2,482 karma · joined September 19, 2010
Reach me on Fedi/Mastodon @digikata@fosstodon.org
https://omegataupodcast.net/312-the-wendelstein-7-x-fusion-e...
https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/403248-poll-seventy-pe...
Voters were split on the ACA mandated carriage of private insurance.
Didn't the CSIRO from Australia do something similar with respect to their wifi patents?
Isn't this exactly the approach that failed in the MCAS system? And if you had a switchable independent system, a copilot would have righted the plane and flown on.
But really I agree with your overall comment, it's very difficult to know why a given safety design decision was made unless you are well steeped in the system - there are almost always little corner tradeoffs. That's why I added the "I suspect" to the front of my comment.
In air sensors like this, their failures are higher than the rate at which you can ignore. They fail on their own, they get bumped and bent on the ground, they ice over in the air, or have objects striking them.
http://linuxgizmos.com/google-launches-i-mx8m-dev-board-with...
I'm curious how it compares to the LED filament lighting which can use much simpler power supplies with fewer components which should mean much lower failure rates.