I would hope that is also taught in management schools, as they appear to be the ones making these decisions.
I fear that wouldn't matter, because they could end up working (indirectly) for stockholders that find that dollar-to-lives tradeoff desireable.
Considering the MCAS[0] failures were largely software defects in an autonomous system, seems plausible to me...
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maneuvering_Characteristics_Au...
What are you talking about?
What Tesla markets and sells falls into SAE Autonomous Ground Vehicle classifications, just not level 5.
Nothing I wrote spoke to anything Tesla sells being L5 (or any particular level at all).
Edit: On the topic of MCAS, it strikes me as a system akin to around an SAE L2/L3, overriding pilot inputs to prevent a perceived crash/stall risk. This AIUI is well within the autonomy space Teslas operate...
In this case I don't see how you could make the same argument, clearly the new planes were not safer than the old ones or they wouldn't have been grounded.
I can anticipate and avoid a drunk driver in many situations. I’d never expect that behavior out of any human driver.
Just to add to the conversation a bit more: Humans give away their intentions in more ways than turn signals, as a human you subconsciously know what the other is trying to do, just by watching. It's difficult to explain, and you gotta have driven a car to understand.
These self-driving vehicles aren't even close to mimicking that aspect. Leading us, humans on the road, a bit more clueless on what's going on.
People will slam on the brakes when they see an animal run out on the road. It's generally considered better driving practice to not do that, as you risk rear end collisions, but that behaviour from humans does exist.
That said, my current MG4 is just as bad with emergency lane-keeping, but with the added entertainment of it being on by default and needing to be disabled on every trip. Level 5 self-driving won't happen for decades.
I'm glad you're safe, and honestly you were set up to fail (hence the GP's point). Thank you for taking the responsible choice and not putting yourself in the same dangerous situation again.
I haven't driven a Tesla, although I've been in an uber where the guy used FSD and it didn't do anything crazy. I don't think anecdotes on the internet are going to settle this, an independent body needs to work with insurers etc. to track statistics to determine which driver assistance features are helping and which are hurting.
Except that they never provided hard data to support this argument.
Until they do that I'll consider it the usual Tesla marketing lies and bullshit.
Boeing is not an engineering culture, it is an MBA culture. This is the result.
It is clear, by deadly example, that Boeing *management* is not capable of running a company that produces a safe plane. It is, after all, difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.
All the engineering ethics in the world does nothing against the greed of Boeing's management.
The value of a company's equity is based on the net present value of future returns. That means that while short term earnings are important, so are earnings in the moderately distant future. (depending on risk free interest rates)
If a company like Boeing were properly managed, they'd give suitable priority to engineering excellence, at least to the point of not having critical failures like these, because that's core to their ability to compete with Airbus/etc in the future.
The real issue you're concerned about is that it is very difficult to align the interests of corporate managers with the interests of the company. It is relatively easy to align senior management with short term stock prices, but it is difficult for the public to figure out that the gains they see (less engineering cost, faster turnaround time, etc) come at the expense of the longer term viability of the company, so the former gets priced into the short term stock price (and so executive compensation) and the latter does not.
Sure managers are guilty.
But managers did not write the code. "Engineers" did.
As long as there are engineers writing that code (also see VW and #Dieselgate) there will be managers who do this. Engineers need to take a stand and don't do everything. Like professionals. "He made me do it" is not an excuse for hundreds of dead people.
I have UBI.
See the Challenger disaster for a high profile example.
If I don't rob the bank, someone else will!
Yes, and then the other engineer is responsible for the dead people, not you. But if your job is more important than other peoples lifes, I guess, yes, you do as you have been told.
Or maybe we stop people from trying to force others to rob banks. Nip the problem in the bud.
Why do you want to let managers get away with toxic behavior and then blame the subordinates?
You: "Why do you want to let managers get away with toxic behavior."
All free people have the authority to refuse their manager's orders.
But people like money.
The MBA program should include more ethics courses and perhaps an adapted version of the Hippocratic Oath.
--> MBA Oath : https://mbaoath.org/
Boeing management --and their flat-out inability to out-innovate the competition at cost-- are the real reason behind the push to certify at all cost.
Comac C919 - First flight: 2017, introduced 2023, number built: 10 (3 in service?)
Sukhoi Superjet 100 - First flight: 2008, introduced 2011, number built: 229
Boeing 737 MAX - First flight: 2016, introduced 2017, number built: 1,376
Airbus A320 NEO - First flight: 2014, introduced 2016, number built: 3,092
They're not even in the same ballpark. It'll take Comac decades to make those inroads and Sukhoi is done for.
[1] https://asiatimes.com/2023/09/russia-defies-sanctions-with-h...
Considering that Russian engineering culture is even worse than that of Boeing (and probably massively so) it’s unlikely that they can ever be competitive if that’s the main issue
The C919 is a decent plane, but by most accounts a decade behind in tech and efficiency. And for short-haul operations, efficiency is the most important thing.
The only real competitor to Boeing today is Airbus. Comac can be one 10-20 years down the line.
FAA approval is only a slam-dunk because it is recognized internationally as a steward of quality and reliability. By asking the FAA to start certifying sub-par planes, Boeing will not only destroy their own brand but will bring the FAA down with them.