yoda222
That's a weak argument to say that Ada could not lead to a better place in term of software. It's like saying that it's not safer to cross at a crosswalk because you know someone who died while crossing on one.
(But I guess that's fair for you to say that, as the argument should probably be made by the people that say that Ada would be better, and because they made a claim without evidences, you can counterclaim without any evidence :-) )
There are no programming language that can prevent a software for working correctly outside of the domain for which the software is written, which was the case for Ariane 501. Any language that would have been used to write the same software for Ariane 4 may have led to the same exact error. Ariane 501 failure is a system engineering problem here, not a software problem (even if in the end, the almost last piece in the chain of event is a software problem)
The only type of mathematicians that actually care are: - the one that use software where using one or the other and the "incorrect" algorithm may impact the performance significantly. Or worse, the one that would use software that don't use the same arbitrary choice (column major vs row major). And when I say that they care, it's probably a pain for them to think about it. - the one that write these kind of software (they may describe themselves as software engineer, but some may still call themselves mathematicians, applied mathematicians, or other things like that).
Now maybe what the author wanted to say is that some language "favored by mathematician" (Fortran, MATLAB, Julia, R) are column major, while language "favored by computer scientist" (C, C++) are row major
But I have the feeling that this is difficult in pratice to use for a AA meeting. I'm actually lucky enough to not to have the need to participate to such a meeting, but from what I understand from it, the anonymous part is important, as well as the possibility for newcomers to participate. I doubt for these reasons that AA meeting groups have a list of participant clearly identified, to whom they can send a password protected link, or that they could use such a list to check that people are someone part of the group.
Unfortunately, I'm not sure that this kind of problem can be fixed (technologicaly. On the non-technology side, we could hope for a world without asshole, but that's only a dream)
He is counting 11 hull losses, which is the correct number of hull loss ( http://aviation-safety.net/database/types/Airbus-A330/losses ), but he didn't bother to look for anything more than that. Out of these 11 losses, four were due to ground attack by armed groups (Two in Sri Lanka in 2001, two in Libya in 2014. These are the one marked "C1" in the page)
Pretty sure that these should not count when assessing the security of a airplane (at least a civilian airplane)
When two car are at a speed of 70mph, the maximum speed difference between them is 140mph, when they are at 50mph, it's only 100mph. So the speed of a car has a direct impact on the speed difference between cars.
The studies you are referring to (the retracted and the non conclusive one) are two studies based on past data on real road. They did compare existing numbers and yes, there was no statistical significance due to the reduced sample (according to the article, I didn't check personnaly ;-) ).
If the article had stopped there on that part, you would be correct. But there was more. You missed the part about the sled test study (There is a direct link to the study in the article. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3217519/)
And that study is statistically significant for all but one type of injury:
> The best RF restraints (RF EURO) clearly outperformed the best FF restraints (FF EURO) when comparing injury measures. There were statistically significant differences at all injury measures except chest 3ms clip