The crew should come back on the Dragon and Boeing be required to solve the problems and carry out another test flight. It is unacceptable that Boeing wants to bring the astronauts back without understanding some of the failures on the Starliner.
As someone who has inherited code like that, I would like to strangle the first programmer in the comic.
I have actually encountered those sort of potential differences between ground planes. They can indeed wreak havoc under the right circumstances.
I can’t decide whether to laugh or cry.
Ugh. If I need to collaborate with my colleagues, I’ll visit their office; I don’t need (or want) to hear every phone call they make or their music escaping their headphones.
I cannot stress enough how much I hate open plan offices and am so glad I do not work in one.
That is better than a fuselage failure, but still disturbing if you’re correct - surely there are checks for exit door plugs since it would be at higher risk of failure.
Multiple news articles are reporting that this aircraft had its post-production certification only two months ago. For a problem of this magnitude to develop in such a short time is very disconcerting.
Huh? What does how a drive size is measured affect the available address space used at all? Drives are broken up into blocks, and each block is addressable.
Sorry, I probably wasn’t clear. You’re right that the units don’t affect how the address space is used. My peeve is that because of marketing targeting nice round numbers, you end up with (for example) a 250GB drive that does not use the full address space available (since you necessarily have to address to up 256GiB). If the units had been consistent from the get-go, then I suspect the average drive would have just a bit more usable space available by default.
My comment re wear-levelling was more to suggest that I didn’t think the unused address space (in my example of 250GB vs 256GiB) could be excused by saying it was taken up by spare sectors.
Of course. The thing is, though, that if the units had been consistent to begin with, there wouldn’t be anywhere near as much confusion. Most people would just accept MiB, GiB, etc. as the units on their storage devices. People already accept weird values for DVDs (~4.37GiB / 4.7GB), so if we had to use SI units then a 256GiB drive could be marketed as a ~275GB drive (obviously with the non-rounded value in the fine print, e.g. “Usable space approx. 274.8GB”).
This whole mess regularly frustrates me… why the units can’t be used consistently?!
The other peeve of mine with this debacle is that drive capacities using SI units do not use the full available address space (since it’s binary). Is the difference between 250GB and 256GiB really used effectively for wear-levelling (which only applies to SSDs) or spare sectors?
I second the suggestion of RSS feeds (I use TheOldReader) and DuckDuckGo as search engine replacement.
Also, Mozilla’s Pocket is a useful tool for collecting articles (and having related ones recommended to you).
I didn’t even register this as satire until I opened the article. The headline is just too believable.
This is definitely not satire.