The issue is it doesn't change the problem: the MAX programs exists for political and (lack of) ethical reasons: companies wedded to 737s (like Southwest) which want larger and more efficient planes without type change (without having to re-train crew). And rather than refuse to work on this, Boeing's management asserted they could do it, then left engineering to square the circle.
Because it will take on the order of 10 years. What are the 737 customers going to fly in the mean time? Keeping old airplanes flying longer isn't exactly increasing security either. And there is no indication so far, that a 737 MAX with a fixed MCAS isn't safe.
Don't get me wrong: I think Boeing should have created a true 737 successor long ago and should do ASAP. But until it is done, there is a need for a current 737. And certainly, you don't want them to cut corners when developing the 737 successor...
> And there is no indication so far, that a 737 MAX with a fixed MCAS isn't safe.
At this point, that plane has no goodwill whatsoever left to it. The onus is on it proving that it's safe, not on its critics proving it's unsafe, because the only sensible assumption is that it's not safe and that Boeing does not and ill not self-regulate (big duh).
> I think Boeing should have created a true 737 successor long ago and should do ASAP
They announced that back in 2014, and probably several times beforehand.
Issue is demand has seen Boeing push the 737 into 757 territory (years after the 757 got cancelled), it's not that they haven't created a 737 successor it's that their customers don't want a 737 successor, they want 737s so they can just buy the frames and put existing crew on the new plane without retraining.
That's what the 737 MAX is about, and why it's broken. It's the 4th generation of 737 (original, Classic, Next Generation) and the frame can't take it anymore, but 737s is what e.g. Southwest want, because that's literally the only thing they fly.
The 737 Max cost $3bn to develop and it's an iteration of an existing design. There's no "just" about developing an entirely new plane design from scratch.
When Airbus released the A320neo , Boeing needed to get a comparable plane out ASAP or else cede several (tens of even) thousands of plane sales to Airbus over the next decade. There wasn't the time to design a whole new plane, so they pushed the design of the 1960s era 373 as far as they could go. The details of the "risky" changes to accommodate the larger engines (that significantly changed the planes aerodynamic profile) and attempts to compensate for that with MCAS are already documented elsewhere.
Keep in mind, there is a gold rush for new airlines right now. Africa/India/Asia are developing and are requiring thousands of planes to fill the demand (it's no coincidence Africa and Asia is where these new planes ended up crashing). If Airbus gobbled them up, they'd likely be airbus customers forever, as mixing plane types is more expensive for airlines.
So the idea is I feed all of the content for my website to Kendra (hosted in cloud) and whenever a user performs a search on my website, Kendra will return results to me via a REST(?) call and I can display sorted results back to the user, right? Is the index going to live locally within my ecosystem for faster retrieval of results and Kendra can do updates to the index via some push mechanism? To be honest instead of bootstrapping a solution with Lucene/SOLR-esque, this might be not be bad idea to ride your search on the shoulders of Amazon AI search giant.
"Amazon CodeGuru is a machine learning service for automated code reviews and application performance recommendations. It helps you find the most expensive lines of code that hurt application performance..." I suspect if AWS is using customers code bases to train its AI models? Another source is to scavenge open source repositories.
"CodeGuru’s machine learning models are trained on Amazon’s code bases comprising hundreds of thousands of internal projects, as well as over 10,000 open source projects in GitHub" - from the article.
" where we have never had as much access to information, large swaths of the population don't even believe global warming is _real_"
I completely agree. In this age of broadband internet, social media where information is at your disposal, we are not matured enough to handle this, speaking from micro-evolutionary perspective. And where we can not digest/process/retain information, we conveniently convince overselves that it might not be real. Sadly, we are doomed.
The actual roadblocks to action are: (1) lack of a realistic plan (not like "we're going to subsidize renewables" but "we expect to reduce solar radiation by 0.25%, reduce emissions from power productions by 25%, ..." where the numbers add up to a real change) and (2) the conspicuous inability of the government to demand sacrifices from Elites (Macron's tax cuts), and (3) ordinary people feeling overwhelmed and that any sacrifice is the "last straw" (e.g. Yellow Shirts riot when they try to raise the price of gas)
(2) and (3) are linked because the government needs legitimacy to demand sacrifices and if it can't get them from those that have, how can it get them from anybody else?
If you want something to happen start a Kickstarter to rent a plane and seed the upper atmosphere with SO2 -- that avoids the 'collective action' problem.
So let me get this, if too many neurons firing then it means it is a novice's brain and less neurons firing (targeted firing) means an expert, is that right?
When given a problem, an expert might be able to solve it by recalling the solution to another problem he solved earlier, while a novice has to actually solve the problem.
This guys wrote a ranty article without telling/hinting/speculating us what went wrong? I am sorry but I feel like you have wasted our time by making us reading your article and as a reader and a supporter of indie dev community I am unable to conclude if Apple has done any wrongdoing here.
