0 users browsing Discussion. | 2 bots  
    Main » Discussion » I have yet to have never seen it all.
    Pages: First Previous 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Next Last
    Posted on 19-07-28, 21:46
    Stirrer of Shit
    Post: #543 of 717
    Since: 01-26-19

    Last post: 1544 days
    Last view: 1542 days
    Not the first time the EU kills some anime project, mind you.

    A lot of people in the West actually went to prison over cartoon girls doing lewd things, both in America and Europe, so I understand their choice. But why couldn't they just host it in Japan or {insert shithole with absolutely no standards here}? They don't tend to be overly concerned with such matters. Heck, CP was entirely legal in Russia up until a few years ago.

    (They might have pulled some GDPR move where an American living in America who had never set foot in one of their disgusting shitholes still was under their law because reasons, but I doubt even the EU would be that insane)

    Well, I suppose it'll fare just like that other project, in that you wait a few weeks and then everything is back to normal, just slightly worse but hopefully more secure.

    There was a certain photograph about which you had a hallucination. You believed that you had actually held it in your hands. It was a photograph something like this.
    Posted on 19-07-28, 22:01

    Post: #178 of 449
    Since: 10-29-18

    Last post: 28 days
    Last view: 1 day
    Posted by tomman
    Oh, and my favorite porn doujinshi site (you know which one, you bastards!)

    nhentai.net?

    My current setup: Super Famicom ("2/1/3" SNS-CPU-1CHIP-02) → SCART → OSSC → StarTech USB3HDCAP → AmaRecTV 3.10
    Posted on 19-07-28, 22:57
    Post: #66 of 202
    Since: 11-01-18

    Last post: 441 days
    Last view: 73 days
    its more article 13 than anything else.
    Posted on 19-07-29, 01:30
    Dinosaur

    Post: #457 of 1285
    Since: 10-30-18

    Last post: 14 days
    Last view: 1 hour
    Posted by creaothceann
    Posted by tomman
    Oh, and my favorite porn doujinshi site (you know which one, you bastards!)

    nhentai.net?

    Didn't knew that one. But nope, it was sadpanda:
    https://forums.e-hentai.org/index.php?showtopic=229503

    Licensed Pirate® since 2006, 100% Buttcoin™-free, enemy of All Things JavaScript™
    Posted on 19-07-29, 22:48

    Post: #89 of 158
    Since: 10-29-18

    Last post: 647 days
    Last view: 26 days
    Posted by creaothceann

    nhentai.net?



    Seriously though, everything seems to be going the way of always-online gaming. Before that happens I'll be backing up all my GOG installers before they decide you need an online account to play Tyrian 2K.

    I still have no idea what I'm talking about.
    Posted on 19-08-01, 01:08
    Dinosaur

    Post: #464 of 1285
    Since: 10-30-18

    Last post: 14 days
    Last view: 1 hour
    While we guys protest in disgust about the imminent death of our beloved floppy drives and 32-bit processors on our Linux distros, the priorities at Boeing Commercial Airplanes are quite distinct:
    https://www.wingsoverquebec.com/?p=8649

    The death trap known as 737 MAX just got yet another computer-related flaw added to its pile of computer-related flaws: a good ol' 286 (as in "Intel 80286", released over 35 years ago!) is in charge of critical flight systems, like the flaps and stabilizers. Turns out if you feed a slowass CPU with a heavy load, said CPU performance will plummet down. We hate this when it happens to our videogames, but on an airplane the consequences are far more serious. As in deadly serious.

    So yeah, those very expensive birds with flawed computers won't be flying again for some long time. The MCAS issue? That's EASY MODO. Yet, Boing (not a typo) believes they can add more Javascripts hire more $9/hr code monkeys fix this flight control flaw with more software.

    I'll stick to buses, thanks.

    Licensed Pirate® since 2006, 100% Buttcoin™-free, enemy of All Things JavaScript™
    Posted on 19-08-01, 07:18 (revision 1)
    Custom title here

    Post: #600 of 1151
    Since: 10-30-18

    Last post: 12 days
    Last view: 11 hours
    Posted by tomman
    While we guys protest in disgust about the imminent death of our beloved floppy drives and 32-bit processors on our Linux distros, the priorities at Boeing Commercial Airplanes are quite distinct:
    https://www.wingsoverquebec.com/?p=8649

    The death trap known as 737 MAX just got yet another computer-related flaw added to its pile of computer-related flaws: a good ol' 286 (as in "Intel 80286", released over 35 years ago!) is in charge of critical flight systems, like the flaps and stabilizers. Turns out if you feed a slowass CPU with a heavy load, said CPU performance will plummet down. We hate this when it happens to our videogames, but on an airplane the consequences are far more serious. As in deadly serious.

    So yeah, those very expensive birds with flawed computers won't be flying again for some long time. The MCAS issue? That's EASY MODO. Yet, Boing (not a typo) believes they can add more Javascripts hire more $9/hr code monkeys fix this flight control flaw with more software.

    I'll stick to buses, thanks.

    In all fairness, I'm pretty sure javascript code monkees aren't generating anything runnable on an 80286, even an unusually fast one(I'm assuming they're using some sort of embedded microcontroller version that runs at something like 200 MHz. I mean, if it is possible for the Z80, it is possible for the 80286.).
    That said, they probably can't fix this with more code. They need LESS code.

    Also, slowdown nearly crashed Eagle during the Apollo 11 landing. Armstrong and Aldrin forgot to turn a single switch off, so the computer was overloaded and calculations were lagging behind real-time.


    But with as much of a fiasco as the 737 MAX has been, yeah. Stick to buses. Boeing gives no shits if the plane can fly, apparently. There's problems in every crevice.

    --- In UTF-16, where available. ---
    Posted on 19-08-01, 07:40
    Rated M for Manly

    Post: #314 of 598
    Since: 10-29-18

    Last post: 105 days
    Last view: 3 hours
    Ironically, the buses are less crazy.
    Posted on 19-08-01, 11:39
    Dinosaur

    Post: #466 of 1285
    Since: 10-30-18

    Last post: 14 days
    Last view: 1 hour
    Also:

    - They're talking about "temporarily" stopping production of the 737 MAX, because it's unlikely that the plane will go back to service this year... or even in the next year, as bugs and flaws keep getting disclosed. Plus, they're running out of space to park unfinished/undelivered planes at their factories (at this stage it looks like an used auto lot).

    - The 777X is also delayed. They blame GE/Safran for the delays on the engines.

    - This fiasco is also hitting other of their business areas, like the defense contractor unit (their second most profitable unit next to commercial airplanes): they're starting to drop contracts for missiles and shit with their dear Uncle Sam because "not profitable enough".


    I would say "buy Airbus", but then those Europoors have had their "buggy planes" share in the past (including their "near-MCAS" moment with the A320 over a decade ago). And there is the unloved A380.

    So yeah, better buy Marcopolo or Setra shares - a stall on a diesel ECU just means "unplug the battery and retry".

    Licensed Pirate® since 2006, 100% Buttcoin™-free, enemy of All Things JavaScript™
    Posted on 19-08-01, 11:53
    Custom title here

    Post: #602 of 1151
    Since: 10-30-18

    Last post: 12 days
    Last view: 11 hours
    This is what happens when your regulators let the company making the plane do the safety evaluations and reviews and don't even spotcheck it.

    FAA let Boeing do the reviews, went "seems legit" when Boeing made safety evaluations up out of whole cloth, and now that the things are falling out of the skies the FAA is looking over the garbage Boeing passed them and going "Wow, this is some fake-ass shit, why did we ever sign off on this?"

    --- In UTF-16, where available. ---
    Posted on 19-08-01, 17:33
    Stirrer of Shit
    Post: #550 of 717
    Since: 01-26-19

    Last post: 1544 days
    Last view: 1542 days
    Posted by CaptainJistuce
    I'm assuming they're using some sort of embedded microcontroller version that runs at something like 200 MHz. I mean, if it is possible for the Z80, it is possible for the 80286.

    The article says it runs at 20 MHz, make of it what you will.
    Posted by tomman
    Yet, Boing (not a typo) believes they can add more Javascripts hire more $9/hr code monkeys fix this flight control flaw with more software.

    Posted by CaptainJistuce
    In all fairness, I'm pretty sure javascript code monkees aren't generating anything runnable on an 80286, even an unusually fast one.
    That said, they probably can't fix this with more code. They need LESS code.

    Well maybe they just shouldn't have hired such code monkeys? Based on my experience with those people, this seems more like a case of "a bad carpenter blames his tools":
    Posted by https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-06-28/boeing-s-737-max-software-outsourced-to-9-an-hour-engineers

    It remains the mystery at the heart of Boeing Co.’s 737 Max crisis: how a company renowned for meticulous design made seemingly basic software mistakes leading to a pair of deadly crashes. Longtime Boeing engineers say the effort was complicated by a push to outsource work to lower-paid contractors.

    The Max software -- plagued by issues that could keep the planes grounded months longer after U.S. regulators this week revealed a new flaw -- was developed at a time Boeing was laying off experienced engineers and pressing suppliers to cut costs.

    Increasingly, the iconic American planemaker and its subcontractors have relied on temporary workers making as little as $9 an hour to develop and test software, often from countries lacking a deep background in aerospace -- notably India.

    The coders [sic] from [the Indian software developer] HCL were typically designing to specifications set by Boeing. Still, “it was controversial because it was far less efficient than Boeing engineers just writing the code,” Rabin said. Frequently, he recalled, “it took many rounds going back and forth because the code was not done correctly.”

    The middle management divisions have got to cool it with their credentialism. Three years of education is just not the same as three years of education, plain and simple. They can't claim that they have degrees so they should be as good as the usual engineers and everything's fine, because then this sort of stuff starts to happen. University is a giant fraud already, so just imagine how big a fraud it is with such contractors.

    How do you say it in English, wise for a penny and stupid for a pound? And they don't even seem repentant:
    In a statement, HCL said it “has a strong and long-standing business relationship with The Boeing Company, and we take pride in the work we do for all our customers. However, HCL does not comment on specific work we do for our customers. HCL is not associated with any ongoing issues with 737 Max.”


    They should have fired all those people along with whoever was responsible for hiring them and brought in competent developers whenever these sorts of debacles first started happening.

    (Of course, they claim they had their real engineers doing the parts that failed, but considering how low they already stooped in hiring them, do you really believe them?)

    There was a certain photograph about which you had a hallucination. You believed that you had actually held it in your hands. It was a photograph something like this.
    Posted on 19-08-01, 18:11

    Post: #92 of 158
    Since: 10-29-18

    Last post: 647 days
    Last view: 26 days
    I don't how accurate this is but I guess aircraft control software has nothing on the average tech-loaded car nowadays: https://www.visualcapitalist.com/millions-lines-of-code/
    Around an order of magnitude greater lines of code, it's amazing we can actually get anywhere these days without something blowing up, crashing, driving us off a cliff, launching nukes, whatever.

    I still have no idea what I'm talking about.
    Posted on 19-08-01, 21:00
    Post: #1 of 1
    Since: 10-30-18

    Last post: 1719 days
    Last view: 1373 days
    So... I'm actually a software engineer in the aviation industry and for anyone interested this is the standard we have to comply to for software for the FAA, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DO-178B. The FAA is crazy strict on software that goes into aircraft and requires that everything is tested and certified to do exactly what it's supposed to do. Even the compilers and other tools we use have to be certified, not just the software we write. I haven't dug too much into the details of the 737 MAX that tomman linked, but it seems like the FAA caught the problem BEFORE the airplane passed it's cert process, which is why there is a process. It looks like a software change that they were attempting to cert caused the overload. As part of the cert processes there is a stress testing that is required and max cpu load, along with other details like max memory usage, max temperature and other things are recorded.
    Posted on 19-08-01, 21:14
    Stirrer of Shit
    Post: #552 of 717
    Since: 01-26-19

    Last post: 1544 days
    Last view: 1542 days
    Well, it's a bit misleading I reckon. You have the utterly disgusting but legally mandated glued-down tablet ("infotainment system") for parking monitor, GPS, radio, etc, which runs bog-standard Android on some low-end off-the-shelf chipset, and then you have the system that's responsible for all of the drive-by-wire stuff (e.g. ABS), as well as all the other sensitive functions (e.g. LDWS, fatigue warning, check engine light). This lives on some microcontroller and is probably very heavily regulated.

    I wouldn't think that microcontroller's code clocks in at 100 MLOC, but Android + web browser + GPS + other bloat doing so seems reasonable. The tablet will occasionally shit the bed, and nothing else will happen.

    There was a certain photograph about which you had a hallucination. You believed that you had actually held it in your hands. It was a photograph something like this.
    Posted on 19-08-01, 21:38

    Post: #93 of 158
    Since: 10-29-18

    Last post: 647 days
    Last view: 26 days
    Posted by sureanem
    The tablet will occasionally shit the bed, and nothing else will happen.

    Unfortunately, the concerning part is that those systems are getting a bit too integrated (especially with all the active safety) that there is a not insignificant probability of an actual driving issue occurring due to some glitch with the navinfotainment system.

    I still have no idea what I'm talking about.
    Posted on 19-08-01, 23:50
    Stirrer of Shit
    Post: #553 of 717
    Since: 01-26-19

    Last post: 1544 days
    Last view: 1542 days
    They can't, not more than that the infotainment system should be able to break without the car becoming unsafe to drive. I suppose the reverse/parking camera has to work, but that ought to be trivial to solve. Or perhaps that's not considered security-critical in the same sense - if it breaks, you'll notice immediately, whereas if your ABS breaks, you'll only notice it if something goes wrong.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_control_unit - these run on microcontrollers and are rigorously tested
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-car_entertainment - these run on ARM chipsets and are made by the lowest bidder

    You're right that the infotainment can interface with the ECU. Which is a bit of a shame if you download the wrong app on it and 1-2-3 "you" floor the accelerator and drift into oncoming traffic. Whoops.

    There was a certain photograph about which you had a hallucination. You believed that you had actually held it in your hands. It was a photograph something like this.
    Posted on 19-08-02, 03:58 (revision 1)
    Custom title here

    Post: #604 of 1151
    Since: 10-30-18

    Last post: 12 days
    Last view: 11 hours
    Posted by sureanem
    Posted by CaptainJistuce
    I'm assuming they're using some sort of embedded microcontroller version that runs at something like 200 MHz. I mean, if it is possible for the Z80, it is possible for the 80286.

    The article says it runs at 20 MHz, make of it what you will.

    I read it as saying the 80286 part wasn't available in speeds above 20 MHz, which is factually untrue(Intel's 80286 parts went up to 25). And then starts talking about the possibility of overclocking.
    More importantly, there are no new 80286s available, and Boeing isn't building a plane reliant on eBay to source parts.

    I think they heard it used a 286 core, did some googling to find out what a 286 is, and ran. I don't think they have the actual specs of the system.

    --- In UTF-16, where available. ---
    Posted on 19-08-03, 19:11

    Post: #181 of 449
    Since: 10-29-18

    Last post: 28 days
    Last view: 1 day
    Black Mesa: XEN Beta

    My current setup: Super Famicom ("2/1/3" SNS-CPU-1CHIP-02) → SCART → OSSC → StarTech USB3HDCAP → AmaRecTV 3.10
    Posted on 19-08-04, 15:22
    Dinosaur

    Post: #470 of 1285
    Since: 10-30-18

    Last post: 14 days
    Last view: 1 hour
    Posted by CaptainJistuce
    Posted by sureanem
    Posted by CaptainJistuce
    I'm assuming they're using some sort of embedded microcontroller version that runs at something like 200 MHz. I mean, if it is possible for the Z80, it is possible for the 80286.

    The article says it runs at 20 MHz, make of it what you will.

    I read it as saying the 80286 part wasn't available in speeds above 20 MHz, which is factually untrue(Intel's 80286 parts went up to 25). And then starts talking about the possibility of overclocking.
    More importantly, there are no new 80286s available, and Boeing isn't building a plane reliant on eBay to source parts.

    I think they heard it used a 286 core, did some googling to find out what a 286 is, and ran. I don't think they have the actual specs of the system.


    Kinda relevant:
    https://airwaysmag.com/industry/boeing-is-maxed-out-and-so-are-we/
    That’s a Harris 80286.

    Can it do floating point math? No.

    It can execute, roughly, 0.21 instructions per clock.

    Does that say “distributed system” to you?

    Not me.


    Thing is, according to reasonably reliable sources – that’s what the 737 MAX software runs on.

    Before I go any further, I have to state that all airplanes run generations behind the bleeding edge of hardware design in the name of cost, safety, and reliability.

    No one wants a zero-day CPU instruction set bug grounding an entire fleet because some dumbass at Intel designed on-chip WiFi for the consumer market, and because of a common fab, the enterprise chips still have the feature, you just have to run some bizarre emulator… You see where I’m going.

    Bad news. So you can’t begrudge Boeing for using the 286 architecture to run the 737 MAX software, at all.

    Airbus—just to be show-offs or something—when it comes to Kung Fu, they decided to write the entirety of the A32X fly-by-wire software to run on a combo of Motorola 68000s and 186s.

    The problem with the Paleozoic-era hardware is that two AOA (angle of attack) inputs, when combined with an inelegantly coded MCAS, can overload the CPU in present iterations of the code.

    The FAA calls issues related to this, that came up in the simulator, “catastrophic.” It’s not a term they mean to use to fear monger, of course. But it’s not a happy word all the same.

    Software is a challenge, well no. Elegantly-coded software is a challenge.

    There are also so many questions as what the FAA will consider “acceptable.” Parallelism would be a kludge that some may consider a vast divergence from the 737NG. New hardware would definitely be considered an extensive modification that, given the realities of a post-MCAS world, will be gone over by CS professors and experts the world over before it so much as is allowed to carry a mouse.

    It doesn’t matter how Boeing, ultimately, solves this problem—it’s going to add considerably more time to the aircraft’s return to service than they and their shareholders would enjoy.

    Until I know more, I am in no position or want to speculate. You can solve a software problem in ten seconds with fresh eyes, or it could take huge team years.


    I certainly wouldn't want an airplane with ME/PSP intertwined with critical flight systems, thankyouverymuch. But then, the problem here is not using a core back from men were men and wrote their own device drivers in binary code, the problem IS horrible code with subpar performance without the proper quality and safety review.

    Also, speaking about bugged planes, don't forget to reboot your Airbus weekly:
    https://it.slashdot.org/story/19/07/25/1932229/airbus-a350-software-bug-forces-airlines-to-turn-planes-off-and-on-every-149-hours

    Licensed Pirate® since 2006, 100% Buttcoin™-free, enemy of All Things JavaScript™
    Posted on 19-08-05, 11:38
    Custom title here

    Post: #609 of 1151
    Since: 10-30-18

    Last post: 12 days
    Last view: 11 hours
    From Wikipedia's 737 MAX article:

    Early news reports were inaccurate in attributing the problem to an 80286[238] microprocessor overwhelmed with data. The problem was in fact caused by deliberately flipping five bits in the flight control computer. The bits represent status flags such as whether MCAS is active (which disables the cutout switch), or whether the tail trim motor is energized. Engineers were able to simulate single event upsets and artificially induce MCAS activation by manipulating these signals. Such fault occurs when memory bits are flipped from 0 to 1 or vice versa. This can happen due to cosmic rays striking the microprocessor circuits.[223]


    I know it is accurate because it has citations.



    Also, the most important part is not "OMG THE ENTIRE PLANE IS RUNNING ON A PC AT". It is that, after the Federal Aviation Administration allowed Boeing to short-circuit the standard federal safety review process and present their own internal safety reviews for certification instead of FAA regulators doing an independent review, Boeing subsequently lied to the FAA about how the new computer system was configured, lied to the FAA about how much influence the new system had on flight, and pressured their engineers doing the safety tests to not do safety tests while the FAA managers pressured their staff to take Boeing's word that the documentation presented was comprehensive and truthful.

    --- In UTF-16, where available. ---
    Pages: First Previous 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Next Last
      Main » Discussion » I have yet to have never seen it all.
      [Your ad here? Why not!]