The amount of people defending Razer is incredible. They fully buy the idea that internet connection and accounts are necessary to use a mouse, or simple features like changing the dpi.
Then there are refreshing youtube channels like "Primitive Technology" where he never says a word and manages to end up with 9.5 million subscribers...
Question: At what point does maintaining the 737 type rating become too much "technical debt"? Why not create a new (modern) type that fills the same commercial requirements as the 737?
I wish the FAA would grow some balls and come right out and declare the old 737 type rating as deprecated. No new designs (including the 737 MAX) are allowed to fall under it. The type is many decades outdated and increasingly poor decisions are being made to conform to it.
I'm wondering how other certification agencies will react.
Specifically after more and more of the incestuous relationship between the FAA and Boeing comes to light.
Including claims that experienced engineers, which were in charge for certain certifications were demoted or fired if they were too critical or outright refused to certify certain sub systems as was reported in the Seattle Times[1]
It seems that since 2004 engineers in charge of certification were stopped to communicate directly with techies at the FAA, but reported to their managers, which in turn communicated with the FAA.
Boeing was considering that. But were caught completely off-guard by the announcement of Airbus' 320NEO.
American Airlines (a life long Boeing customer) placing a massive order of 320NEO put Boeing into full throttle panic mode and triggered the unfortunate decision to apply yet a number of hacks to an airframe, which was not suitable for the purpose.
> Question: At what point does maintaining the 737 type rating become too much "technical debt"?
I was about to snark, "Sometime prior to people dying as a result of the debt."
But then I considered that (potentially) the $X dollars saved by allowing the technical debt to live on, could probably be invested in some other way that saves far more lives. I.e., obesity reduction, smoking cessation programs, etc. So perhaps the issue isn't that simple.
I encourage you to have a look at Guillaume Chaslot's https://algotransparency.org - it identifies what videos YouTube's algorithm most often recommends, based on a given search. Serious question (I'm not trying to be facetious): looking at those recommendations, what do you think?
That is not proof. It's cherry picked topics for uncontrolled Youtube recommendations to a bot account they created. I think nothing about that is scientific and it screams tech illiteracy.
https://insider.razer.com/index.php?threads/i-need-an-accoun...