What a coincidence that Boeing presents us with a version which makes the pilots look like clowns. As explained here it's easy to say you documented how to fix a problem when you omit telling them that the problem will appear to be another problem. https://www.seattletimes.com/b...
Boeing has pointed out that the pilots flying the same plane on the day before the crash experienced similar behavior to Flight 610 and did exactly that: They threw the stabilizer cutoff switches, regained control and continued with the rest of the flight.
However, pilots and aviation experts say that what happened on the Lion Air flight doesn’t look like a standard stabilizer runaway, because that is defined as continuous uncommanded movement of the tail.
On the accident flight, the tail movement wasn’t continuous; the pilots were able to counter the nose-down movement multiple times.
In addition, the MCAS altered the control column response to the stabilizer movement. Pulling back on the column normally interrupts any stabilizer nose-down movement, but with MCAS operating that control column function was disabled.
These differences certainly could have confused the Lion Air pilots as to what was going on.
After the first crash the MCAS was documented (though not accurately).If the MCAS had been omitted the pilots would likely be able to handle it right away as you are saying but officially they'd been forced to retrain. That is what Boeing was trying to avoid, and they did it on the cheap as well and they knew they could because they had control over FAA. MCAS is a bad implementation, and the pilots need more training to handle MCAS than for handling the problem it was supposed to handle.
Who says we should fix the problem? I want there to be a way for people to improve their understanding if they want to, and I want to avoid things getting out of hand. And that means there is a need for trust. No debunking video will help when there is no degree of trust. If you have whole groups of people who distrust the system there are no rational arguments to change that , but there is an approach, and that is starting to work to earn their trust again. Because there are real reasons for the distrust. It's a social problem.
And since the mainstream media want to play a leading role in informing us, I've seen mainstream media change. They are less reliable than ever (in reality it's still a mixed bag but there is a severe deterioration in comparison with a generation ago) . The media are one of the bad players in this. They are losing control over the narrative and want it back. But part of the reason they are losing control is because they don't deserve to be trusted. So you get a groupthink where they all trust each other. That is why Trump's election came out of the blue. There was no understanding of the deep distrust towards the ruling powers.
We can't do without rankings anymore but not all types of rankings are the same. A community ranking like a product appraisal or a karma score can suffer from all the groupthink there is but it is relatively flat and there can be multiple competing rankings. It often works well. But with rankings now being outsourced to 'experts' everyone with clout knows they have to get their people in there. So you get the Atlantic Council or the (meanwhle demised) Weekly Standard to control the rankings now.
How is giving you extra information any kind of censorship?
You're not even asking the right question. Google in this specific case is just providing a tool here for helping you lookup things. They're not even giving information. But to answer the stated question. Censorship is so last century. It was the policy for when the library was small and the only way to hide a book was to keep it out of the library. Nowadays the library is large. There still is censorship but there are new methods to complement it. Now you hide a book by deranking it, by removing the references. And if it still remains visible by giving it a bad name so that nobody wants to read it. There is so much other good stuff to read. If your bad name label if very visible then you can make sure that nobody will be seen reading it or will be seen recommending it to others either. I recall the issue of the PMRC putting labels on records or the Sneetches having to wear stars on thars. (I'm getting old) The visibility of the label causes multiple orders of avoidance.
Actually I think you are right in this specific case. The feature is an image lookup feature. I don't have any real objections to it as it is stated It is not a top down implementation if it does nothing more than helping the user to look things up.
Your 'honestly' part on the other hand... It is a problem how to respond to the positive initiatives of Google. There is an actual conflict there. My statement was focused on the heart of the matter and it did not criticize this specific initiative. The whole fake news issue is political and the idea of google and facebook helpfully pushing you in the right direction stinks. If you are going to evaluate the initiatives one by one without looking at the big picture this will have only a minor effect on the overall direction which is that Google becomes an arbitrator of truth(through deranking, demonetizing, labelling, linking). So it needs to be mentioned. There is a subtle distinction between 'everything Google does is bad' and 'the really good things Google does empower it to do more bad things'
A better example is censorship instances. You can't evaluate them one by one (there is a lot of stuff we'd better be off without)becasue then you're supporting the general approach and overall you end up with a massive amount of censorship.
Take a subject I find really annoying: vaccination.If part of the population decide to avoid vaccination this makes the whole of the population vulnerable(according to epidemology models). So I really want people to go in the direction of vaccination. But not by Google and Facebook leaning on them.
An even though all the proud defenders of corporate freedom are utterly incapable to see it, the largest pressure group is the government. Why the hell is all the publishing of US opponents or even remotely sympathetic to it, so actively suppressed?
Free speech used to have some protection in public space. Now there's an open market where social platforms are willing to play along with any pressure group with some clout to make their target disappear. And of course also with whatever feelgood project happens to be hip.
Snowden knew he didn't have the resources to cover it all himself, so rather than go for a Manning style public infodump, he went to a responsible outlet. Wikileaks is the complete antithesis of that.
- The reason Snowden didn't publish is not because of resources but because that was the job of journalists. He would not have published even if he had the resources. - I certainly won't dismiss Wikileaks as easily as you do. Their position is more radical . Maybe the main difference with The Intercept is that they both think the system is fucked up but one decides to still put some trust in it, the other not. It can be a very small difference.
It's pretty clear they don't want to go the Wikileaks publishing way. It's out of his hands now but do you think Snowden would want that? He's very principled about that. He became a whistleblower to expose unconstitutional practices and runaway surveillance policies. He sure as hell doesn't want to expose the dirty linen of the state any more than necessary. Wikileaks will publish unless there is a very good reason not to. Snowden wants it the other way round Both because that does not match his pollitical views and because he doesn't want to be disloyal to his country or the state in any way. Assange wants to work for the citizens of the state but he opposes the system. It's a different approach
You can argue about the criteria and that other people would use other criteria for what is publishable. But the way it works now is the journalists involved and their organisation get to decide and my point is they aren't trying to cover anything up. They honestly think they published what really ought to be published. Greenwald wants to pass on the archive to historians. That means he is thinking along the same lines.
I should add, there will be damaging information in the remaining files but the criterium is not to do damage but to publish what the public needs to know , where the government goes wrong.
I think the most important bits have been published, even if this is only a tiny fraction of the whole. The main lessons to be learned from it have been communicated. After that the cost/benefit calculation just becomes much smaller. It can live on as a reference base where journalists and historians can look up data which is relevant to current events but which has little apparent value in being published outside of these events. New Look Media simple doesn't want to invest anymore in what is mostly a symbolic openness. Resistance to that assumes that there are hugely important things being covered up.
It's the first time i see such data. Interesting. You can see how one sensor early on diverges and it keeps doing its job , only 'tilted' with 20 degrees difference. MCAS intervention is not simply based on the sensors because they don't have any exceptional values when it starts pushing down the nose.
I think a real discussion could be had here is to what extent the purpose of the antistall mechanism is marketing driven (avoid retraining) and to what extent it is a fix for a serious engineering problem.
Two versions: The relocation of the engines changed the flight behaviour. This means the pilots had to adjust to that.I assume that the pilots could do so very well, but the rules are that they have to retrain which is expensive. The purpose of the antistall mechanism is to avoid the retraining. Or: the flight behaviour was really compromised and the antistall mechanism was necessary.
Then I'd point out that there was a choice not to mention the new mechanism because that would be a concession that there is something new to adapt to. And on top of that the implementation of the antistall mech is a hack: unreliable sensors, lack of redundancy in the mechanism, algorithms which rely too much on these sensors, difficulty in disabling/overriding the mechanism. This is about more than the algorithms, it's the whole mechanism.
This was published in november: https://christinenegroni.com/7... By then it was already clear that Boeing had quietly added a new MCAS antistall mechanism to make the new plane somewhat act like the old plane and in this way allow pilots to switch from the old plane to the new plane without costs of retraining, and the FAA had let it pass. Since then the MCAS documentation has been made available to the pilots but that is not enough. MCAS has been badly implemented.
Boeing added MCAS mechanism to helpfully(Clippy) push the nose down when a sensor detected risk of stalling. The mechanism was using single sensor (per side) , was not obvious to disable and kept interacting with the pilot. And marketing claimed costly retraining wasn't needed? Sounds like a major fuckup. This article from last year suggests the pilots were already pretty pissed off about the last incident: https://christinenegroni.com/7...
I'm glad to read a sensible post, and it's not even the only one on this thread.And it's been modded up. I've been giving up on/. because I'm disgusted by the gullible groupthink which has come to dominate the place on political issues like Russiagate and Fake News. It's not that people have become dumber , just that things are starting to 'gel' more into a hive mind.
The example you give is good. It highlights an assumption of some pristine system which gets infiltrated by a foreign magical superpower. In reality the US has a fairly open system where a lot of powers compete with all means available, or collaborate at other times. It is robust in that way. You can try to get in there but that makes you just one more competitor.A competitor on a budget too. In that context claims like 'The Russians took over the elections' are preposterous because even if Russia attempted everything that they are being accused of (and I think they didn't) they would still only be a modest player who can't make things go their way.
They don't need any significant basis. They have a relation of trust with the media so they only need to voice 'suspicions' on something for the media to take it seriously and inflate it. Suspicions and insininuations don't need any base. You can just take any open source event and nod knowingly. That's also the logic of the Mighty Wurlitzer.: if there is a whole body of wide spectrum suspicions then everybody moves in the general direction of the claims. Nobody pays attention if the claims later are shown to be baseless. And those who do, well, evidently they are willing or unknowing accomplices for the bad guys.
My sources are people like Glenn Greenwald, Aaron Mate, people at Consortium News and the American Conservative. In general (but not always) people who think Trump is disgusting but who also think he's mostly being attacked on trumped up conspiracy theories or on his rare good initiatives (Normalization with Korea, getting out of Syria, getting along with Russia(that was only an intent which he gave up on)) but whenever he does something revolting he suddenly becomes presidential.
Most of what you believe as fact on Russiagate is nothing more than conspiracy thinking. And not only the media. Take the whole Mueller investigation. It was started on 'a suspicion' and ends with it. But in the meantime everyone just 'knows'. In a decently functioning system you need a high threshold in order to start an official investigation against a sitting president. When the threshold is lowered it just becomes politics.
It appears you don't understand how privatisation can deregulate the restraints to power. Where social media used to be treated as public speech where there were restraints to censorship Facebook is now free to censor whatever they want, and they outsource that job to whatever interest group wants control, including the Atlantic Council , the neoconservative Weekly Standard and the state itself. Without restraints.
The ahead of the curve design is a euphemism for 'far too long development cycle'. In a rapidly changing environment it does not make sense to try and look decades ahead. In a short development cycle you can be allowed to have duds. Long development cycles are too big to fail. With the F35 the all-in-one approach exacerbates those weaknesses. The development process becomes bigger and the compromises become bigger. Except of course if you consider that these things are built to make money but not ment to be used in an actual conflict which tests their capabilities. Instead they get used to to things which can be done better by planes at a fraction of the cost.
That is not what it means. It's true I shouldn't have used the word fascism. And then again I should. I read this recently and it looks appropriate: https://www.truthdig.com/artic... Trump then is 'a close call' which to most came out of the blue but is a symptom , not an anomaly. Obviously those who believe 'it's the russians' won't look beyond that.
Slashdot Mirror
What a coincidence that Boeing presents us with a version which makes the pilots look like clowns.
As explained here it's easy to say you documented how to fix a problem when you omit telling them that the problem will appear to be another problem. https://www.seattletimes.com/b...
After the first crash the MCAS was documented (though not accurately).If the MCAS had been omitted the pilots would likely be able to handle it right away as you are saying but officially they'd been forced to retrain. That is what Boeing was trying to avoid, and they did it on the cheap as well and they knew they could because they had control over FAA.
MCAS is a bad implementation, and the pilots need more training to handle MCAS than for handling the problem it was supposed to handle.
Also I don't have a clue what Southern and Sargon are.
Who says we should fix the problem? I want there to be a way for people to improve their understanding if they want to, and I want to avoid things getting out of hand.
And that means there is a need for trust. No debunking video will help when there is no degree of trust. If you have whole groups of people who distrust the system there are no rational arguments to change that , but there is an approach, and that is starting to work to earn their trust again. Because there are real reasons for the distrust. It's a social problem.
And since the mainstream media want to play a leading role in informing us, I've seen mainstream media change. They are less reliable than ever (in reality it's still a mixed bag but there is a severe deterioration in comparison with a generation ago) . The media are one of the bad players in this. They are losing control over the narrative and want it back. But part of the reason they are losing control is because they don't deserve to be trusted. So you get a groupthink where they all trust each other. That is why Trump's election came out of the blue. There was no understanding of the deep distrust towards the ruling powers.
We can't do without rankings anymore but not all types of rankings are the same. A community ranking like a product appraisal or a karma score can suffer from all the groupthink there is but it is relatively flat and there can be multiple competing rankings. It often works well. But with rankings now being outsourced to 'experts' everyone with clout knows they have to get their people in there. So you get the Atlantic Council or the (meanwhle demised) Weekly Standard to control the rankings now.
You're not even asking the right question. Google in this specific case is just providing a tool here for helping you lookup things. They're not even giving information.
But to answer the stated question. Censorship is so last century. It was the policy for when the library was small and the only way to hide a book was to keep it out of the library. Nowadays the library is large. There still is censorship but there are new methods to complement it. Now you hide a book by deranking it, by removing the references. And if it still remains visible by giving it a bad name so that nobody wants to read it. There is so much other good stuff to read. If your bad name label if very visible then you can make sure that nobody will be seen reading it or will be seen recommending it to others either.
I recall the issue of the PMRC putting labels on records or the Sneetches having to wear stars on thars. (I'm getting old) The visibility of the label causes multiple orders of avoidance.
Actually I think you are right in this specific case. The feature is an image lookup feature. I don't have any real objections to it as it is stated It is not a top down implementation if it does nothing more than helping the user to look things up.
Your 'honestly' part on the other hand...
It is a problem how to respond to the positive initiatives of Google. There is an actual conflict there. My statement was focused on the heart of the matter and it did not criticize this specific initiative. The whole fake news issue is political and the idea of google and facebook helpfully pushing you in the right direction stinks.
If you are going to evaluate the initiatives one by one without looking at the big picture this will have only a minor effect on the overall direction which is that Google becomes an arbitrator of truth(through deranking, demonetizing, labelling, linking). So it needs to be mentioned. There is a subtle distinction between 'everything Google does is bad' and 'the really good things Google does empower it to do more bad things'
A better example is censorship instances. You can't evaluate them one by one (there is a lot of stuff we'd better be off without)becasue then you're supporting the general approach and overall you end up with a massive amount of censorship.
Take a subject I find really annoying: vaccination.If part of the population decide to avoid vaccination this makes the whole of the population vulnerable(according to epidemology models). So I really want people to go in the direction of vaccination. But not by Google and Facebook leaning on them.
An even though all the proud defenders of corporate freedom are utterly incapable to see it, the largest pressure group is the government. Why the hell is all the publishing of US opponents or even remotely sympathetic to it, so actively suppressed?
Free speech used to have some protection in public space. Now there's an open market where social platforms are willing to play along with any pressure group with some clout to make their target disappear. And of course also with whatever feelgood project happens to be hip.
- The reason Snowden didn't publish is not because of resources but because that was the job of journalists. He would not have published even if he had the resources.
- I certainly won't dismiss Wikileaks as easily as you do. Their position is more radical . Maybe the main difference with The Intercept is that they both think the system is fucked up but one decides to still put some trust in it, the other not. It can be a very small difference.
It's pretty clear they don't want to go the Wikileaks publishing way. It's out of his hands now but do you think Snowden would want that? He's very principled about that. He became a whistleblower to expose unconstitutional practices and runaway surveillance policies. He sure as hell doesn't want to expose the dirty linen of the state any more than necessary. Wikileaks will publish unless there is a very good reason not to. Snowden wants it the other way round Both because that does not match his pollitical views and because he doesn't want to be disloyal to his country or the state in any way. Assange wants to work for the citizens of the state but he opposes the system. It's a different approach
You can argue about the criteria and that other people would use other criteria for what is publishable. But the way it works now is the journalists involved and their organisation get to decide and my point is they aren't trying to cover anything up. They honestly think they published what really ought to be published. Greenwald wants to pass on the archive to historians. That means he is thinking along the same lines.
I should add, there will be damaging information in the remaining files but the criterium is not to do damage but to publish what the public needs to know , where the government goes wrong.
I think the most important bits have been published, even if this is only a tiny fraction of the whole. The main lessons to be learned from it have been communicated. After that the cost/benefit calculation just becomes much smaller. It can live on as a reference base where journalists and historians can look up data which is relevant to current events but which has little apparent value in being published outside of these events. New Look Media simple doesn't want to invest anymore in what is mostly a symbolic openness. Resistance to that assumes that there are hugely important things being covered up.
It's the first time i see such data. Interesting. You can see how one sensor early on diverges and it keeps doing its job , only 'tilted' with 20 degrees difference. MCAS intervention is not simply based on the sensors because they don't have any exceptional values when it starts pushing down the nose.
I think a real discussion could be had here is to what extent the purpose of the antistall mechanism is marketing driven (avoid retraining) and to what extent it is a fix for a serious engineering problem.
Two versions:
The relocation of the engines changed the flight behaviour. This means the pilots had to adjust to that.I assume that the pilots could do so very well, but the rules are that they have to retrain which is expensive. The purpose of the antistall mechanism is to avoid the retraining.
Or: the flight behaviour was really compromised and the antistall mechanism was necessary.
Then I'd point out that there was a choice not to mention the new mechanism because that would be a concession that there is something new to adapt to. And on top of that the implementation of the antistall mech is a hack: unreliable sensors, lack of redundancy in the mechanism, algorithms which rely too much on these sensors, difficulty in disabling/overriding the mechanism. This is about more than the algorithms, it's the whole mechanism.
This was published in november: https://christinenegroni.com/7...
By then it was already clear that Boeing had quietly added a new MCAS antistall mechanism to make the new plane somewhat act like the old plane and in this way allow pilots to switch from the old plane to the new plane without costs of retraining, and the FAA had let it pass.
Since then the MCAS documentation has been made available to the pilots but that is not enough. MCAS has been badly implemented.
Boeing added MCAS mechanism to helpfully(Clippy) push the nose down when a sensor detected risk of stalling. The mechanism was using single sensor (per side) , was not obvious to disable and kept interacting with the pilot. And marketing claimed costly retraining wasn't needed? Sounds like a major fuckup.
This article from last year suggests the pilots were already pretty pissed off about the last incident: https://christinenegroni.com/7...
I'm glad to read a sensible post, and it's not even the only one on this thread.And it's been modded up. I've been giving up on /. because I'm disgusted by the gullible groupthink which has come to dominate the place on political issues like Russiagate and Fake News. It's not that people have become dumber , just that things are starting to 'gel' more into a hive mind.
The example you give is good. It highlights an assumption of some pristine system which gets infiltrated by a foreign magical superpower. In reality the US has a fairly open system where a lot of powers compete with all means available, or collaborate at other times. It is robust in that way. You can try to get in there but that makes you just one more competitor.A competitor on a budget too. In that context claims like 'The Russians took over the elections' are preposterous because even if Russia attempted everything that they are being accused of (and I think they didn't) they would still only be a modest player who can't make things go their way.
They don't need any significant basis. They have a relation of trust with the media so they only need to voice 'suspicions' on something for the media to take it seriously and inflate it. Suspicions and insininuations don't need any base. You can just take any open source event and nod knowingly. That's also the logic of the Mighty Wurlitzer.: if there is a whole body of wide spectrum suspicions then everybody moves in the general direction of the claims. Nobody pays attention if the claims later are shown to be baseless. And those who do, well, evidently they are willing or unknowing accomplices for the bad guys.
My sources are people like Glenn Greenwald, Aaron Mate, people at Consortium News and the American Conservative. In general (but not always) people who think Trump is disgusting but who also think he's mostly being attacked on trumped up conspiracy theories or on his rare good initiatives (Normalization with Korea, getting out of Syria, getting along with Russia(that was only an intent which he gave up on)) but whenever he does something revolting he suddenly becomes presidential.
Most of what you believe as fact on Russiagate is nothing more than conspiracy thinking. And not only the media. Take the whole Mueller investigation. It was started on 'a suspicion' and ends with it. But in the meantime everyone just 'knows'. In a decently functioning system you need a high threshold in order to start an official investigation against a sitting president. When the threshold is lowered it just becomes politics.
An article listing media failures on Russiagate
https://theintercept.com/2019/...
It appears you don't understand how privatisation can deregulate the restraints to power. Where social media used to be treated as public speech where there were restraints to censorship Facebook is now free to censor whatever they want, and they outsource that job to whatever interest group wants control, including the Atlantic Council , the neoconservative Weekly Standard and the state itself. Without restraints.
By abolishing net neutrality?
The ahead of the curve design is a euphemism for 'far too long development cycle'. In a rapidly changing environment it does not make sense to try and look decades ahead. In a short development cycle you can be allowed to have duds. Long development cycles are too big to fail.
With the F35 the all-in-one approach exacerbates those weaknesses. The development process becomes bigger and the compromises become bigger.
Except of course if you consider that these things are built to make money but not ment to be used in an actual conflict which tests their capabilities. Instead they get used to to things which can be done better by planes at a fraction of the cost.
That is not what it means.
It's true I shouldn't have used the word fascism. And then again I should. I read this recently and it looks appropriate: https://www.truthdig.com/artic...
Trump then is 'a close call' which to most came out of the blue but is a symptom , not an anomaly. Obviously those who believe 'it's the russians' won't look beyond that.
50000 acts of SWAT terrorism per year.