The Market Ticker
Commentary on The Capital Markets- Category [Company Specific]
Logging in or registering will improve your experience here
Main Navigation
Full-Text Search & Archives

Legal Disclaimer

The content on this site is provided without any warranty, express or implied. All opinions expressed on this site are those of the author and may contain errors or omissions.

NO MATERIAL HERE CONSTITUTES "INVESTMENT ADVICE" NOR IS IT A RECOMMENDATION TO BUY OR SELL ANY FINANCIAL INSTRUMENT, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO STOCKS, OPTIONS, BONDS OR FUTURES.

The author may have a position in any company or security mentioned herein. Actions you undertake as a consequence of any analysis, opinion or advertisement on this site are your sole responsibility.

Market charts, when present, used with permission of TD Ameritrade/ThinkOrSwim Inc. Neither TD Ameritrade or ThinkOrSwim have reviewed, approved or disapproved any content herein.

The Market Ticker content may be sent unmodified to lawmakers via print or electronic means or excerpted online for non-commercial purposes provided full attribution is given and the original article source is linked to. Please contact Karl Denninger for reprint permission in other media, to republish full articles, or for any commercial use (which includes any site where advertising is displayed.)

Submissions or tips on matters of economic or political interest may be sent "over the transom" to The Editor at any time. To be considered for publication your submission must include full and correct contact information and be related to an economic or political matter of the day. All submissions become the property of The Market Ticker.

Considering sending spam? Read this first.

This is an open, public statement of incitement to commit and specific involvement in a conspiracy to commit felonious behavior:

A Community Standards update published by Facebook states (emphasis mine); “Do not post: Threats that could lead to death (and other forms of high-severity violence) of any target(s) where threat is defined as any of the following:

Statements of intent to commit high-severity violence; or

Calls for high-severity violence (unless the target is an organization or individual covered in the Dangerous Individuals and Organizations policy)….”

May I remind you that Facebook claims the private right to declare someone a "Dangerous Individual" -- without due process of law.

In fact Laura Loomer has just filed a monstrous defamation lawsuit on exactly these grounds -- Facebook's designation of her as same without evidence or due process of law.

This "policy" is an outrageous and, I believe, felonious act. That liability does not just extend to the corporate either; it reaches all the executives, directors and officers, most especially the CEO Zuckerberg.

Lock this ********** up, destroy the company -- or both -- by any means necessary.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)
 



2019-06-27 11:12 by Karl Denninger
in Company Specific , 310 references
[Comments enabled]  

Another "glitch" has been uncovered.

Simulator testing -- note, this is computer flying, not an actual aircraft in the air -- has found another circumstance under which the 737Max's "nannies" can result in a dangerous attitude configuration that could kill everyone on board.

At least that's what it looks like.

A source familiar with the situation told the BBC: ""During simulator testing last week at Boeing, FAA test pilots discovered an issue that affected their ability to quickly and easily follow the required recovery procedures for runaway stabiliser trim (ie, to stop stabilisers on the aircraft's tail moving uncontrollably).

"The issue was traced to how data is being processed by the flight computer."

So once again we still have an aircraft that is insufficiently airworthy to fly without a nanny in the form of a "flight computer" because of design decisions made by Boeing.  Instead of an aircraft that has a computer managing things like fuel consumption to lower operating cost, provide assistance in navigation (e.g. autopilot, etc) and similar we have a machine that is dangerously unstable in certain parts of the flight envelope which, it appears, cannot actually be fixed and our government, just as it did the first, appears to be perfectly ok with believing that a machine can adequately compensate for that under all reasonable -- and many unreasonable -- sets of conditions.

There are several hundred people who are dead as a consequence of that decision the last time around and what certainly appears to be no clear way to shut said nanny off if it goes sideways and simply fly the plane the old-fashioned way -- that is, with an actual human being the first and final arbiter of where elements of the aircraft's flight control components are placed where -- specifically, in this case, stabilizer trim.

IMHO the correct answer to this problem was to never put the damn plane in service in the first place; the design was a short-cut as a means of addressing a competitor's offering that was going to be on the market before Boeing could actually do their damn job and engineer an entirely new airframe with the desired characteristics.  Instead of doing that they took an old design, stretched it, and, it appears, took that jerry-rigging too far.  Having detected that their expected flight behavior did not materialize during testing when their MCAS system required four times the anticipated control authority for the aircraft to remain stable -- hard evidence that the engineers blew it in the original design -- rather than stop right there, figure out what changes in the actual aircraft itself to fix that problem (which might have involved a whole new wing, where it attached to the fuselage or similar changes) they programmed the "nanny" to hide the issue instead.  Our government's so-called "safety" people, instead of doing their job, did this, all to "protect" a US company from competitive pressure that it deserved to lose to:

smiley

And now we learn that no, it's not fixed and since there are no actual changes in the aircraft itself being made it won't be fixed either; it will simply be papered over with software and called fixed.

Screw that nonsense; Boeing needs to die as a corporation and those who papered this over in the first place need to go to prison for manslaughter.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)
 

2019-06-19 07:00 by Karl Denninger
in Company Specific , 195 references
[Comments enabled]  

Now Zucker****er wants to have a cryptocurrency.

Meh.

First, this isn't about money transmission or payments.  At all.  It is about mining your purchase data, which Facesucker has an imperfect view of right now -- and wants a perfect view.

They want it to **** you up the ass with.

Remember, these are the same people who claim that if you utter something they consider to be "hate speech" they have the right to ban you.  From..... your money?

My view of this is simple: You can't be serious about even considering such a thing.

Their intent is to take all these "partners" and make you utterly dependent on Facebook liking you to have access to any of them -- any way to spend your money, get a ride (e.g. Uber, etc) and ultimately even use a credit card (gee, both of them are involved.)

This sort of activity is supposed to lead to instant indictment under 15 USC Chapter 1.  It hasn't for decades which is why this piece of **** can make such an announcement and not instantly find himself behind bars.

Don't be an idiot.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)
 

2019-03-18 21:35 by Karl Denninger
in Company Specific , 456 references
[Comments enabled]  

Every one of the officers and directors.

Or just destroy the company.  I don't much care which.

I'm talking about Boeing here.

Christchurch saw 50 people killed by a maniac.  The 737MAX has killed six times as many people and destroyed two hulls.

STFU about terrorism and how horrible it is until there are 300+ criminal charges of manslaughter laid for the souls aboard those two aircraft unless this entire article is crap, which it probably isn't.

Specifically, the article states:

  • The failure analysis, including the "what bad thing(s) happen if this goes wrong" were predicated on a design that had the authority to move the trim by 0.6 degrees.  By that maximum movement the system could not crash the plane or kill anyone on board (it might produce minor injuries or discomfort to passengers however.)

  • The limits were later updated to 2.5 degrees but the documents were not updated and thus the analysis was not re-run. That's four times the original limit, and would have prompted a much more serious rating in the event of a malfunction.

  • Worse, it was not documented that the system would reset whenever the pilot entered a trim command, and thus there was no effective limit at all on the amount of trim change the system could input.  That would have likely led to a "will lose the aircraft" (e.g. "CATASTROPHIC", or "must be prevented") rating for a failure.

To have a system that winds up during testing requiring four times the designed and expected range of authority is outrageous on its face.  To be off by 5%, 10% -- that's pretty normal.  You can only model so much, and models are never exact.

But when you're off by four hundred percent your original design was crap.

Further, to have the system reset whenever the pilot gave a contrary command meant that it had unlimited authority.  The total range from neutral to the limit is 5 degrees, so 2.5 degrees is half the total design range from neutral with one action.  That's not a "minor" adjustment!

As I said in my previous article prior to reading this I had serious questions about whether Boeing pushed the envelope too far with this design in the first place, shaving margins.

Now, if this article is correct it's clear that Boeing knew during flight testing that the expected behavior of the aircraft with the new engines did not match the actual, in-flight performance; what they actually got in terms of aerodynamic stability under certain conditions was much worse than they expected.

But rather than change the documents to reflect the true amount of correction required and document that the actual authority of the system was unlimited due to reset behavior or put hard limit switches on the system to prevent that and then re-run the analysis, which might have resulted in at minimum a different type certificate (read: more cost for customers as pilots must be re-trained) or worse, a denied certification (potentially catastrophic costs requiring re-engineering the engine mounts and aerodynamic effects of same, redesign and re-fabrication of the wings and control surfaces, or even determination that the problems were not able to be feasibly corrected!) Boeing didn't update the documents and thus the re-analysis was not done.

The Seattle Times calls this flawed analysis.  That, of course, assumes Boeing did not know that the authority of the system was changed to have four times that originally specified and did not know that if the pilot commanded opposite trim the system treated that as a reset and restarted, giving it the set authority anew, effectively meaning it had authority only limited by the physical limits of the mechanism.

That is an unreasonable assumption since someone changed the limits of authority between the time the system was designed and when testing was completed.  That someone most-certainly did know; the change did not happen on its own.

In addition Boeing knew that pilot commands in the opposite direction reset the system because Boeing engineers coded it that way.  Someone wrote that spec and someone else signed off on it when the programming was complete; in addition during testing it was tested against that spec.

But the FAA wasn't notified of any of this, the documents were, if the article is correct, not updated and the failure analysis was not re-examined in light of these facts.

Look folks I've written code like this.  Yeah, it was a long time ago but so what?  It wasn't for a plane but it was operating heavy machinery where excursions beyond authorized and reasonable limits either had the potential to do severe property damage and in some cases could kill someone -- or a lot of someone's.

You don't change limits from the original design without going back through the failure analysis.

You don't put a system together like this without defining what the maximum limits of its authority are, and what happens if they are entirely consumed -- along with what can happen if they're exceeded.

If the "what can happen if they're exceeded" is very bad (people get badly hurt, die, or serious property damage happens) then you put physical, hard backup on said system that independently prevents that and which is not able to be overridden by the software in question, whether it's a limit switch that cuts the power to the contactor's coil or something similar, and also considers any time that limit switch triggers an alarm event which indicates a critical malfunction took place that must be corrected before the thing in question is returned to service, since that "last ditch" safety device is there for the specific purpose of preventing a disaster and it just triggered. You cannot run that last-ditch safety through the original control system in any way because if it goes off you know, with certainty, the original system is defective -- it has either gone insane according to its operating rules or is broken.

Further, and perhaps most-critically, to not look VERY closely at ALL of the original design assumptions and their safety margins when you design for an 0.6 degree maximum automated trim correction, which is about 12% of the range from neutral and during testing you're forced to allow a 50% range from neutral to meet requirements, four times the designed and expected limit, you ****ed up when you designed that thing in a way that might not be able to be safely operated no matter what you do in the present "as-built" configuration.

You have no damned business letting that thing, whatever it is, anywhere near people it can maim or kill until and unless you can prove that being off by 400% on a critical safety item's range of authority does not reduce the margin of safety for the entire thing below reasonable limits.  In addition if you're off by that much then everything in said device needs to be re-examined down to the last piece of wire, rivet, bolt and torque spec; if you screwed the pooch that badly in one place why would I believe that's the only place your rocket scientists blew it?

To not do all of that is outrageous.

I'm not an aeronautical engineer but I understand process control, computers and shaving margins to meet "corporate needs", whether those needs be time or money.  If what The Seattle Times is reporting is accurate not only did that happen the FAA, the agency that's supposed to stop that crap from happening and spank people if they try it instead stuck its head up Boeing's ass and issued a type certificate, all in the name of "promoting" American aviation.

Don't talk to me about terrorists and shootings when there are two planes full of people who are dead as a consequence of this bull****.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)
 

2017-07-20 15:38 by Karl Denninger
in Company Specific , 268 references
[Comments enabled]  

How do you stop Zuckerpig's privacy invasions?

Boycott anyone who advertises on those sites -- do not buy and do not do business with in any other way.  How do you know they're advertising?  You see "Sponsored" or any sort of video ad from a given entity.

This post is exempt and will never go away.  I will add to it as I see new companies, and if you do and can confirm it to me I'll add them.  Here's my pledge: If I see an ad from your firm on any of Zuckerpig's properties or sufficient confirmation (e.g. seeing such an ad on someone else's device in the app) I will never buy anything from you.

You choose -- you advertise and pay that company to do so, you lose my business.  To get it back you must permanently pledge to never again advertise on any Facebook-owned property, in public, via a formal press release or other similarly-verifiable and public method.

Oh and you get one second chance, never more.

Advertising is legal.  So is refusing to do business with you because you are the primary and in fact nearly the sole source of funds for a company that does things I consider detestable.

So here is the start of it folks, and yes, it will grow.... check back often!

  • Best Buy (Oh well; I've bought plenty there)
  • REI (this one hurts; I like them.... but no more!)
  • Big Green Egg (Sorry *******s, I was interested but NOT NOW!)
  • Southwest Airlines (all airlines SUCK, but now these ****ers are on my blackball list)
  • Consumer Reports
  • Inked Magazine
  • Runner's World (oh well!)
  • 30A clothing company (oops -- that one's local)
  • The Heritage Foundation (oops again!)
  • Huffington Post (no loss there)
  • A&E TV
  • We Are The Mighty (Military-oriented news org)
  • Orbitz
  • LinkedIN (be a paying customer and you're blackballed - as employer or employee!)
  • iHeartDogs.Com
  • Pensacola Runners Association (ouch; they sponsor races I'd run in...)
  • National Geographic (oh well)
  • CNet (Bleh)
  • 22 Words (Clickbait garbage, but heh)
  • Theclymb.com
  • Active.com (oops again; and I have bought quite a lot from gearup...)
  • 12 Tomatoes
  • The Penny Hoarder (yeah, another clickbait garbage site, but..)
  • SoWal (oops -- bye-bye Walton County beach businesses..)
  • Innermost House (San Fran Non-profit... good for some west coasters)
  • NTD Television
  • The New York Times (shock - NOT!)
  • Conservative Tribune (news)
  • Netgear (Router/ipCam/etc manufacturer)
View this entry with comments (opens new window)