Well the maiden passenger flight of the A320 crashed at the Paris Air Show, and the pilot said the fly-by-wire system didn't let him pull up[1]. Officially it was pilot error though.
There have been nearly 1,400 fatalities with the A320, with some pilots blaming the fly-by-wire systems, but many of those happened before the age of Twitter and social media virality of this sort of thing so who knows what the public reaction would be today.
The A330 had some weird pitch down incidences due to a faulty ADIRS, and obviously AF447 due to faulty pitot tubes and the completely idiotic issue where the control sticks aren't synced and the inputs are averaged out before being sent to the plane. There were some considerations given to grounding the fleet, whether or not Airbus wanted to admit it at the time.
There are several pilots who've had this very issue happen to them and they managed to diagnose and address the problem without flying the plane into the ground.
These incidents are almost always the result of a combination of errors ranging from negligent engineering and documentation to mechanical defects to human (pilot) error. We simply don't know all the facts in these two crashes.
The publicly available information to me indicates negligent documentation (pilot manuals should have been updated to reflect the new mode and how to treat the issue similarly to runaway trim), negligent sales practice (the AoA disagree feature shouldn't be an option), and poor reactions by the pilots involved. But that's purely speculation at this point: there could very well be some other causes instead of or in addition to these.
Is that a serious question, or did you just not do any research? Yes, Airbus planes have crashed due to malfunctioning automation. It hasn't even been that long since one of their newest planes actually experienced a problem eerily similar to the 737MAX issue, but got lucky in that it occurred when the plane was higher and had more altitude to trade for time and the pilots were able to regain control.
If we compare software engineering to retail, not everyone can work for walmart (Google), but have to make do with the random dollar store chain (Oracle).
From an ethical perspective, Oracle is mean to tech (open source, buyouts and so on, mean licensing setups with companies). On the other hand, Google and Facebook seem to contribute more to tech while being absolutely vile to the general public. Cutesy yellow and green bicycles and thumbs up signs don't negate the societal harm these companies have done by vacuuming personal data and selling it at such scale.
Then again, what is moral? Finance ? Ad tech? And don't say government, IT there is a wreck and a waste (enter Oracle, IBM contracts to piss taxpayer money to).
Higher Education, colleges and universities, are generally excellent work environments with excellent benefits. Depending on job, salary isn't always competitive with the tech sector though.
I work in higher ed. Salaries are nowhere near competitive. However, everyone I work with has opted for good work environment over money. Tends to lead to self-selection of nice people, even if they aren't "rockstars".
I knew a couple of people who worked at Stanford in various capacities (admissions, and administration, IIRC) -- and while I didnt understand what they were good at, or what they did per se, they were some of the more genuinely nice and honest than many people I have met.
My problem is that I am too naive to sharks and assholes.
I have met thousands and thousands of people in may 22 year career in tech. Of which a very very small number I am friends with still - as I find that many people are way more cunning and conniving than I allow myself to admit.
I can absolutely with all honesty say that I would never work for a large company. I worked for a Fortune 10 (non tech) company for 3 years out of my 20 year career and I said never again. Large companies are too stifling and too regimented for me. Even if I didn’t have to move from my low cost of living area and a I was offered a job at a FAANG, I would say no.
Well with one exception, I might be willing to work for AWS as a consultant.
I have all of those things, and I've followed though. I know lots of other quality devs who have done the same. I don't think people like us are as rare as you suppose. It's not like the job market is particularly tight, after all.
Number 6 on the Forbes list of software companies, with a market cap of 176 billion. Their main product is very heavily used by a heck of a lot of companies. It's just a bit messy and configuration-intensive, so it doesn't get a lot of respect among the techerati.
A software engineer looking for work could do a lot worse.
Not all of us are in a position to work only on great products.
My impression of Oracle products is that they are frustrating to work with, feature-rich rather than elegant. They can work well, but take a lot of configuring and tuning.
The ex-Oracle folks I've worked with have been a mixed bag. Their reports about working for Oracle have also been mixed, skewing toward the bad. I suspect the company is basically run by sales, not engineering, certainly not customer support.
uh, how would that even get enforced? Some of my coworkers do schoolwork, and online lectures during work, you think the boss will take thier degree? Knowleged gained from spending time learning new stuff, and experienced gained from related projects to prepare for your next job is gonna be hard/pointless to confiscate as well.
Oh no, the boss is going to take my hello world app in node js.
Not really, search google for apron, and only one of the results is blue. Most common aprons are white, and black, so those would have better brand recognition.
That's not what brand recognition means. Brand recognition is people knowing that a Coke is a soft drink and a Kleenex is a tissue. Blue Apron has been aggressively advertising and people probably know it's an ingredient delivery service.
