https://cacm.acm.org/magazines... Note the discussion on how they handle recursive structures, adopting an approach from Rust.

The guy Boeing fired as CEO, Dennis Muilenberg, had an engineering degree. That doesn't help if you're then trained to become a cost manager.

Designated Engineering Representatives had legal obligations to the FAA, so this was not just 'employees signing off'. I don't know why FAA abandoned this system, which worked well for a long time. (I'm sure Boeing told the FAA all kinds of "costs too much" stories.)

Until Boeing does a top-to-bottom reset of its culture, shuffling executives who came up and were successful in the "financial focused" Boeing of the last 20 years will just result in a new set of people to blame for a new set of failures.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... A long resume as a lawyer, much of it in technology, but it's not clear to me he learned to code.

I commented previously, so I can't use my moderator points to rate this as "Troll" which it so richly deserves. I really don't understand the blatant bias of so many posters here. It's one thing to say "Apple put forward a misleading error message, and Apple users seem to accept that." It's a whole 'nuther thing to say "Most Apple users arent [sic] equipped to deal with that truth." Are so many of you so insecure that anyone who doesn't agree with your world outlook must automatically be labeled as idiots?

It's interesting that most of my friends with whom I spent 40 years in the software industry use Macs. But I guess we're just the exception.

I used my card 3 times around noon EST. In one case, it was declined. I tried it again, and it worked. No problems the other two times. (ApplePay linked to a Chase credit card.)

And the cooling for that many chips doing AI? Would AI/cloud companies look to relocate to countries with the cheapest power sources? (And what would that do to efforts to control carbon emissions?)

And then Capitalism will be replaced by what, exactly? "The Dictatorship of the Proletariat?" (I'd rather fly on a 737 MAX than an Ilyushin any day....)

What the Reich piece fails to address are 2 core points: (1) why Boeing changed from its previous dominant position in aircraft safety. (2) And who owned the company back then. I'm not convinced by the argument that government ownership somehow makes Airbus "safe".

I observed the change in Boeing culture when I was on the government side of a major DoD project. And I learned about software safety from people who worked for "old Boeing" on projects like 777. The change in the procedures I learned about (e.g. Designated Engineering Representatives) that let Boeing do much more -unsupervised- self-certification is definitely part of the problem.

But at the end of the day, someone signed off on 737 MAX designs, including the incomplete hazard analysis. And someone signed off on the aircraft with the missing bolts. THOSE PEOPLE SHOULD BE CRIMINALLY CHARGED. And that is most certainly an appropriate role for government.

Is that Apple can pretty much cancel this, not just preventing future downloads, but I think they also have mechanisms to revoke existing downloads (developer certificate revokation, I think.) Now Apple should explain how this got through their curation, which is part of how they earn their fee.

A friend carefully monitors his network, and sees a fair amount of this security scanning. Of course, that sets off the alarms he's added to his systems, clogging up logfiles and generally chewing through both bandwidth and server. At some point, this moves beyond "fair use" into "unfair use," but I don't know where to draw this line. Seems to me that "responsible" security scanning should be infrequent and probably announced ahead of time. But I could see arguments the other way.

And of course, the only way to distinguish a 'security scan' from a 'vulnerabiity scan' is to look at the originator IP and draw conclusions from that, which we know is not really authoritative.

I'll grant you Idaho - Massachusetts, instead.

Well, we lived in Canada during the Quebec Separation Referendum of 1995 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_sovereignty_movement#History), and we saw similar ignorance during that event. Politicians were actively dishonest (on both sides), newspapers tended to be either pro- or anti- and talked only to their own side. It was hard to find credible factual analysis of the impacts if the referendum succeeded. (It was particularly galling for the premier of Quebec, who had a PhD in economics from London School of Economics, to spout blatant nonsense. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...)

And from the little bit I saw across the pond, a similar dynamic seemed to be in effect during the Scottish referendum in 2014 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_independence_referendum_2014)

It's a bit hard for me to think of two states more different than Vermont and Tennessee