develop software for it. And they call it modern scale When somehow the software didn't deliver the balance, they say we will fix the software.

</comment><comment><USER73> This is why speculation needs to come with a warning label in advance, or people retreat to their corner and start attacking to defend.

A student pilot is hyper aware of the economics of aviation. It's frigging expensive. The only thing cheap and plentiful is the opinion of another pilot.

The tweet author's shot gun spray of possible things to blame other than software, is fine speculation, because aviation accidents are rarely simple. Likely more than one thing happened. But the author rapidly falls into a trap of making claims that are not yet in evidence.

Alpha sensor failure? There's a categorical statement the sensor failed? How? Was it transient? What was the range of the readings? How did the software interpret it? Could the sensor data be corrupted in between the sensor and the interpreting software, i.e. in the communication pathway?

Author says Lion Air pilots weren't informed of MCAS. Southwest Airlines pilots weren't informed either. I haven't heard for sure whether AA pilots were informed. Of the pilots who were informed, what exactly were they told?

 _If the pilots had correctly and quickly identified the problem and run the stab trim runaway checklist, they would not have crashed._

It is not a fact in evidence they failed to do this. We have no idea what the position of the stab trim switches were, or the autopilot, and we don't know when they got into that position, or in what sequence.

Central to troubleshooting system failures in-flight is buying time. And buying time means stabilizing the plane. Uncommanded behavior can have dozens of causes. It's supreme hubris and insulting to propose pilots did something wrong without evidence, to propose they were incompetent, without evidence. To assume the failure should have been recognized, without evidence.

What will cause a consistent uncommanded roll? Could be a powerplant failure, could be control surface failure (could be any of several or a combination). Could you get a control surface failure that will kill you before you know what failed? Absolutely. Your job is to rely on training to manage the failure with a reaction that will stabilize the airplane, to buy a little extra time so that you can figure out what's failing so you can properly mitigate the failure. The proper mitigation will inevitably be different than the initial stabilizing reaction.

What happens when the failure is intermittent? That means you can't trust your stabilization routine, and therefore you haven't bought time, and therefore you're switching from death defying reaction to having to think critically. Both are being perturbed, panic is likely. The _normal_ behavior of MCAS nose down is not described as consistent if you're not aware of it in advance; you might need a few minutes to recognize the pattern. Is this for sure recognized as runaway trim? We have circumstantial evidence that it may not be.

 _Nowhere in here is there a software problem. The computers & software performed their jobs according to spec without error._

That's a concluding statement for which there's insufficient evidence. It's a reasonable assumption, because computers and software are expected to be deterministic, in particular in industrial applications. Obviously the code is not changing on the fly. And this had to be demonstrated for certification. But it's still an assumption until all the facts are available, and we have a high confidence explanation for all of the facts.

Further, the author totally ignores public statements from Boeing and the FAA that a software "fix" or update, is expected for MCAS, the software routine under discussion, by the end of April. If there's no software problem, why update it? Perhaps it's a work around for some other design deficiency. But could it be fixing a non-deterministic software bug, however unlikely?

This is the folly of speculating on airplane crashes.

</comment><comment><USER16> Am I the only one who sees a tiny bit of irony that this is posted as a twitter thread?

</comment><comment><USER74> Am i missing something? Who and where claimed it was a software problem?

From what i read it's always framed as Sensor issue (and non-redundancy issue).

It boggles my mind that a plane can be certified to fly with non-redundant sensor of such importance. Boeing should go bankrupt paying off victims and management that let that happen should be jailed.

</comment><comment><USER75> What a wonderful breakdown analysis of the chain reaction one small change can have.

</comment><comment><USER76> Let us make it simple.

It is a Boeing problem!

<comment><USER32> That we know about. I keep thinking, what other gremlins have they got hiding in the closet?

</comment></comment><comment><USER77> But - but - but - software is indistinguishable from magic!

</comment><comment><USER78> in such a complex system, software is the first thing to save your ass if there is a problem, and also the first thing to blame

</comment><comment><USER79> The nose wheel was made 8in higher.

</comment><comment><USER80> I really don't appreciate this attempt to shift blame away from any group and onto any other group. it's unprofessional and suggests working out who we can point the finger out and convincing people not to point the finger at our group is more important than the tragedy that happened and trying to work out ways to take responsibility for that. I'm sure all systems involved in the failure could be improved in some way. to emphasize how one system is not responsible is not a very empathetic response.

<comment><USER81> The group you are complaining about, the software people, are already being falsely blamed. This is a rebuttal to that. Just refuse to be a doormat.

<comment><USER65> Accepting responsibility, is not being a doormat. No matter what systemic faults were in play, the software was a part of it, and if the software engineers had made different choices - such as refusing to allow a flawed system to go forward - then the outcome would have been different.

<comment><USER82> > if the software engineers had made different choices - such as refusing to > allow a flawed system to go forward - then the outcome would have been > different.

You're assuming that the software engineers had sufficient information to identify the system as flawed.

The MCAS problems appear to stem from faulty sensor data, we don't yet know much more. However, suppose, for example, that the software engineers were told in by the sensor manufacturer that when the sensor had an error, it would shut off entirely and no signal would be sent. If that was the case, it would be difficult for the software developers to forsee and account for _incorrect_ sensor data, rather than just no data.

In something as complex as a commercial airplane, no one person can know all the systems. There has to be information "hand-offs", and it's understandable that the person receiving the information would rely on it.

It's not that different in more prosaic software development. If an API has a bug in it, it's hard to blame the API users for not accounting for the bug. You generally trust that the API does what it says it does.

<comment><USER65> > You're assuming that the software engineers had sufficient information to > identify the system as flawed.

No, I'm assuming that the software engineers had sufficient information to know what the gaps in their knowledge might be.

Following your example, if the engineers were told by the manufacturer that an error in the sensor would result in no data rather than bad data, there should immediately be followup questions: What is the redundant source of data? What is the valid range of data? Is there a positive way to detect and identify errors? How should detected errors be handled? The answers to these questions should be provided by the manufacturer. It may not be the software engineer's responsibility to double-check all the answers, but they do need to check that they were answered in the first place.

There absolutely needs to be information hand-offs; blindly accepting such a hand-off does not absolve you of responsibility.

<comment><USER82> > No, I'm assuming that the software engineers had sufficient information to > know what the gaps in their knowledge might be. ... if the engineers were > told by the manufacturer that an error in the sensor would result in no data > rather than bad data, there should immediately be followup questions ...

Yes, of course there should be due diligence with any hand-off. However, lets assume for the sake of argument that there was, and the engineers using the sensor data received appropriate answers to their questions, and yet still the sensor did not perform as specified.

It's hard to blame someone who did their due diligence, did everything right, and relied on ultimately inaccurate information.

<comment><USER65> My point (poorly made) is that there is a difference between _blame_ and _responsibility_. "Blame" is answering the question "who screwed up"; "responsibility" is answering the question "who is going to make this better".

The original tweet-stream post was making the argument that the software (and so naturally the software people) did nothing wrong and thus was not to blame, but also made the argument that since everything else was wrong ("not my fault!") that there was nothing the software people could have done to make it better, i.e., they have no responsibility.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER83> That's why software integration testing is nessessary for any critical feature. Considering airplane as a software, i think there're no integration tests to be run in this case before delivering actual product to customers.

</comment><comment><USER84> On top of this you have the legal system in US, where you only (?) have to prove that it is not unsafe, compared to Europe where you have to prove that it is safe.

You can see how this play out in how the nations handled the news of the accidents. Europe put the plains on the ground as precaution, US needed proof that is was unsafe.

</comment><comment><USER85> Ultimately, the core issue here is corporate greed. Redesigning an entire plane is expensive and time consuming. Slapping hacks and patches onto an existing airframe with modifications is cheaper. To use a software analogy, Boeing hasn't paid down its technical debt. Except instead of broken services or customer outages, it's peoples' lives. It's the same reason that many companies don't pay down their tech debt, it only indirectly helps the bottom line and it's hard to get business leaders to understand why engineering needs to redesign something.

<comment><USER86> It's not really about corporate greed, it's about _people wanting to fly as cheap as possible_. Redesigning an entire plane is indeed expensive and time consuming, and that cost would be passed on to the passengers. The airline industry is very cost-sensitive.

Gradually refining an airframe is done all the time and is not a cause for concern. If corners were really cut in analyzing the implications of such modifications, that's where the problem lies. But the vast majority of airframes in use today, civilian and to an even greater extent military, and they were often designed in the 70s. (And some very successful planes, like the C-130 and B-52, were designed in the _50s_.)

<comment><USER15> >It's not really about corporate greed, it's about people wanting to fly as cheap as possible. Redesigning an entire plane is indeed expensive and time consuming, and that cost would be passed on to the passengers. The airline industry is very cost-sensitive.

Completely regardless of a redesign, the MAX is a perfectly safe aircraft ( _WITH_ the proper additional MCAS training). The reason these people died is because Boeing didn't want to have to get a new type rating for their modified airframe, thus making it an easier sell to airlines. Corporate greed killed those people.</comment></comment></comment>


Nokia is dead, Newkia rises from its ashes - <AUTHOR> http://zdnet.com/nokia-is-dead-newkia-rises-from-its-ashes-7000020271/ <comment><USER2> Heh. If Newkia becomes success. Nokia might buy Newkia in 2015 when it is allowed to sell phones again. That would be great comeback.</comment>


Ask HN: Is cloud storage a solved problem? - <AUTHOR> What do you find lacking when using Box/Dropbox/Google Drive/iCloud/OneDrive?<p>Are there things that could be done better or are you happy with the way things are now? <comment><USER2> I had a DropBox account that had been idle for awhile, when I received a notice that the email had been changed without my knowledge. I think the account was empty or with little value but I thought I should go recover the account to make sure.

DropBox support was horrendous, first robo-sending the same "check our FAQ" response for a week, then sending multiple "we'll have someone look into this" for another few days.

Bottom line is that I never was able to get back into the account and was never able to communicate with anyone.

I finally gave up because I'm pretty sure the account had nothing of value in it and after two weeks it was probably moot anyway.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Based on the replies here it looks like most people are fine with the way things are now. Maybe this is the reason why we haven't seen any big innovations in this space in the last years?

</comment><comment><USER3> Dropbox works. OneDrive might work now, it certainly did not work at the beginning. Office would try as hard as it could to make you try OneDrive, then you would try to save and it would fail.

</comment><comment><USER4> I use Dropbox...I find search to be lacking. I would also prefer a system of tags instead of a folder structure.

<comment><USER5> Hi,

Wondering what you feel is lacking about search. I have a product that sits on top of Dropbox (and other cloud services) and provides slide-level (as opposed to file-level) search for PowerPoint files; I'm thinking this could be expanded to other types of files and would love to hear your thoughts.

Email in my profile if you want to go off line.

Thanks!

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Transparent selective syncing. Basically what Dropbox project infinity claims that they will solve.</comment>