Though the AI systems proved adept at quickly finding relevant code sections, they stumbled when it came to understanding how different parts of software interact. The models often suggested surface-level fixes without grasping the deeper implications of their changes.
So they've replicated a large product development team (large codebase, or large team - doesn't matter which) in an "AI". Perhaps they trained the system on real-life examples... GIGO.
Each race is dependent upon the other for innumerable benefits, and until the reproductive organs of the machines have been developed in a manner which we are hardly yet able to conceive, they are entirely dependent upon man for even the continuation of their species. It is true that these organs may be ultimately developed, inasmuch as man's interest lies in that direction; there is nothing which our infatuated race would more desire than to se a fertile union between two steam engines; it is true that machinery is even at this present time employed in begetting machinery, in becoming the parent of machines often after its own kind, but the days of flirtation, courtship, and matrimony appear to be very remote, and, indeed, can hardly be realised by our feeble and imperfect imaginations.
I'm pretty sure he doesn't have a degree in Human Factors engineering, or any other discipline that's actually relevant to the design of human/machine interfaces.
We've been studying HF since about World War II, starting with trying to improve the performance of military hardware and the people using it.
While our ability to design and build systems has evolved significantly from those days, people's mechanical and cognitive abilities have not significantly changed - our muscles don't work any faster, we still can't voice two things at once, our memory is not significantly improved, and so on.
Sure, it might cost a bit more to have buttons - but if he wants to (be in charge of a company that can) build vehicles that people enjoy driving, and operate safely, he should StFU and listen to his human factors researchers. And don't let the damn software engineers design the UI.
"The regulation published today will ensure the U.S. continues to play a global leadership role in the development and adoption of clean flight,"
So far the FAA has completely (and willfully) failed at effectively regulating noise from traditional aircraft - wider use of eVTOL aircraft is just going to ratchet up the annoyance from loud whiny devices that will probably remain in earshot for longer than their faster flying brethren.
There is no such thing as a career MBA. There are only MBAs with a STEM background (the majority by the way), MBAs with a business background, MBAs with a financial background, etc. Basically, whatever a person goes into Business School as they come out as, however their learned to understand the perspectives of others.
So the problem is really one of having an MBA with a financial background running an engineering company rather than an MBA with an engineering background.
I think you're letting your Americentrism show through. Most other countries have a "Bachelor of Commerce" degree. The US calls it a "Bachelor of Science in Business". At least the other countries are honest -- there is NO STEM content in a BComm, and I seriously doubt there's much if any in the US version.
As you will see, I told them, in no uncertain terms, to see Figure one. -- Dave "First Strike" Pare