Ford's answers to the NHTSA 6.7 Investigation
There was a request for a link to Ford's answer's to the NHTSA investigation posted on a previous thread, since closed. Here is the link: Ford's NHTSA Answers to the 6.7 investigation This PDF i...
Forum Discussion
Now you're getting into my area of expertise.
When it comes to debugging code, you're absolutely right. There's no single person that can do it all, and we're already at the point where even large teams are stressed. As this problem becomes increasingly pervasive in design, new tools and practices are developed to aid in the debugging process. We have automated theorem provers to help with software checking, and as a technology they are becoming increasingly useful. They do require a certain amount of expertise to use properly, and the "automated" in their name is a bit of a misnomer as they have to be used in partnership with a human software tester. But they are still a relatively young technology that I believe will be increasingly helpful as software systems continue to mature.
I'd imagine there's a similar phenomenon taking place in design mechanical design. Software simulation is still a relatively young technology in the grand scheme of things. The scientific and engineering communities are still in their infancy in terms of knowledge about how to best implement, validate, and interpret simulation systems for design. There is always going to be a ladder process when it comes to innovation not just in design, but in the process of design. As new tools and techniques come out that enable something to be designed that wasn't feasible or economical before, new ways for these designs to fail will be become apparent. In turn, the design tools and techniques will be refined to account for those failures in future designs. Then new flaws will be uncovered. And so it goes, just like an arms race. Each side leveraging the insights of the other to make progress.
So I don't think we'll ever hit a maximum, as each time we're nearing our capacity, someone comes along to develop a tool or technique that increases our capacity. It just sucks when you're at the bleeding edge and are the one paying the piper when those limits are identified empirically.
When it comes to debugging code, you're absolutely right. There's no single person that can do it all, and we're already at the point where even large teams are stressed. As this problem becomes increasingly pervasive in design, new tools and practices are developed to aid in the debugging process. We have automated theorem provers to help with software checking, and as a technology they are becoming increasingly useful. They do require a certain amount of expertise to use properly, and the "automated" in their name is a bit of a misnomer as they have to be used in partnership with a human software tester. But they are still a relatively young technology that I believe will be increasingly helpful as software systems continue to mature.
I'd imagine there's a similar phenomenon taking place in design mechanical design. Software simulation is still a relatively young technology in the grand scheme of things. The scientific and engineering communities are still in their infancy in terms of knowledge about how to best implement, validate, and interpret simulation systems for design. There is always going to be a ladder process when it comes to innovation not just in design, but in the process of design. As new tools and techniques come out that enable something to be designed that wasn't feasible or economical before, new ways for these designs to fail will be become apparent. In turn, the design tools and techniques will be refined to account for those failures in future designs. Then new flaws will be uncovered. And so it goes, just like an arms race. Each side leveraging the insights of the other to make progress.
So I don't think we'll ever hit a maximum, as each time we're nearing our capacity, someone comes along to develop a tool or technique that increases our capacity. It just sucks when you're at the bleeding edge and are the one paying the piper when those limits are identified empirically.
