The below is a grim read, and shows what happens when imponderable
complexity performs very ponderable mass murder. Unlike red-herringing
here on nettime, it was a very physical fight between humans and
machines, which humans lost due to limits of muscle power.
Next time someone tries to
In case you missed, all narratives about pilots not being
trained/informed were red herrings. It looks like it was an attempt to
deflect blame on humans (either those that were supposed to inform
pilots or those that were supposed to establish proper training
procedures - from Boeing and
Didn't have to wait for long:
"Fake lane attack: ... Misleading the autopilot vehicle to the wrong
direction ... we pasted some small stickers as interference patches on
the ground in an intersection ... This kind of attack is simple to
deploy, and the materials are easy to obtain. "
Dear all, the days of "direct democracy" v. "the few" are over. The days
of a "movement" without "momentum". Why should the "vote" of "the
people" matter? All talk as the Don would say.
Am 30/03/19 um 22:20 schrieb John Young:
> Was it not long known all communication is pornographic? Otherwise
Everything is already in place to properly regulate this space, except
naming things for what they are.
All industrial/commercial activities that impact humans below cognitive
levels (ie. directly biologically or by exploiting basic innate drives)
are in general heavily regulated:
- sex
On 29 Mar 2019, at 6:32, William Waites wrote:
It seems to me it is a question of where you draw the system boundary.
If the
system is an aeroplane that is flying, then the recording device is
not part of
the control loop and it is not a cybernetic tool in that context. If
the system
is the
> boun...@mail.kein.org] On Behalf Of William Waites
> Sent: Friday, March 29, 2019 11:32 AM
> To: Felix Stalder
> Cc: nettime-l@mail.kein.org
> Subject: Re: rage against the machine
>
> > To my limited understanding, the black box in the airplane is not a
> > device t
> To my limited understanding, the black box in the airplane is not a
> device to limit the complexity of the pilots' interaction with, or
> understanding of, the plane by reducing a complex process to a simple
> in/out relationship.
>
> No, it's a flight recorder. During the flight, it has no
Hello all,
I have been reading this thread with much interest even if, I am afraid I may
have missed many of the nuances.
I would agree with Felix when he says the airplane’s black box is a cybernetic
device only to the extent that it translates all actions into information.
Felix calls it a
Thanks Ted, Scott and Morlock, this history is obviously more complex
and nuanced than the point I was trying to make, which was not
historical at all, but rather logical.
To my limited understanding, the black box in the airplane is not a
device to limit the complexity of the pilots' interaction
On 29 March 2019 at 09:07:31, Morlock Elloi (morlockel...@gmail.com) wrote:
Seemingly totally unrelated:
1. flight recorders are brightly colored these days. The term "black
box" originates in WW2, mostly because the first flight recorders, as
all other "secret" electronics, was housed in metal
Not so fast, Felix, and not so clear.
The origins of the phrase black box are "obscure," but the cybernetics
crowd started using it from the mid-'50s. Their usage almost certainly
drew on electronics research, where it had been used on a few occasions
by a handful of people. However, that
Seemingly totally unrelated:
1. flight recorders are brightly colored these days. The term "black
box" originates in WW2, mostly because the first flight recorders, as
all other "secret" electronics, was housed in metal boxes painted matte
black.
See
On 28.03.19 16:38, tbyfield wrote:
> Yes and no. In theory, plane crashes happen out in the open compared to
> other algorithmic catastrophes. In practice, the subsequent
> investigations have a very 'public secret' quality: vast expanses are
> cordoned off to be combed for every fragment,
The basic issue is complexity crossing the threshold that humans cannot.
So far, at least in the last few thousand years or so, mental abilities
were one of key factors for individual 'success' (the other, likely more
important one, was class and heritage.) We appreciate smart people as
much
Felix, this is really interesting. Normally, I'm allergic to sweeping
models of history that involve anything like 'technology' or
'technology,' because they mostly serve as playgrounds for wannabe TED
talkers. Yours is different — maybe, in part, because you don't assume
that capitalism and
On 24.03.19 14:28, Florian Cramer wrote:
> Travis suggests that the 737 MAX fiasco resulted from a combination of
> market economics/cost-optimization management and software
> being used to correct hardware design flaws.
Yes. I think there are several factors involved that are in fact
On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 12:19 PM tbyfield wrote:
> I have some vague idea that over the
> last several decades a few people spent some time thinking about the
> history and philosophy of punishment. In nettimish contexts (as opposed
> to ground-level activism in judicial and penal fields), most
On 26 Mar 2019, at 1:15, Brian Holmes wrote:
Despite Ted's excursions into aviation history, which at least he
finds
brilliant, plus the general manly readiness to cut the throat of, one
doesn't know exactly whom, we have gotten no further in terms of
understanding the situation than what you
On Sun, Mar 24, 2019, 8:29 AM Florian Cramer wrote:
>
> Travis suggests that the 737 MAX fiasco resulted from a combination of
> market economics/cost-optimization management and software
> being used to correct hardware design flaws.
>
Thank you, Florian, for explaining with the Travis text
On 24/03/2019 06:29, Joseph Rabie wrote:
> I find it noteworthy that the call to burn at the stake, opposed by
> Andreas, has been endorsed by male members of this list. Let us remember
> that it was invented as retribution against women accused of witchcraft,
> that is to say practises
Agreed.
Peace and Hope from Abu Dhabi.
-Patrick Lichty
> On Mar 23, 2019, at 2:54 PM, Andreas Broeckmann
> wrote:
>
> friends, call me over-sensitive, but i think that nobody should be burned at
> the stake for anything in any country; i say this also because this flippant
> kind of rhetoric
Having zero knowledge of airplane technology, I do not know whether the
following writeup/opinion piece on the 737 Max is a trustworthy source or
not.
It was written by a software developer (that I could verify) named Gregory
Travis who claims to have been a "pilot and aircraft owner for over
Dear all,
I find it noteworthy that the call to burn at the stake, opposed by Andreas,
has been endorsed by male members of this list. Let us remember that it was
invented as retribution against women accused of witchcraft, that is to say
practises considered subversive by the male theocratic
ted,
i'm ready to call this a disagreement and to leave it at that: you say
that it is my remark that "misdirects [the discussion] away from what
matters most"; and i, to the contrary, think that it is morlock's
"figure of speech" that misdirects the attention from what a civilised
and moral
(1)
On 18 Mar 2019, at 22:24, Brian Holmes wrote:
Ted, I like how you look at disputes from all sides, both for the
intrinsic
interest of the meta-discussion, and because you put a finger on the
very
existence of the dispute. For me it boils down to the old question
about
critique, what it
friends, call me over-sensitive, but i think that nobody should be
burned at the stake for anything in any country; i say this also because
this flippant kind of rhetoric poisons the reasonable debate that is so
urgently needed on the matters at issue here. (to the contrary, i am
glad that
"There is no excuse for such criminal product packaging. Anyone doing it or
defending it should be burned at stake in any civilized country. The fact
that it will not happen is the best statement about the times we live in."
I agree. Thank you for the clarity of your writing in this thread, much
It looks like Boeing hired car salesman. These are the options that you
may choose to add (and pay extra, like heated seats) with your brand new
737 MAX purchase:
Option #32: "Angle of attack disagree light": informs pilots about
discrepancy between nose direction and airflow, in pre-stall
icting strategic aims. The Boeing case has all that,
> it's typical of the present. Can such problems be resolved? Or do we just
> vent our rage against the machine?
>
> In Morlock's writing I see two things: a justified critique of the reckless
> speed with which automated contr
I'm going to channel a bit of Morlock and Keith, for whom barbs aimed at
the list have been a semi-regular feature of their emails, because no
one who's weighed in with an opinion seems to know much about aviation.
And why would they? I'm not saying anyone should have immersed
themselves in
> Le 17 mars 2019 à 20:48, Morlock Elloi a écrit :
>
> Note that autonomous vehicles are becoming affordable assassination
> instruments. It would cost a fortune a decade ago to create robotic suicide
> vehicle bomber, so humans were used. Today anyone with basic skills can buy
> one of these
Yes, and sorry for being silent so long.
"It would cost a fortune a decade ago to create robotic suicide vehicle bomber,
so humans were used. Today anyone with basic skills can buy one of these and
hack the controls. It's 100% software job. Add some ML and the vehicle can pick
victims on its
Safety in the real world is like privacy online, far less effective
then adveritized. Machines, like buildings and infrastructure, come
with inherent hazards: Deaths and injuries are acceptable costs of
"convenience," "benefits," "jobs," "progress."
Finance and insurance are like autocratic
This is deeply ideological and political issue, not technical one.
Inserting code written by middlemen between humans and reality empowers
only the middlemen. Humans are presented by fantasy that adheres to
reality when and in degree being decided by the middlemen.
There is one small step
According to NY Times, 737 MAX 8 pilots were trained on (their own?) iPads.
What's next? Bring your own cockpit? Like suggested for car sharing interfaces
by excited UX students all over the world these days.
Such news scare me more than all the AI horror stories together. This
banalization
It's not just about fun.
If a company/manufacturer/authority samples 'all' possible
circumstances, and embeds 'required' reactions in the machine, then
several things happen in the arena of diminishing agency:
- the logic unconditionally reflects authority's ideology, and not the
one of the
we still don't know what happened with B737 Max 8 but this thread seemed as
a good one to post references about the machines, automation, people and
disasters..
some people some time ago thought and felt that technical innovations
should be first made comprehensible in order to convince people to
Hi All,
This circumstance (increasing complexity introducing critical errors,
unforseeable by any one developer) is equally true in wider human society.
Individual consumers, businesses and corporations are, effectively,
subroutines, modules or components of a larger, complex mechanism that
>>> On 14 Mar 2019, at 17:43, Morlock Elloi wrote:
>> On 14 Mar 2019, at 20:26, Olia Lialina wrote:
> On 14 Mar 2019, at 21:58, Brian Holmes wrote:
nettime trifecta
cheers,
t
# distributed via : no commercial use without permission
#is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#
This is the key. Designers do not understand impact of the complexity
that emerges from combining relatively simple components. This is
especially amplified in real-time processing of multiple inputs.
In a completely different field (packet switching from millions of end
points) we had to
> On 15-Mar-2019, at 2:28 AM, Brian Holmes wrote:
>
> There is much to critique in the operations of Boeing and of the FAA. But
> it's not about AI taking full control.
https://www.architecturalrecord.com/articles/13464-structural-design-and-thinking-in-approximations
On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 11:43 AM Morlock Elloi
wrote:
It looks like some cretin in Boeing that drank too much of AI Kool Aid
> (probably a middle manager) decided to install trained logic circuit
> that was supposed to make new aircraft behave (to pilots) like the older
> one. As its operation
i was rereading today this 5 y. o. article about a decade old accident
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/business/2014/10/air-france-flight-447-crash/amp
following are parts of IV. Flying Robots and the article's final statement
It takes an airplane to bring out the worst in a pilot.
[... ]
Handling of the recent B737 Max 8 disaster is somewhat revealing.
What seems to have happened (for the 2nd time) is that computing machine
fought the pilot, and the machine won.
It looks like some cretin in Boeing that drank too much of AI Kool Aid
(probably a middle manager) decided to
45 matches
Mail list logo
