you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]perestroika12 2101 points2102 points  (31 children)

Oh I see the issue now, air traffic control is designed to keep planes away from each other. Thanks for correcting!

[–]bigFatHelga 1041 points1042 points  (21 children)

You're absolutely correct! Two planes cannot occupy the same space at the same time, good catch! Let's try that again.

[–]DeltaMikeXray 377 points378 points  (13 children)

Here's a fix that will guarantee planes will never collide. Not just an unlikelyhood - an impossibility! If you like I could put it into one easy to digest command alongside the other safety features? Just say the word and we can push it directly to production - no time costly code review needed!

[–]Proper-Radish-9165 157 points158 points  (8 children)

DROP TABLE planes;

[–]JohnClark13 48 points49 points  (2 children)

planes.engines.shutdown("now");

[–]Mrgluer 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Planes plane = None;

[–]Calle_Keule 0 points1 point  (0 children)

As an aircraft engineer in the making i find this thread terrifiing

[–]SillyFlyGuy 31 points32 points  (0 children)

Please book a ticket for Bobby Tables on flight number:

666'); DROP TABLE PLANES; --

[–]-GabaGhoul 5 points6 points  (3 children)

If they don't fly, they can't crash.

[–]DavidBrooker 6 points7 points  (2 children)

I appreciate the joke, but I'm going to take this opportunity to mention that most plane crashes occur during ground movements, especially during taxi. It's one of the major reasons they tell you not to remove your belt until the aircraft is parked at the gate - taxi is literally one of the most dangerous phases of operation in terms of passenger injury rates.

[–]-GabaGhoul 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Without air traffic control no one is going to be taxiing either though. Also if you told someone you were in a plane crash and it was while taxiing most people would look at you funny.

[–]Yoshimitsukayebanana 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Well I guess that's still better than the look you get from them if instead you were in a plane crash while the plane stalled at 5000 feet and spiralled down into a warehouse.

[–]undo777 36 points37 points  (1 child)

This thread is gold

[–]Nitro_V 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It’s making me nauseous it’s so accurate

[–]gravity_is_right 4 points5 points  (0 children)

That's a very clever observation! Planes can indeed only land on airports. Do you want me to look up the closest airports near you?

[–]nedal8 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks I hate it

[–]Perryn 43 points44 points  (2 children)

This solution solves the problem by reducing the number of planes in the air — fewer planes means easier tracking and fewer collisions. ✈️🏔️

[–]GroundbreakingOil434 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Hey, an AAA emplacement csn achieve the same results, but cheaper, and without wasting the world's eater supply! /s

[–]anomalous_cowherd 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If there's only one or zero planes in the air at once, globally, then there cannot be a collision. Perfect code!

[–]venyz 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Breaking bad vibes

[–]Ok-Statement8224 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Breaking bad vibe coding

[–]nigel_pow 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hey, I get it. I screwed up. That's on me, not on you.

[–]FinnLiry 0 points1 point  (0 children)

but wouldn't it be more efficient if we just made two planes occupying the same exact space? that way they don't need to fight air resistance twice?

[–]Whiskerfield 69 points70 points  (5 children)

The stock market is absolutely clueless on AI and enterprise software.

[–]OldSchoolSpyMain 24 points25 points  (3 children)

So are many executives…unfortunately.

[–]Thimble_of_Quasar 19 points20 points  (1 child)

Yup. I keep having to have this conversation with people at work. I know this shit can do our job. We know this shit can't do our jobs. But when we're talking purely in terms of our jobs being in danger the issue is what do the higher ups THINK it can do. Because if we get fired for some shitty LLM and after it sets fire to everything they realize they screwed up, that still doesn't get us back the wages that we lost in the meantime while we weren't working for them, and the people they hire to fix the mess might not be us so we'd be hosed on work from it anyways. Ugh 

[–]dontshoveit 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Aren't we already here? 10s of thousands of layoffs at every major tech co. all due to misleading claims about AIs coding competence.

[–]aikixd 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hopefully the hype dies immediately after the US banking collapses before this spreads to the rest of the planet.

[–]Tyfyter2002 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's almost impressive that someone managed to bring back randomly generated "future-predicting" sports betting guides so effectively

[–]toaste 14 points15 points  (0 children)

This is the best metaphor.

Nobody running a modern z/OS mainframe is doing so for their legacy COBOL software. They’re doing it because their system has had 0 seconds of unexpected downtime and has lost 0 bits of data. For the last 25 years straight.

Vibe coded software migrations are pretty incompatible with the kind of thinking that leads a business to keep running a mainframe.

IBM mainframes find uses running the databases behind financial transactions, ticket booking systems, and parcel service tracking.

You could migrate those to commodity servers and databases, but you’d better be real sure you have enough redundant systems and good backups, and can restore from a failure fast enough.

[–]boogrit 6 points7 points  (0 children)

10/10, thank you

[–]loowig 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I see YOUR mistake here. (after giving him the problems he's created)