There was a similar problem with a specific generation of 688-class submarines, where a calculated temperature would slowly drift. The metric wasn’t used for any protective actions, so it wasn’t a “shut down immediately and return home surfaced on the diesel” situation, but still disconcerting.

I assume that after this the software was soak-tested for weeks / months to eliminate that class of bug. Naval Reactors is many things, but repeating the same mistake twice isn’t one of them.

It sounds like my random Raspberry Pi sitting somewhere in my server room that has to be restarted every <x> weeks.

This was news in 2020. Has it been fixed?

There are just too many worrying signs from Boeing in the last years.

I have no idea about these things at all but some of the issues seem almost unforgivable to me.

They should work very hard for the industry, and the ultimate end users to regain confidence in them again. I'm not sure they are doing this.

If problems persist after rebooting, you may need to use a giant paperclip to perform a reset.

"Reboot tut immer gut!" (Reboot is always good!)

I'm honestly impressed that the Register included a prominent blurb explaining to the reader that while this sounds like a catastrophic issue, the most likely outcome if this is experienced in flight is a safe and controlled landing.

> Sidenote > > Pitch and power is a simple concept. If you have the throttles, say, three-quarters open and the nose of the aeroplane is pointing a few degrees above the horizon, chances are you're probably flying straight and level at a safe speed. Training manuals normally contain a number of precise pitch and power settings (they vary between aeroplane types) so if display systems start failing, pilots can fall back to these with confidence.

And 4.5 years later, what's new?

> This alarming-sounding situation

That's not what's alarming to me. What's alarming is that the plane could possibly be in a position to be continuously powered on for 51 days in the first place.