British automotive design was terrible pretty much anytime after WWII. They lost the financial base to invest in research. So a 1970 British car was pretty much the same as a 1950 British car. Same for the US, except they had the money, just not the motivation until the Japanese started eating their lunch because of the reliability problems. The US improved greatly, the British sold their car companies to the real automakers.
And they would both be wrong. The US stopped any real improvements of the cars they made until they were forced to by the Japanese. They designed crappy cars and they built crappy cars, both British and US.
I'll be long dead by then so quite frankly ICGAS.
The British are fantastic conceptualists. They come up with the most amazing ideas and designs for various things, but are largely hopeless at successfully bringing them to market. Many old classic British cars that were inspired by fabulous concepts never made the grade until they were retro-re-engineered decades later to finally become the cars they were *meant* to be back in the day.
Not sure what your abbreviation means, but you have pointed out the solution to nearly ever issue with EVs. The people complaining about them will be long dead before it's a problem for them. Glad to hear you are in that group.
Such as?
Since they're all ICEs and you hate ICEs, I'll save myself the bother of compiling a list you'd only delight in shooting down in flames.
Cursitor Doom is probably thinking of that quintessentially British car designer
That's what I thought. You got nothin'.
I've got nothing for YOU.
Exactly. You say things, then can't back them up.
I would MUCH RATHER BAN YOU, who insults and attacks other posters on SED without merit. <snip more Bozo bullshit>
If the other posters lack merit, they shouldn't be posting here.
Your capacity for assessing merit does seem to be flawed - you think that Donald trump handled the Covid-19 pandemic in the US well, when the country ended up with 3,463 deaths per million population - 15th in the rank order, but remarkably high for a rich country. The UK did almost as badly, but they had Boris Johnson in charge who is an equally toxic clown.
_ Bill Sloman, Sydney
I had a reputation for breaking software and being able to guess situations where there might be weak points. It was something I often did on Friday afternoons.
It is amazing what escapes into the real world. Certain famous brand TVs of a particular era ~10 years ago now had MPEG decoders with one set of coefficients for the dynamic updates reversed. Amazingly it hardly ever showed up as a problem IRL except on the edges of news desks when the camera panned slowly across and the angle was close to a compass point.
The previously sharp edge would break up into a sawtooth as the camera panned across the scene. The error was made in every 8x8 block. You had to be close enough to see that level of detail before it was obvious. It was never clear to me if it was an upscaling fault in the SD to HD part or in the final output stage. The effect was much less offensive on HD.
I-frames were correctly decoded and it was only the dynamic movement updates that had a part of the coefficient table scrambled. It slightly showed up on water sports too since small globs of water spray instead of being approximately round would look like stellated icosahedra!
We live in the Dark Ages of computer programming. It's like when people built cathedrals in the year 900... try it and see if it falls down.
Sad to say, but few people can program responsibly. They need a LabView sort of box dragger. With that, a competant admin would create better programs.
You may be distressed, but you shouldn't be surprised. Human's make mistakes all the time.
Our internal communications system seems to be noisy. You intend to type one letter but end up typing another - a typo - or intended to say one thing and ended up saying another - a speech error. Psychologists group them all together as errors of action. In England, engineers call them drop-offs.
The answer is design reviews. Somebody else has to go through your work in detail, and make sure that it all makes sense.
To make this easy you should go in for modular, heirarchical design, so you end up inspecting lots of small lumps. No multipage functions.
That is one of the main tenents of forth, keeping word (subroutine) definitions short (typically 1 to 4 lines). This allows ease of debugging by walking through the word in your mind, as well as simplification of visualizing what is happening on the data stack. Then the word can be tested interactively at the command line easily. It can lead to more productivity.
They were quite subtle and only clearly visible on ~50" sets so my guess is that they were tested on much smaller screens where the defects would be hidden by the limited pixel resolution.
Testing is also pretty much skipped when development overruns (as it almost always does) and the suits tell the engineers to ship it and be damned so that they get their sales bonuses.
+1Sadly I have to partially agree with you. Despite vast improvements in the capabilities of modern software tools to detect common human errors much of the software development process remains stuck in a suck it and see mode. I find the random laying on of casts painful to watch.
It is a bit like medieval cathedral building where if it was still standing after 5 years then it was a good 'un. Ely cathedral and the leaning tower of Pisa being notable edge cases. Medieval cathedral builders were a bit smarter though they left some engineering safety margin in their designs to compensate for limited knowledge.
There are bright spots here and there where some things are done properly - there is a lot of good software out there but there is also some truly terrible stuff.
Even classic structural engineering can make massive balls ups. The shaking footbridge in London is yet again under repair and the walkie talkie building that cooks cars in the street below at certain times of year shows the sorts of thing that can still go wrong even today.
Labview is OK in its domain but it isn't general enough. Generative AI might be one way forward if you don't mind having a new sort of bugs.
Nassi-Sneiderman diagrams tried to do just that. Essentially circuit diagrams for software. I actually liked the idea at least for laying out algorithms but the people who disliked it called them Nasty Spiderman diagrams (and history shows that they won that argument).
Yes, we avoid making such products. The engineering cost is multiplied by a big factor.
But gaming device? How are those regulated?
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.