Given that he has the source code to the controlling software it's probably a home brew system.
He's no doubt learned some important lessons, but I can't find destroying $12 million in equipment in any way funny. [c0deporn has updated his original to the more accurate and appropriate "interesting".]
If they pilot recklessly (reckless java code?), then yes they would either not make it out of flight simulator or barely make any flights until they grounded for a long time.
actually, they just received $12M in training on how to not make that type of mistake ever again. Sounds like a great hire to me, especially if they will be undervalued in the market by others
If someone broke a $12m machine, surely their career would be over.
Who would you rather have working on your $12m machine, someone with no real experience with that sort of hardware or someone with plenty of experience and some painfully learned lessons about exactly how careful you have to be when working with brittle $12m machines.
There are two philosophies of justice: retributive and utilitarian. Retributive justice is about punishing the guilty. If you destroy a $12 million machine, you deserve to have $12 million taken away from you. Most people don't have $12 million, so the retributive boss will take away as much as he can: fire you and file suit if he can and badmouth you to other companies so you never work again.
Utilitarian justice is about preventing future harm. It's not about punishing the guy who pushed the button on destroying $12 million of hardware, it's about preventing future hardware losses. You fire the guy if you think he's likely to destroy more hardware in the future, because maybe he was negligent and careless or even malicious. You keep the guy if he was just in the wrong place at the wrong time, and any other competent employee would have made the same call and inflicted the same loss.
So while the "$12 million in training" line is a great ice-breaker for making the poor guy feel better, if someone broke a $1 million machine, then a $2 million machine (after all, he has $1 million of training now), then a $3 million machine, then a $6 million machine, would you say, "Great, he's got $12 million of training! Let's put him in charge of our $12 million machine!"?
This is an important point. We're so accustomed to the low-margin consumer world sometimes that we forget that equipment can be repaired. Broken physical enclosures can be replaced, dead motors can be replaced, PCBs can be replaced and in extreme cases even the SMT components on them can be reworked for much less than the total cost of production (which likely included things like service agreements already).
He's no doubt learned some important lessons, but I can't find destroying $12 million in equipment in any way funny. [c0deporn has updated his original to the more accurate and appropriate "interesting".]
reply