YHK - yet another hacker news clone

It is possible that this overwhelming was caused by a software or configuration error, no doubt.

I think that if that's the case, rather than failing upwards and going for a full simultaneous upgrade with a 50B congress bill, the brakes should be stepped on a little bit, continue the partial migration as long as there are no issues. Or at least wait until the start of a 4year administration to go for a rehaul, so that you can stay around if things go fubar.

Transportation secretary Duffy says that the smart system is unrelated. That the smart system is a dashboard for displaying all the data from across the air traffic system. My questions is obviously where is the smart system getting its data from...

I suspect FAA pushed for the new AI system, didnt take into account the increased traffic demand to feed the system. Aging infra isnt sufficient to handle the increased demand. Now Duffy is trying to deflect blame unto someone else.

Should be an easy answer. We saw increased traffic from X and we've implemented Y to ensure it doesn't happen again.

Instead it was vague hand waving around old hardware and funding.

Even if they don't have all the details organized, what was done to fix the problem? How was the 12b spent thus far and what where does the additional 50b number come from?

Or maybe don't start with demanding money. What happened? How was it fixed? What is being done to ensure it doesn't happen again? Then mention this shit needs fixed and we'll be working with Congress for additional funding.

It was interesting that Mullen mention new technology contributing at one point. Sounds like someone made a mistake somewhere and this press conference was purposefully vague or they really don't understand what happened yet (doubtful).

Plenty of critical systems operate reliably on old tech as long as you work within the limitations.

This press conference had maybe 30s of actual info and the rest was this antiquated system is fucked even though it's been working for years and the only way to move forward is $50b. :shrug:

It's possible this is the standard "privatize a government function and skim the profits" move but some of this stinks of union busting and trying to reduce the amount of influence air traffic controllers have whenever the organized criminals that run our government want to have a shutdown but keep their private jets flying.

Suffice it to say - there's no reason to trust any of these people when it comes to taking care of critical government functions.

(https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50492957)

But my completely unfounded and more conspiratorial theory, based on zero knowledge of air traffic control systems, is that to better accommodate SMART, L3Harris was strong-armed into to rolling out a hastily written patch on a Friday, which accidentally took down the system.

The secretary also mentioned that the new system should be brought altogether, and not piece by piece. Which would lend credence to an incompatibility between both systems.

What am I missing?

I don't doubt that the system needs upgrades, but these people should not be involved.

https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2026-09/M...

The Senate will be in session for four more days next week before the Thanksgiving holiday, and then back for the first three weeks of December before the 119th Congress adjourns for good on Dec 18th. So basically, after two full years with control of both branches of Congress and the WH, this bill was introduced on the very last week of the regular Congress calendar. After which the lame duck Congress would only meet for about four weeks until adjournment.

Not really stalled, more like procrastinated until days before the election (when everyone is scared to vote on anything), hoping that the lame duck Congress (notoriously unproductive period generally) would force it through in a rush?

Doesn't seem like a great strategy if they actually wanted it to pass (especially since a budget CR is needed before Dec 11 which will dominate members' attention in the remaining time).

   Sure, but the purpose of the tech policy office is to
   argue why old systems (which have fixed maintenance costs)
   should be replaced with new systems which goose the
   economy when the federal government pays 10x for what they
   should be paying.

If and when things break you'll end up with an even bigger disaster if you don't have people prepared to maintain the old systems. A well managed decommissioning and upgrade is much more preferable.