1. I don't think adding robustness necessarily requires changing how systems are presented to the flight crew.
2. Bigger changes than this are made all the time under the same type certificate. Many planes went from steam gauges to glass cockpits. A320 added a new fuel tank with transfer valves and transfer logic and new failure modes, and has completely changed control law over the type. etc.
> Point #2 ("somewhat less fit... on average") is totally inaccurate if the parents are statistically average in the modern/Western world.
I wonder if you've misunderstood the point. Offspring are expected to be less fit on average because -things can go wrong- (mutations, birth defects, etc). But selection is a counterweight to this.
Seemed to me that the author was referring to regression to the mean, as another commenter noted.
De novo mutations have a negative effect, to be sure, but it is extremely weak on an individual level. In parents who are extraordinary, the effect of regression to the mean is going to be 20x to 40x stronger than the effect of de novo mutations. For instance, if you have two parents who are both 195cm tall, the regression penalty might be 4cm, whereas the mutation penalty would be somewhere in the millimeters, so a statistically average child would be ~190.9cm. If both parents are statistically average, there'd be no regression penalty and only a vanishingly small mutation penalty.
To continue a conversation from another thread on another post, uncertainty, complexity, ambiguity, and out-of-band context required are all costs that just happen to act as moats for entrenched incumbents. And no surprise, such incumbents often have so much influence over politics that they literally write the laws that regulate them.
The folksy aphorism goes, The more wild cards and crazy rules, the greater the expert's advantage.
Complexity is clearly hired by lobbyists all the time, but uncertainty and ambiguity seem to me to be mostly caused by incompetence. It's not even clear if uncertainty benefits incumbents more; it can just as likely destroy a market or benefit new entrants, and you can't predict which will happen at the time you create it (otherwise it's not uncertain).
Legislative houses need technocratic QA. And that QA needs to be independent from the law-writing process.
It's perhaps practical, though, to ask it to do a lot of verification and demonstration of correctness in Lean or another proof environment-- to both get its error rate down and to speed up the review of its results. After all, its time is close to "free."
The strong design opinions about how the Pocket Operators interact with other musical gear are a big part of why I haven’t had high enthusiasm for using the small PO’s when I’ve had small PO’s.
For me, Volca’s are a similar ecosystem but to a lesser extent…maybe because the Monotrons sit lower in Korg’s product portfolio while the PO’s are rock bottom of TE’s product line.
I gave my kids (5 and 2) two Volcas (Beats & Keys) to play with. The Keys is a bit too advanced (too easy to get no sound at all, or something that sounds horrible), but the Beats is a wonderful machine for kids, as it's virtually impossible to make it sound bad. Also great to teach them rhythm.
Somebody once said in light of this dilemma: Do things that don't scale.
This never meant: "It's fantastic if things don't scale". It means: "Trying to start by doing things that scale is probably bad". I mostly believe that.
I also believe that in order to bootstrap a viable system, start with system 1. The OP is partially sniping at people who creating all kinds of elaborate structures for systems 2-5, without attending to the first order of business, which is system 1. I've been guilty of this myself.
But it's easy to find dysfunctional organizations that focus almost exclusively on System 1, and it looks like grinding, hustle, "doing the thing", being stuck at CMM Level 1, and in my experience, it leads to burnout. So there has to be a balance.
2. Bigger changes than this are made all the time under the same type certificate. Many planes went from steam gauges to glass cockpits. A320 added a new fuel tank with transfer valves and transfer logic and new failure modes, and has completely changed control law over the type. etc.
reply