We shouldn't let people get used to the idea that software fails
-
in the 20s and 30s everyone in the developed world started having and using cars, washing machines, air conditioners and other wonderful devices. They were new, yet incredibly reliable.
Cars were incredibly reliable in the twenties?
I can't fathom a metric by which that would be true.The first personal computers were clunky and weird, but pretty reliable.
I distinctly remember floppy read errors as a near-weekly occurrence. But yeah, usb sticks sometimes fail too after a few years.
The Web was built by people like me.
No. It wasn't built by ignorant people like you.
We just got used to that. Electronics is something that’s wonky and buggy. That’s what we expect.
The world is wonky and buggy. But sure, single out electronics.
We shouldn’t let people get used to the idea that software inevitably fails.
Now what? Ban the app store concept?
-
@masonwheeler how does PEGI work? Or FCC certification?
-
@jbert said in We shouldn't let people get used to the idea that software fails:
The reboot from 2017?
It's not a reboot of anything. (I mean, hell, it's more like System Shock 3 than anything else!)
It's just a totally new and different game that happens to share a name with one that came out a few days ago, and yes I think that was a horrible decisions on the developers' part.
-
@bb36e said in We shouldn't let people get used to the idea that software fails:
@ben_lubar said in We shouldn't let people get used to the idea that software fails:
I'm looking through my Steam library and I can't find any games about futuristic technology that always works for some reason.
A game where you click a button and the computer fixes everything would be very boring
That's quite literally how W40K Dawn of War works. Building is broken, select a robotic servant, right click building, and it gets fixed.
-
@gąska there should just have one button which makes the robots automatically fix stuff going forward
-
@unperverted-vixen said in We shouldn't let people get used to the idea that software fails:
I was referring to the fact that their brand new ship was falling apart.
They don't have a new ship in Star Trek V. Well I guess they do, but it's an older ship renamed Enterprise.
You might be thinking of Star Trek I (which takes place after a refit and they didn't have a chance to work out all the kinks) or Star Trek III (where the Excelsior was sabotaged, not malfunctioning but sabotaged, by Scotty).
Star Trek V has that goofy scene where Scotty's in the crawlspaces behind the walls and he confidently says "I know this ship like the back of my hand!" right before hitting his head on a pipe. But... that wasn't the technology's fault.
-
@blakeyrat said in We shouldn't let people get used to the idea that software fails:
They don't have a new ship in Star Trek V. Well I guess they do, but it's an older ship renamed Enterprise.
No, the Enterprise-A was a new commission. Federation Council authorized the construction of it specifically to thank Kirk and crew for their efforts against the Whale Probe from Star Trek IV.
-
what is this nerd bullshit doing in my thread
-
@e4tmyl33t said in We shouldn't let people get used to the idea that software fails:
No, the Enterprise-A was a new commission. Federation Council authorized the construction of it specifically to thank Kirk and crew for their efforts against the Whale Probe from Star Trek IV.
I haven't watched it in a long time but the timeline alone suggests it was a existing ship renamed or maybe renamed in drydock but there's no way they started building a ship at the end of Star Trek IV and had it ready to go during Star Trek V. V begins when their VACATION after the events of IV, remember? There's maybe a couple months at most between the films. And this is all pre-replicators.
They did the same thing in DS9 when the Defiant was lost, and Starfleet gave them the Sao Paulo which was basically identical and the first thing they did was rename it to Defiant.
@bb36e said in We shouldn't let people get used to the idea that software fails:
what is this nerd bullshit doing in my thread
SOMEONE IS WRONG ABOUT STAR TREK!!!
-
@blakeyrat Per Memory Alpha:
In 2286, the Enterprise-A was commissioned at the San Francisco Fleet Yards on stardate 8442.5. She was launched from the Earth Spacedock on the order of the Federation Council in appreciation of Captain James T. Kirk and his crew's efforts to prevent the Whale Probe from devastating Earth.
-
@e4tmyl33t Ok?
Note that I already said "or renamed in drydock" which is consistent with that quote.
But good jorb "proving me wrong" I guess.
-
@bb36e Too late, git exists.
-
@blakeyrat said in We shouldn't let people get used to the idea that software fails:
Star Trek V has that goofy scene where Scotty's in the crawlspaces behind the walls and he confidently says "I know this ship like the back of my hand!" right before hitting his head on a pipe. But... that wasn't the technology's fault.
Isn't it also the one where Scotty makes a log entry that goes something like this:
I think this new ship must'a been put together by monkeys! Sure, she's got a fine engine, but half the doors won't open, and guess whose job it is to fix it?
-
@masonwheeler I don't remember? Maybe? Sure? Why not?
-
@blakeyrat I wouldn't consider "commissioned" to count for "another ship renamed in drydock". Also, the Consitution-class was only really mainly in service throughout the 2260s and 2270s, and they did the refit into the 2270s. Some continued service into the 2290s, but I think the Enterprise-A was the only NEW construction of a Constitution-class since the 2270s.
-
@e4tmyl33t The point is they can't build ships that quickly. You saw Star Trek I, they still have guys in spacesuits pushing around bits of metal. That's how they do it. Guys in space suits.
-
@blakeyrat said in We shouldn't let people get used to the idea that software fails:
@e4tmyl33t The point is they can't build ships that quickly. You saw Star Trek I, they still have guys in spacesuits pushing around bits of metal. That's how they do it. Guys in space suits.
Continuity errors? In Star Trek? Unbelievable!
-
@blakeyrat It's possible that it was already under construction but not named (therefore "commisisoned" until that time. AIUI, "commissioning" really just involves giving the ship a name and a registry number, so it's possible the ship was already being produced as part of a mass-order or something from a year or two prior. If that's the case, I'm wrong about when they ended production of the Constitutions (mostly because I can find precisely fuckall about when they STOPPED making them as opposed to when they started...)
-
@e4tmyl33t said in We shouldn't let people get used to the idea that software fails:
It's possible that it was already under construction but not named
That's what I fucking said.
-
@blakeyrat I took your statement to be "took another Constitution-class that was already in service, shoved into a dry-dock, and just renamed it". Apologies.
-
@e4tmyl33t Oh well obviously you know what I intended to type using your super mega telepathic powers better than the words I actually put on the screen so praise be to you I guess.
-
@blakeyrat You said "renamed". That would require the ship to have already had a name, therefore my assumption.
-
@e4tmyl33t Maybe next time just keep in mind that your ass-pull assumption is in YOUR head and not anybody else's, and maybe actually type out the words "I'm assuming you mean X" so then it would be in EVERYBODY's head instead of just your own and maybe actual communication would happen.
I assumed you meant by typing that to say "Blakeyrat is a fine person and I'm going to give him all my money post-haste". See, now everybody's on the same page. Give me my fucking money.
-
@blakeyrat said in We shouldn't let people get used to the idea that software fails:
Give me my fucking money.
@Lorne-Kates heads up someone copyright intended you
-
@dkf said in We shouldn't let people get used to the idea that software fails:
A library that has, e.g., a memory leak would be bad, but it's actually OK if either the code in the library that has the leak is never called, or if mitigation strategies are in place to ensure that the leak never causes a problem (such as determining that the leak would take a week to run out of memory on the deployment hardware and instead mandating that the software be restarted daily instead).
Or the leak is in the on-board guidance program for a missile that is not expected to survive past the end of its flight. The ultimate in garbage collection!
-
@djls45 I agree but that's garbage explosion. Not collection.
-
@gleemonk Point.
-
@djls45 said in We shouldn't let people get used to the idea that software fails:
The thing is, unless it's specifically demonstrating a dystopia, nothing in those shows breaks. That is what I think advanced technology should look like.
Nobody in those shows goes to the bathroom either.
And showering is pretty rare.
-
@masonwheeler Objection: some things are relatively easy to formally define, but very hard to prove.
"This process scheduler will never take more than 25ms to switch to any given process in the pending queue", "This JIT compiler will never produce code that access outside the specified memory boundaries or performs any system calls", or even "the list is sorted after calling list.sort()".
So the formal tools can help you define a "minimum acceptable case", then you write the rest however you want.
It's hard to translate this to end-user apps though.
-
You want to know what I think a big cause of software errors is? We write too fucking much of it!
The software life cycle goes like "Write, fix bugs, fix bugs, fix bugs, fix bugs, fix bugs, improve, fix bugs, fix bugs, fix bugs..."
Eventually there are no easy bugs to find. Hooray, you have stable code. The improvements will still introduce bugs, but they'll get fixed sooner or later too.
What happens when the life cycle is "Write, fix bugs, improve, improve, discard, start over"? You get shitty software.
So every time you make a new database or a new GUI toolkit or whatever (with the intention of getting it to replace an older one), you're starting the process all over again. Is it really worth it? Sometimes it is, but often it's not.
-
@bb36e said in We shouldn't let people get used to the idea that software fails:
A game where you click a button and the computer fixes everything would be very boring
Are you sure about that? (Okay, “the computer fixes everything” in that game may not be quite what you had in mind when you wrote that, I’ll grant you, but it certainly
won’tshouldn’t be boring.)
-
@bb36e said in We shouldn't let people get used to the idea that software fails:
@bb36e the reference to Win95 seems off; while it's before my time I think that MS marketed it pretty widely to normal people. So maybe replace Win95 with DOS and the rest of the post tracks.
The whole point of a GUI is that it’s intended for “normal people” to use, rather than programmers or people who’ve learned how to work with a computer. Consider this advert:
-
@mott555 This seems to imply that avionics software could contain life-saving bugs.
To explicate, the errors would exist and be on the safer side.
Life-saving workarounds are probably easier to say exist.
-
@anonymous234 Write (expanding bug face), test (reducing bug face), repeat. No, manual testing doesn't count, you cannot be trusted nor can I nor can anyone.
-
@gribnit said in We shouldn't let people get used to the idea that software fails:
This seems to imply that avionics software could contain life-saving bugs.
To give you a picture into my world: A coworker once told me a story of a support case on an Air Force base where they were replicating an avionics failure by having a rather large airman hang by his hands from a live bomb and shake it, while the maintenance guys had their monitoring instruments plugged into the plane.
EDIT: I'm aware of a pretty large commercial group (won't say any names) who doesn't have an integration lab for testing avionics updates on their jets. Most groups have spare modules and simulation environments for testing in a lab environment. This particular group just pulls a live plane from the tarmac and tests it in production (well, almost in production...plane's still on the ground and not in flight at this point), and if it doesn't work, oh well, a whole bunch of passengers' itineraries just got shredded.
-
@mott555 Uh, fun! What kind of fuse? Impact? Assuming impact. Fun!
-
@mott555 said in We shouldn't let people get used to the idea that software fails:
large commercial group
Does it rhyme with the onomatopoeia for the sound that augmented boobs make while the owner of same is in motion?
-
@lolwhat said in We shouldn't let people get used to the idea that software fails:
Does it rhyme with the onomatopoeia for the sound that augmented boobs make while the owner of same is in motion?
I can't quite make sense of this sentence.
-
@lolwhat said in We shouldn't let people get used to the idea that software fails:
augmented boobs
https://static1.fjcdn.com/comments/My+vision+is+augmented+_845e7177ef85a7ce1bb8f43c4e70d9ef.jpg
-
-
@lolwhat I know what onomatopoeia is. I don't know what sounds augmented boobs make. That could be anything. What if they're augmented with a Bluetooth speaker or something?
-
@masonwheeler said in We shouldn't let people get used to the idea that software fails:
If the spec defines precisely what a program will do, with enough detail that it can be used to generate the program itself, this just begs the question: how do you write the spec?
NO IT DOES NOT BEG THAT QUESTION.
-
@boomzilla said in We shouldn't let people get used to the idea that software fails:
NO IT DOES NOT BEG THAT QUESTION.
Anyone for a quick round of Beg(gar) Thy Neighbor('s Question)?
-
@boomzilla I didn't write that, Joel did. I just quoted him.
-
@mott555 said in We shouldn't let people get used to the idea that software fails:
@lolwhat I know what onomatopoeia is. I don't know what sounds augmented boobs make. That could be anything. What if they're augmented with a Bluetooth speaker or something?
Heh, excellent point. :P Does it rhyme with boing, is what I'm trying to say.
-
@lolwhat said in We shouldn't let people get used to the idea that software fails:
@mott555 said in We shouldn't let people get used to the idea that software fails:
@lolwhat I know what onomatopoeia is. I don't know what sounds augmented boobs make. That could be anything. What if they're augmented with a Bluetooth speaker or something?
Heh, excellent point. :P Does it rhyme with boing, is what I'm trying to say.
No. These guys operate planes, they don't manufacture them.
-
@mott555 Is it Wub? Do you work for Wub?
-
@admiral_p said in We shouldn't let people get used to the idea that software fails:
@masonwheeler how does PEGI work? Or FCC certification?
What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?
PEGI: Somebody plays a game, paying attention to the content — violence, language, sex, etc. — and decides what ages it's suitable for. It has nothing whatsoever to do with quality.
FCC: Somebody sets up a device and a radio receiver. If the receiver detects less than the maximum limit of radio emissions, the device passes. The device could be as buggy as a hornet nest; as long as it doesn't emit too much EMI, it passes.
-
@blakeyrat said in We shouldn't let people get used to the idea that software fails:
SOMEONE IS WRONG ABOUT STAR TREK!!!
Yes, but they're wrong about Star Trek V. Simply admitting it exists is wrong.
-
@gribnit said in We shouldn't let people get used to the idea that software fails:
@mott555 Uh, fun! What kind of fuse? Impact? Assuming impact. Fun!
Even if the bomb were to come away from the plane, which is rather unlikely, there’d still be pretty much no danger other than that of being between a concrete slab and a steel object weighing anywhere between, say, 250 and 1,000 kg that’s accelerating towards the ground at 9.8 m/s².
Bombs have their fuzes in the nose and/or tail, and impact fuzes tend to require deceleration along the bomb’s/fuse’s longitudinal axis to function. They also usually have a delay device that only arms the fuze after the bomb has travelled a certain distance through the air (often provided by an impeller that’s spun by airflow around the bomb as it falls: a certain number of turns are required to arm the fuze). Then there’s the arming wire that prevents the fuze from ever functioning at all while within a certain distance of the aircraft (until the wire is pulled out of the fuze, the fuze is physically prevented from working; one end is attached to the aircraft, the free end passes through the fuze so that when the bomb drops, the wire is pulled from it).
onomatopoeia
