[sho_hn]

> I'm not sure why Boeing and Airbus are being treated equivalently by you and the other commenter.

I think you misunderstood my intention in posting these links. I'm actually not sure how, since I pointed out clearly in the original text how the cases are very different. I posted them with the intent of "this is arguably the most like that, which is still very different". Maybe to hammer it down more, I gauge the Boeing case to be criminal, the Airbus examples not, and it's worth comparing the manufacturer conduct in these cases.

The common theme is software assists increasing complexity and the likelihood of the operator's thinking to diverge from the machine. I find that interesting personally and professionally (I make safety-critical vehicles with high degrees of automation for a living). If you want some interesting reading, I still recommend them.

[Sakos]

> very similar themes

implies that Airbus and Boeing should be treated similarly. When the issue isn't necessary the automation or software, it's how each company behaves in situations where there are serious faults or deficiencies with their designs.

[sho_hn]

> implies that Airbus and Boeing should be treated similarly.

Honestly, I think that's you misreading the language.

> how each company behaves in situations where there are serious faults or deficiencies with their designs

Which the comparison can illustrate. Rather than downvoting me and somehow trying to hide information, why don't you just double-down on what I did and extend the argument? I see exactly no reason for conflict here. What I originally wrote (this is misconduct, this is not) seems to exactly agree with you.

In any case, I suppose I have more of a creator's view and am more interested in what makes a good software assist vs. a bad one, and for me any assist implicated or involved in an incident are interesting data points in the spectrum.