COBOL is still widely used in new development projects in many commercial sectors.
Fortran, used mainly in engineering applications, has been less used for new development - but still widely used in libraries that are already complete.
ADA was never used and is still never used, at all, by anybody, really.
The "popularity" measurements are always bullshit.
It's just that this round, they are more silly than usual.

I find it very difficult to believe that more people are programming in ADA than in FORTRAN. It is an absolute certainty, by orders of magnitude, that more code has been written in FORTRAN than in ADA.

(And COBOL has also been used much more than ADA ever was.)

ADA was a niche language that was never used generally by anybody. The US Department of Defense mandated its use, but the gave waivers so that in reality all the real programming languages could continue to be used. The main usage of ADA was in a few real-time programming projects for military machines/weapons for a brief time in the late 80s. Nobody else picked it up. It was a nice idea.

I have not read the report and I don't know the B787. But people keep saying the FDR recorded the switches being flipped. I am not sure that there is a microswitch sensor that is wired to record the mechanical state of the switch. There might not be anything like that except in some fuel control computer at the end of the wire. Or even later in the chain.

And if the electronics anywhere is this chain malfunctioned, what makes you think the circuit recording it would also not be malfunctioning?

What we know is that the switches were physically found in the RUN position, and we know at what point the engines were deprived of fuel.

What the fuck went on here, I don't think we will ever know. But I suspect it was NOT the pilots flipping the switch to OFF. (We don't even know how the PM even noticed the fuel cutoff. Switch position? Some digital display screen? Sound of engines spooling down? The entire total shit scenario happened VERY quickly, and the pilots were quite confused about it.)

I don't think you can start the engines in the first place unless the fuel switches are in the RUN position. And there is no "ground logic" to prevent you from turning them off. Turning them OFF, on the ground, in an unexpected emergency situation, is the main reason there are these switches at all.

The report says the switches were found physically ON position. The switches are not mechanically linked to the fuel valve. They are just electronic switches. There is a shit-ton of things that can go wrong, mechanically and electrically, all the way from the switches, to the control unit, to the actuator circuits, and the physical valves. This includes the sensors (if any) that tell the position of the switches. We don't know what the switch positions looked like to the pilots. We don't know what the digital indications on the screens were. All we know is that they were both baffled, and that eventually they got the switches into the RUN position and the fuel was coming back. My guess, as a pilot, is that they were reluctant to touch the switches, but eventually did so. And if they were in the RUN position, that means they toggled them. But that's just a guess, as we don't have any way of knowing what happened.

Does not sound deliberate. Could be that the switches failed, and it's not known what visible condition they were in when the pilot noticed the fuel cutoff. Those switches are not mechanically closing fuel lines, they are electronics going into a control unit. So there's a variety of mechanical failures possible, along with electrical failures, logic failures, and actuator failures at the end of the chain.

The fuel cutoff is not merely indicated by the switch condition. The CVR sounds more like one pilot noticed the fuel cutoff, maybe without reference to the switch position, and then they discussed it for a few seconds and were confused by the apparent position of the switches. Then tried toggling them (but being afraid of moving it from RUN to OFF) and reset them too late.

That is what "more to this story" means.

Someone was told it was research into the universe getting woke the first time... :). :)

ROFL: You think they want to assimilate?

Wow.

That $85,000,000 will be spent by the government on lawyers defending the lawsuit that the Smithsonian will file. In the end, the Shuttle will remain at Udvar-Hazy

It's an app called "My Suitcase".

"Wait a minute. Strike that. Reverse it."

Oompa-Loompa-Doopity-Do
I've got a generative riddle for you
What do you get when you enter a prompt
Nothing but the real coders get whompped

But it's a "Hack-athon". not a "Wonk-athon".
Willy's rules and ethics do not apply.

"Please add the police logo to the photo of the evidence on the drugs on the table."

Output: hazy blurry evidence, on drugs

I assume you mean people in the USA.
If your number is accurate, that would be an
average of one (1) hotdog per person each week.
And that's during the most hotdog-intensive season
of the year, when everyone is having cookouts and
other hotdog-oriented events multiple times a week.

So that sounds reasonable to me.

"As little as one hotdog daily..."

I LOVE hot dogs.
A hotdog EVERY DAY is not "little". OMG.
That's an outrageous amount of hotdog in your diet.
Is this study like the rats and saccharine?