twtw

6 ms·

1.
by twtw 8y ago
> You've gone from "they flew a broken aircraft" to "alight, so they repaired it twice, but you cannot ever trust a malfunctioning aircraft again." If you think I've changed my argument, you misunderstood my
2.
by twtw 8y ago
The preliminary report from the investigation of LNI610 disagrees with you: https://reports.aviation-safety.net/2018/20181029-0_B38M_PK-... The AoA attack sensor was replaced prior to flight LNI043 (he flight prior to
3.
by twtw 8y ago
Can something be obsolete if it is still extremely widely used? IIRC, Linux and FreeBSD both use a buddy allocator for physical memory, and I'm pretty sure it is used (in addition to other allocators) in jemalloc as well.
4.
by twtw 8y ago
The comment you are responding to addresses the claim that the 737 max is not passively stable. It is less safe than other aircraft, but not because it requires active control for stable flight in any manner comparable to a fighter jet. I&#
5.
by twtw 8y ago
But they neglected maintenance when serious issues with the plane were apparent. The pilots of the flights prior to 610 noted that the two AoA sensor readings differed by ~20 degrees, and nearly aborted their flight before overriding the au
6.
by twtw 8y ago
The procedure that pilots are taught to override auto trim was unchanged, but I think that previous auto trim systems could also be "out muscled" just by pulling back on the yoke without actually switching on the manual override.
7.
by twtw 8y ago
> deflecting to something unrelated I don't think it is unrelated that the only accident thus far of a plane with a failure mode that is more difficult for pilots to respond to was on an airline with a notoriously bad safety record.
8.
by twtw 8y ago
> criminal charges Boeing informed the FAA of the changes, and the FAA decided that the pilots and airlines did not need to be informed. Criminal charges for Boeing would be extremely surprising.
9.
by twtw 8y ago
This is a seriously misleading characterization of the 737 Max. If you read https://theaircurrent.com/aviation-safety/what-is-the-boeing... (the source of the article that 'acqq is selectively quoting) you will le
10.
by twtw 8y ago
No, it doesn't. The 737 max has software to prevent stalls in situations outside of the profile of normal flight. As does e.g. the A320.
11.
by twtw 8y ago
It's interesting that you reach that conclusion. I'll fly 737 max. I won't fly Lion Air or Ethiopian Airlines. Southwest: fleet size 754, founded 1967, total of seven accidents with 3 deaths. Ethiopian Airlines: fleet size 10
12.
by twtw 8y ago
The new system (MCAS) was not intended to take action in normal flight. It was intended the trim in certain scenarios (roughly high AoA + steep turn + high g + near stall), but on lion air 610 the AoA sensor was malfunctioning, which caused
13.
by twtw 8y ago
There already is a switch to disable auto trim. The pilots on the flight prior to 610 used it, as trained. The pilots on 610 did not.
14.
by twtw 8y ago
> because Comcast has -bribed- donated to way more congresspeople than google Is that true? [1] indicates Google spent more than Comcast in lobbying in q1 2015. I have no idea how this varies quarter by quarter and since 2015, but Google
15.
by twtw 8y ago
Discrete optimization and automatic differentiation.
16.
by twtw 8y ago
Apple started opencl too, and that didn't last very long.
17.
by twtw 8y ago
Thus >> Whether that would be worth it for instruction decoding, I don't know There would be significant overhead to design a decoder such that it could switch between legacy and aarch64 only, but it could conceivably be done. fy
18.
by twtw 8y ago
"ARM Takes Wing: Qualcomm vs. Intel CPU comparison" https://blog.cloudflare.com/arm-takes-wing/ Maybe you don't consider those "real" benchmarks, but they look like benchmarks to me.
19.
by twtw 8y ago
> That's... not the way hardware works. Regarding transistor / area budget, sure. Regarding power budget, that absolutely could be the way hardware works. Modern chips can and do power off pieces of silicon when they are not ne
20.
by twtw 8y ago
"Hey AI, is this a hot dog?" "You've asked me that a billion times - I'm sick of looking at all your pictures. Figure it out yourself." Maybe that's how we will know.
21.
by twtw 8y ago
No, it isn't supposed to be ironic. The title says "should," after all. Who says every programmer should knows these things about memory? Obviously not you. Ulrich Drepper does - I bet if you asked him, he would say everyon
22.
by twtw 8y ago
If you are objecting to "every," then sure, not every programmer needs to know anything about memory. You can program without knowing that there is such a thing. But it's a fun title, and an excellent resource.
23.
by twtw 8y ago
What would be a breaking change for Linux that would justify a major version increment? Linux doesn't break userspace, and there are no stable internal APIs or ABIs.
24.
by twtw 8y ago
Thanks!
25.
by twtw 8y ago
Ah, yes, and every curve is a line. If some amount of something didn't have meaningfully negative effects, than a vastly increased amount of that same thing can't possibly have negative effects!
26.
by twtw 8y ago
Sure, and the article discusses that. I was thinking at the instruction level. I tend to think of convincing the hardware to do what you want and convincing the compiler to do what you want separately as an effect of writing code before the
27.
by twtw 8y ago
The naming is not misleading, because the article says a lot about parallel processing. It is talking about memory consistency models, for heaven's sake. If you have a uniprocessor, or any kind of concurrency without parallelism, it
28.
by twtw 8y ago
Computer engineering is not substantially newer than aerospace engineering.
29.
by twtw 8y ago
Sure, for UB. But extensions like typeof are different from UB. They have documented behavior, it is just documented by GNU instead of the C standards committee.
30.
by twtw 8y ago
typeof is a GNU extension, but it (or an equivalent) is implemented in every compiler anyone actually uses. You can do it in C, you just can't do it in the part of C the standards committee has decided to standardize. I'm not sure

More ›