This clears up a lot of how this happened. A system that does not have an upper limit on number of corrections is dangerous. A system that relies on one single sensor is dangerous. A system that has both flaws is lethal.
And had you not been in a position to have life explained to you, as your species did not have those kinds of descriptive ability, would you ha e ever felt the shame? The bear does not lament, as he was never told to.
As someone who applied, and is producing hardware, everything is stacked against me from the beginning it feels. I have a business that need pretty much exactly what tinyseed offers, but beyond that it would only need external funding to stay running in a scorched-earth situation. We could crank out a few million in profit a year without burning ourselves out in the process, but a few million a year is "chump change" these days. As it stands, I am running the risk of personally running out of money before the product is at risk, as our operating costs are essentially zero, but the operating costs of my kids are not. The combination of these things somehow makes a matured, tested, and in-use life safety platform not as exciting to investors as it would seem to people outside the startup world. I mean hey, I'm trying to keep people from losing their lives, if I were making the next business-class notepad replacement I'd have 2 million dollars and a 300k monthly cloud burn-rate.
I would be more surprised if there were no attacks. It's like the bank letting everyone know the security guards aren't coming in on money transfer day.
Wow, that is not something that would be expected. If this winds up being a usable discovery, we could very nearly undo our long list of mistakes if we can capture carbon and end industrial spills along with it.