LOL! Ahem. You'll discover that they get someone competent in for the phone interview and you'll later discover that the story is now that the person you spoke to was representative - in terms of skills, experience and competence - of the sort of person who'll actually doing the work, and is not the one doing it. Later still you'll discover that this is not the case.
Still, they're very cheap, aren't they?
In all my years consulting for the companies I have never been "client interviewed"
As you say, you're commenting without having any experience with the issue, but, as you can imagine, there's very little overlap between cheap and good.
In any case, even if we accept your premise, my point was that assigning blame to the person you hired rather than your process of hiring that let a large team of unqualified people work on your critical software is odd. (Not saying you personally are blaming them, but that was my general point)
>but, as you can imagine, there's very little overlap between cheap and good.
Why? Even outside of software, for e.g. my wife is a post doctoral scientist and she gets paid a pittance for working 9 sometimes 10 hour days doing critical research. Somebodys wage being associated with the quality of their output only happens in a small cross-section of industries. I work in pharma and while I'm happy with my compensation, its a fraction of SV startup salaries. I know.. this might come across as super salty, but I don't think their wage is in anyway co-related with the quality of their output.
The software got the reading that the nose was too pitched up and to prevent stall it pitched the nose down.
The software could handle reading from multiple sensor which Boeing sold separately.
It's an American management decision to make more money, not a $9 an hour software engineer's job to decide how to fly the plane.
Coming up after the break: How EA loot boxes are programmed by $10 an hour cheap software engineers from India. Grab your pitchforks on aisle #3