Software shouldn't be flying space/aircraft. Pilots should.

Believe human/machine argumentation shall persist for another decade (if we get such..)
To my simple mindfluff: a schism appears when you consider the Boolean thing: Yes, software Can accommodate lots of what-went-wrong events
--all those 'you' managed to add-to-list just at Final Cut.

Brains gots Reason, that realm which exceeds any 'disaster-planning-made-Boolean' at its core. Problem with your stat (also human-caused, partially)
is that investigators' methodology ends often [in my readings--not encyclopedic] without reporting 'discussions' along the way as led to -->
"must be pilot error; all the machines seemed to be working OK" (whether or not, in the event: they could have been 'aware-of' such a clusterfuck-as-This-one
had not been planned-for in the s/ware.

Moi just amateur in your field of chops, but recall: some certified-Engineers managed to plan rafts of planes wherein the Over-riding-Mondo joystick
for both pilots:was placed out-of-MUTUAL-sight ... by each's thigh, but especially: the Co-chair's.
(Read that crash-report meticulously, maybe you did too?)

Carrion. I concede that Stats do show that: these self-flying /No! we won't let you Do That! aircraft.. are not dropping from the skies with any regularity, last I heard.
So I could be Rong in my assessment; nevertheless: an absence of in-sight TANDEM controls in a cockpit means: I won't fly within your Euro-fabs' creations.
Just ONE event of the now more-than-one cases of a bonkers Copilot means: I side with the already-Dead.

Post #435,063 by mmoffitt 7/8/20 12:16:14 PM 7/8/20 12:16:14 PM Reply	Software shouldn't be flying space/aircraft. Pilots should. bcnu, Mikem It's mourning in America again.
Post #435,064 by malraux 7/8/20 12:33:50 PM 7/8/20 12:33:50 PM Reply	SpaceX return and recycle wouldn't be a thing without software. Like it or not software is here to stay. It's a lever, just need to make sure it's being pushed correctly. Regards, -scott Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.
Post #435,066 by pwhysall 7/8/20 12:46:59 PM 7/8/20 12:46:59 PM Reply	wait what Somewhere north of 80% of all air accidents are pilot error. Your viewpoint is emotionally-driven, not scientific.
Post #435,072 by Ashton 7/8/20 4:59:58 PM 7/8/20 4:59:58 PM Reply	LRPD: It's Zeus. He's taking you away to the Acropolis. Believe human/machine argumentation shall persist for another decade (if we get such..) To my simple mindfluff: a schism appears when you consider the Boolean thing: Yes, software Can accommodate lots of what-went-wrong events --all those 'you' managed to add-to-list just at Final Cut. Brains gots Reason, that realm which exceeds any 'disaster-planning-made-Boolean' at its core. Problem with your stat (also human-caused, partially) is that investigators' methodology ends often [in my readings--not encyclopedic] without reporting 'discussions' along the way as led to --> "must be pilot error; all the machines seemed to be working OK" (whether or not, in the event: they could have been 'aware-of' such a clusterfuck-as-This-one had not been planned-for in the s/ware. Moi just amateur in your field of chops, but recall: some certified-Engineers managed to plan rafts of planes wherein the Over-riding-Mondo joystick for both pilots:was placed out-of-MUTUAL-sight ... by each's thigh, but especially: the Co-chair's. (Read that crash-report meticulously, maybe you did too?) Carrion. I concede that Stats do show that: these self-flying /No! we won't let you Do That! aircraft.. are not dropping from the skies with any regularity, last I heard. So I could be Rong in my assessment; nevertheless: an absence of in-sight TANDEM controls in a cockpit means: I won't fly within your Euro-fabs' creations. Just ONE event of the now more-than-one cases of a bonkers Copilot means: I side with the already-Dead.

Welcome to IWETHEY!