Chris Hobbs terminology regarding hazards and risks is also wrong. It's not just a case of "everyone has their own terminology". It's a case of one group using the correct terminology and everyone else being wrong. The terms are defined as follows: HAZARD: A system state or set of conditions that, together with a particular set of worst-case environmental conditions, will lead to an accident. ACCIDENT: An undesired and unplanned loss event. RISK: (Probability of accident occurring) x (severity if it occurs) Basically, a HAZARD is a source of danger (iceberg). The ACCIDENT is how that hazard results in a loss (hitting the iceberg with your ship). The RISK is the chance of it happening and the severity if it does (ship sinking).
It gets tiring listening to people virtue signal. Chris Hobbs saying (near the end of the video) that there are too many people "like him" in the field. If you were a young engineer starting out in the field of safety critical systems, would you really want some HR person to tell you: "Sorry Chris, your qualifications are great, but we have enough white men working at our company and are going to hire a black female instead"? I get sick and tired of this racist and sexist crap against white men. "Diversity" for the sake of diversity is worthless. The most qualified person should always win. STOP PUTTING BARRIERS IN FRONT OF PEOPLE LIKE ME! You wouldn't like it if it happened to you.
I didn't hear it that way. I'm a 64 year old white male working in the critical safety medical device space. We get very few young people applying for jobs; I'm guessing because it's not the latest and greatest thing; move fast and break things is not part of the job. There's a ton of paperwork, design meetings, stuff that is necessary but not "the fun part" of coding. I did some consulting for an autonomous vehicle startup that had a fair number of young people; that's probably one domain that is attracting newer grads into a safety critical area. He also points out that these concepts are not being taught enough in schools. So I think his point is that there needs to be more people, of all types, exposed to this type of technology. If everyday software would use any part of these procedures we'd have less defective software in general. And if anyone is looking for a job in medical devices, you can contact me.
@@DeckerCreek I truly believe his reference to "like him" was meant in the context of too many men in the field, too many old men, too many white people, etc. It wasn't just an age based comment. It was the usual "woke" pandering forced diversity schtick that has always made employment an extreme challenge for people like me. Everywhere I go, I see ethnic minorities and females occupying jobs that I'm applying for, with less than half the education or experience that I have, and they always get accepted. The last software team I worked on had all female managers. Project lead, team lead, etc... The project was floundering badly, six months behind schedule, client getting ready to drop us, and NONE of them were ever removed from their position or fired. None. Management turned over everyone else, and made other people quit, but never changed the leadership on the team. There's a clear double standard in the engineering field today. If you're a white male, you have to be 2x better than everyone else to get the job. More than likely 4x better if you're getting up there in age like I am. You can't make any mistakes or you'll get fired immediately. Companies are always looking for an excuse to get rid of a white male and replace with anyone else, just to hit their diversity "quota" so they can proudly proclaim how "woke" they are when the gender and ethnic breakdown of their company gets reported to the public someday. I took an interest in this field because it's not supposed to be just about looks like sales and other jobs. I like that it's challenging and not something that everyone can do. I don't find it boring at all. I'm trying to find my niche in the software engineering field and safety critical systems looked like an area that would get me away from all the young people who are only in it for the "cool" factor and not the work.
@@DeckerCreek After I finish my last exam next May, I will be looking for work again. (I've spent the last few years upgrading again.) I took a course in Real-time Systems, a course in Safety Critical Systems, and now I'm doing a course in AI. For safety critical systems, my textbooks were the Leveson text and the Ericsson text. I took a look at Chris Hobbs' textbook, and it's a good start but leaves a lot to be desired. He glosses over many areas but has no depth provided in any of them. There's no 5-star textbook on Safety Critical Systems, and that's the issue in my opinion. Either because nobody knows it well enough to write one, or the publishers don't think there's enough interest to publish one.
@@taekwondotime that's great. I have Nancy Levinson's book as well as Chris Hobbs' and I think they cover different aspects. Since Mr. Hobbs is a developer at QNX, he's very hands on in his job and I find his book would be very useful to anyone going into hands on design and coding of systems. There may not be a 5-star book ( there aren't many in any subject) because the topic is so large and deals with everything from Systems Analysis, and "Have you thought of that?" analysis, to best C++ coding practices. You may like Phil Koopman's new book "How safe is safe enough?" Which deals with autonomous cars. He had some recent video lectures on RUclips as well.
@@DeckerCreek I think Hobbs' book is like an overview of the field. Sort of like a menu at a restaurant that tells you what's there, but there's nothing to really sink your teeth into. Ericsson's book is much the same way, but Ericsson misses a lot of key things. Leveson focuses on her own STAMP/STPA technique and devotes the book to it, but at least she's the first author to go into any depth on any of the hazard analysis techniques that are out there, so she gets credit for that, and her technique may be the best one of them all. One part that's sorely lacking is that none of them cover formal methods for specification, development, and verification. You can't build a safety critical system anywhere without formal specs, and yet it seems like nobody knows how to do them or nobody wants to write about them. Everyone talks "around" the subject (if they mention it at all) but nobody can actually produce a formal spec for a real project, put it in a book, and show how it's done.
![Eminem - Fuel (feat. JID) [Official Lyric Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/t5H_CewqpKA/mqdefault.jpg)
I’m here listening guys!
Chris Hobbs terminology regarding hazards and risks is also wrong. It's not just a case of "everyone has their own terminology". It's a case of one group using the correct terminology and everyone else being wrong. The terms are defined as follows:
HAZARD: A system state or set of conditions that, together with a particular set of worst-case environmental conditions, will lead to an accident.
ACCIDENT: An undesired and unplanned loss event.
RISK: (Probability of accident occurring) x (severity if it occurs)
Basically, a HAZARD is a source of danger (iceberg). The ACCIDENT is how that hazard results in a loss (hitting the iceberg with your ship). The RISK is the chance of it happening and the severity if it does (ship sinking).
New subbed here to listen to you. Mine is all about sports, young and energetic
My ultimate conclusion: any autonomous vehicles are a big hazard to human or animal life.
It gets tiring listening to people virtue signal. Chris Hobbs saying (near the end of the video) that there are too many people "like him" in the field. If you were a young engineer starting out in the field of safety critical systems, would you really want some HR person to tell you: "Sorry Chris, your qualifications are great, but we have enough white men working at our company and are going to hire a black female instead"? I get sick and tired of this racist and sexist crap against white men. "Diversity" for the sake of diversity is worthless. The most qualified person should always win. STOP PUTTING BARRIERS IN FRONT OF PEOPLE LIKE ME! You wouldn't like it if it happened to you.
I didn't hear it that way. I'm a 64 year old white male working in the critical safety medical device space. We get very few young people applying for jobs; I'm guessing because it's not the latest and greatest thing; move fast and break things is not part of the job. There's a ton of paperwork, design meetings, stuff that is necessary but not "the fun part" of coding. I did some consulting for an autonomous vehicle startup that had a fair number of young people; that's probably one domain that is attracting newer grads into a safety critical area. He also points out that these concepts are not being taught enough in schools. So I think his point is that there needs to be more people, of all types, exposed to this type of technology. If everyday software would use any part of these procedures we'd have less defective software in general. And if anyone is looking for a job in medical devices, you can contact me.
@@DeckerCreek I truly believe his reference to "like him" was meant in the context of too many men in the field, too many old men, too many white people, etc. It wasn't just an age based comment. It was the usual "woke" pandering forced diversity schtick that has always made employment an extreme challenge for people like me.
Everywhere I go, I see ethnic minorities and females occupying jobs that I'm applying for, with less than half the education or experience that I have, and they always get accepted.
The last software team I worked on had all female managers. Project lead, team lead, etc... The project was floundering badly, six months behind schedule, client getting ready to drop us, and NONE of them were ever removed from their position or fired. None. Management turned over everyone else, and made other people quit, but never changed the leadership on the team.
There's a clear double standard in the engineering field today. If you're a white male, you have to be 2x better than everyone else to get the job. More than likely 4x better if you're getting up there in age like I am. You can't make any mistakes or you'll get fired immediately. Companies are always looking for an excuse to get rid of a white male and replace with anyone else, just to hit their diversity "quota" so they can proudly proclaim how "woke" they are when the gender and ethnic breakdown of their company gets reported to the public someday.
I took an interest in this field because it's not supposed to be just about looks like sales and other jobs. I like that it's challenging and not something that everyone can do. I don't find it boring at all.
I'm trying to find my niche in the software engineering field and safety critical systems looked like an area that would get me away from all the young people who are only in it for the "cool" factor and not the work.
@@DeckerCreek After I finish my last exam next May, I will be looking for work again. (I've spent the last few years upgrading again.) I took a course in Real-time Systems, a course in Safety Critical Systems, and now I'm doing a course in AI.
For safety critical systems, my textbooks were the Leveson text and the Ericsson text.
I took a look at Chris Hobbs' textbook, and it's a good start but leaves a lot to be desired. He glosses over many areas but has no depth provided in any of them. There's no 5-star textbook on Safety Critical Systems, and that's the issue in my opinion. Either because nobody knows it well enough to write one, or the publishers don't think there's enough interest to publish one.
@@taekwondotime that's great. I have Nancy Levinson's book as well as Chris Hobbs' and I think they cover different aspects. Since Mr. Hobbs is a developer at QNX, he's very hands on in his job and I find his book would be very useful to anyone going into hands on design and coding of systems. There may not be a 5-star book ( there aren't many in any subject) because the topic is so large and deals with everything from Systems Analysis, and "Have you thought of that?" analysis, to best C++ coding practices. You may like Phil Koopman's new book "How safe is safe enough?" Which deals with autonomous cars. He had some recent video lectures on RUclips as well.
@@DeckerCreek I think Hobbs' book is like an overview of the field. Sort of like a menu at a restaurant that tells you what's there, but there's nothing to really sink your teeth into. Ericsson's book is much the same way, but Ericsson misses a lot of key things. Leveson focuses on her own STAMP/STPA technique and devotes the book to it, but at least she's the first author to go into any depth on any of the hazard analysis techniques that are out there, so she gets credit for that, and her technique may be the best one of them all.
One part that's sorely lacking is that none of them cover formal methods for specification, development, and verification. You can't build a safety critical system anywhere without formal specs, and yet it seems like nobody knows how to do them or nobody wants to write about them. Everyone talks "around" the subject (if they mention it at all) but nobody can actually produce a formal spec for a real project, put it in a book, and show how it's done.