They are also not entirely useless. Have you ever heard of the "Flight Engineer" position on older widebody airliners? 747s and DC-10s often had a third person in the cockpit, whose job was to do the more mundane/repetitive tasks, so that the two *actual* pilots could make quick decisions & monitor their surroundings. Of course, this position has largely gone away by now. Human FEs were replaced with glass cockpits/newer flight computers that automated those tasks. Isn't it a good thing to have a barrier-to-entry anyway? There's got to be a middle ground, no?
>>109607343What a stupid anecdote.100% of all aeroplane accidents happened because industry got rid of flight engineers and relegated those tasks to a computer.
>>109607406how come accidents happened back when that job existed as well then?
Remember when they where called assistants?Remember Cortana?Remember how Cortana was disliked?Remember those chat assistants could do things modern "AI" struggles with?It's almost as if Microsoft has amnesia from all the jeets that just got access to tech 5 years ago and now we have to wait for them to evolve before tech starts progressing again.
>>109607417Not saying there were no accidents before. But notice a sharp increase in accidents after they got rid of those engineers? It only started reducing after we reinvented the wheel with ground control.The reason why industrial revolution was net positive was because it divided labour, instead of one gun smith creating one single gun in his shop, 100 gun smiths can improve on a single part and improve the gun overall.This retarded techbro idea of one person doing it all is a fools errand.
