rhino42

I almost always log into trusted servers, but it's good to be preemptive ;-)

IIRC, you get less information in this case, since there was a 1/3 chance that the host would accidentally pick the "car" door, but you still have a 1/2 chance of winning by switching.

The general idea is that at some point in the future, we might be able to protect these difficult routes. So we preserve it for that. This argument is more legitimate in some cases than others. For instance, maybe someday we'll have some non-destructive way to protect thin cracks and flakes. But it is very unlikely that we can say the same about a barren face.

Someone found the problem as a behavioral anomaly or weird status bits. It gets reviewed and escalated a few times until the important people know. For class-A missions (I think lower classes too), we have performed fault analysis on each component (and the system as a whole), so that we can match an observed behavior to the actual underlying issue through something like a flowchart. I don't know for sure, but it was probably a bit harder for a bit-flip, but I wouldn't be surprised if they had provisions for that too. However, these high-profile projects are extremely risk-adverse, so they'll review any non-standard commands heavily before transmitting them. teams (plural) probably reviewed this failure before confirming the initial conclusion.

The week was accounting for this through analysis and review process.

(my opinion is my own, and doesn't represent NASA or JPL)

You wouldn't need to know where you parked: a quick text message retrieves your car.

I will get to the airport after all. The only difference, I can have one or two to relax at home with wife, before the flight. The end result for the self-driving car is identical to the cab case, you can still have your drinks because you will not be driving the car. However, removing the cabbie from the equation will cut costs dramatically.