A former air accident investigator who works as an aviation safety consultant said "It's extraordinary that Boeing concluded that a failure of this part would not have safety consequences," and said the report was "disturbing"
Doesn't seem like gray to me. It seems a company who has a history of cutting corners and ignoring or downplaying safety problems did exactly that in this case too which resulted in the deaths of many people. UPS made an error here as well in trusting Boeing when they said it wasn't a safety issue and they should have installed the revised bearing assembly out of an abundance of caution, but I don't know much they would have known back in 2011 about the changes at Boeing that prioritized profit over safety following the merger with McDonnell Douglas
I think every company operating Boeing aircraft should have reviewed their stance on Boeing directives in light of MCAS and the aftermath by now. If they did not that is a failure of sorts as well.
> I think every company operating Boeing aircraft should have reviewed their stance on Boeing directives in light of MCAS and the aftermath by now. If they did not that is a failure of sorts as well.
Actual question: would an airline have the engineering competence to second-guess an airplane manufacturer's engineering guidance? They operate airplanes but don't build them, and I'd assume they'd out of necessity need to trust the manufacturer's judgement.
They certainly have a responsibility towards their passengers that goes beyond their relationship with Boeing. Passengers trust airlines with their lives, with Boeing they have 'just' a business relationship.
Airlines have every reason to be skeptical of their supplier even if they do not have the engineering competence to second guess them. They could for instance look through their past communications with the manufacturer and see for themselves which advisories they agree with because for instance they are obviously not safety critical, this would then allow them hire specialists to evaluate the remainder for a second opinion.
Agreed. Among multiple organizations that large and complex, the buck can be passed infinitely. There's the lowly worker who installed the flawed part - the safest target, of course - who can pass it to the worker who made it, who can pass it to engineer, to their manager, back to the engineer who the manager relied on after all, the CAD software developer, to the materials supplier, to the machine tool manufacturer, the HVAC contractor who made the manufacturing facility too humid ...
For almost any act, we rely on other people. That doesn't absolve us of our personal responsibility.
That was in a general case, but in this specific case to satisfy you we can postulate that those on the ground would like to be able to get through their day without having their trajectories intersect with disintegrating aircraft or parts thereof.
If my elevator manufacturer sent me a note about my elevator wire, but says I have to not do anything, because it is probably nothing my number 1 question would be:
Why did you need to tell me about the wire then?
The answer is an attempt to transfer the liability to me. The liability for a thing they think could happen, but didn't tell me about.
perhaps it would behoove a company that routinely has the safety of millions of people a year in their hands to consult 3rd party experts to ensure that those people aren't maimed or killed.
But I'm just some guy with no incentive to endanger human life if I think it will save money so what do I know
I would say no. UPS bought the planes from Boeing. Boeing built them, Boeing identified the flaw, Boeing notified it's customers, and said it wasn't an issue.
I think in light of MCAS every company operating Boeing aircraft should have reviewed their stance on operating Boeing aircraft.
And the worst thing is I don't think even after mcas things have substantially improved there. I've seen more spin and damage control than actual safety focus. They could have launched a huge company program and management reorganization to really turn this mindset around.
I think the biggest issue that Boeing is too big to fail. They'll never fall because the government needs them for all their warplanes.
Laws that limit liability promote “cost of doing business“ mentality as if lives are acceptable losses.
This is how you get mentally and morally weak bean counters running companies instead of engineers with a conscience. It’s an engineering company and yet it’s run like a bank that just so happens to have an engineering branch.
This is exactly why laws need to exist to ensure that human lives are prioritized by companies to a reasonable extent. Companies can often make a lot of money if they can get away with doing things that kill their customers, and we've repeatedly seen them do exactly that. In order to protect the public, corporate greed needs to be constrained by laws and legal consequences just like they're used to help to constrain the greed of muggers and thieves.
In the US we've done a pretty poor job of doing that and it's resulted in countless lives lost and every living person and animal on earth being poisoned. It's long past time our government and its legal system took their responsibility to public safety more seriously.
How? I'm not particularly attached to it, but it seems to continue to be a commonly used expression and this is the first time I've seen someone raise an objection to its use.
Because the phrase and mindset leads to the wrong lessons and actions.
In aviation, there is little room for error. It’s also the case that resources and time are limited. So there are multiple constraints.
We both agree that Boeing is the big problem. I’d also say its a problem of the FAA and the aviation industry.
But UPS? Why would they be taking action “out of an abundance of caution”?
The worst you can say for UPS is they could have sought a second opinion out of “an abundance of caution”, and recommendations of next actions and how.
Keep in mind UPS core competency isn’t aerospace and aeronautical engineering.
Would they even be able to assess the risk of changing said bearings en masse?
The actual lesson here is that most of the advisories and self-certifying from Boeing over the past 30 years need to be reconsidered; most likely redone, by independent third parties and also an FAA with a mandate to be fully independent.
Because my naive conclusion after looking at the part in question is exactly the same "would not result in a safety of flight condition." if the bearing cracked at the point in question it is going nowhere, the bearing is still captive in its housing. hell it looks like it could have been designed as two pieces and it would work the same. the large bolt is what is holding the engine on.
The best I can come up with is that a split bearing causes increased wear on the mounting bracket and nobody noticed for a long time.
That's indeed a very naive conclusion. Once that bearing is gone the stress that it would normally allow to escape on account of rotation would be directly transferred to the metal around it and to the bolts holding the whole thing in place. Guess what broke first?
So if that bearing went that's not quite a smoking gun yet but it would definitely be a step closer to a root cause.
After watching the below video, it's the excess bearing play and thus no-longer-constrained force directions that would seem to be the issue.
With a proper tolerance bearing in place, the force is constrained so that other parts are only stressed in directions they're well suited to handle (because the bearing takes the load).
Once the bearing develops excess tolerance, you've got a bucking engine that (to your point) is directly loading other parts in unexpected ways/directions, eventually causing failure.
The fact that Boeing supposedly modeled this and came up with non-safety critical in the event of bearing breakage... curious how that will turn out.
> The fact that Boeing supposedly modeled this and came up with non-safety critical in the event of bearing breakage... curious how that will turn out.
They'd have to show at least one plane with a bearing gone that still flies as intended. I suggest we break one on purpose, put the full complement of Boeing execs on that plane to prove its safety given the alternative of retracting that statement.
> They'd have to show at least one plane with a bearing gone that still flies as intended.
That depends on the meaning of “safety of flight”. I don’t know what it means in aviation, but do not rule out that there is significant room between “flies as intended” and “result in a safety of flight condition”.
For example, if an engine were to complete drop off the plane, would that necessarily result in a safety of flight condition, or does “the plane will be able to continue take off and land again” mean safety of flight isn’t affected?
My company has a policy limiting the number of high level execs traveling on a plane at a time. I wonder if plane manufacturers have similar restrictions. It’d be an ironic to for them to simultaneously assert that their planes are safe for the general public, and also believe the risk is too high for a planeload of their execs to fly in one.
To see extreme examples of this, look at any wallowed-out/wallered-out through-bore in construction equipment (e.g. excavator buckets), particularly when a pin hasn't been greased, or is seized.
This same scenario combined with the amount of vibration and stresses caused by the engine, should scream "this is a catastrophe waiting to happen" for any engineer.
> Once that bearing is gone the stress that it would normally allow to escape on account of rotation would be directly transferred to the metal around it
The bearing would have to sieze up and the bearing axle be locked to the race. There is some limit to rotational torque even with a siezed bearings.
Metaphor: arthritic joints are not smooth, but they will rotate if given enough torque.
From the images, it looks like the bearing had siezed. So presumably rotational vibration was transmitted to airframe and the vibration caused structural failure?
I'm assuming it is not an issue of extreme rotational torque causing the issue (and given it is a bearing the design is for very little torque there!)
The forces on that mount are pretty extreme. Once the bearing seized it was really a matter of time before something gave and given the strength of the casing as well as the strength of the material and mount points it was a toss-up between the bolts and the casing. The previous evidence showed a clear order to the bolts breaking suggesting one bolt was heavier loaded than the remaining ones. The new evidence points to a much more extreme failure.
As for your 'limit to rotational torque': seized bearings do not 'rotate if given enough torque' they will break right out of their casings and whatever those casings are surrounded by. The reason is that unlike your cartilage the bearings are orders of magnitude harder than the materials around them. For a bearing to seize indicates that the material has already deformed, you either catch it before the race goes or it will crack and after that all bets are quite literally off. I'm not aware of any design that would spec a bearing in a situation with such forces that would still happily work with that bearing replaced by a bushing welded to the shaft and the surrounding material even if it is statically in exactly the same position.
What you describe is a worn bearing with an excess of play, not a seized one, which tends to exhibit roughly the same characteristics as a welded joint with dissimilar materials.
Bearings are wear items, bearings that are worn or seized are something that should never ever happen in an aircraft, there is no way that this particular design would continue to function with sufficient margin if that bearing would fail. If not caught before it breaks the next flight is going to be a disaster. Take off in a fully loaded aircraft of this size puts extreme stress on the engine mounts. They are designed with all of their parts in working order, this is not a case of 'oh, we'll fix that the next time this craft is in for maintenance'. All parts of a plane that is certified as airworthy are supposed to be operating as originally specified.
The default assumption is that it all looked good during the last inspection and that the time between the failure occurring and the plane going down was short. If it was not that would be highly unexpected. But again, until the final report is in that's speculative, and if anything the people at the NTSB are scary good at getting to root causes.
> What you describe is a worn bearing with an excess of play, not a seized one
Yeah. Worn or seized bearings are relevant to rotation, but on second thoughts, rotation isn't the issue here.
Rereading the PDF, I can see that I entirely misunderstood the function of the bearing and how it failed, and I suspect I've mislead you. The two lugs mislead me! I would guess they make the lug as two parts for redundancy (if the lug was a single part then it's failure would be bad). My previous comment was wildly incorrect about rotation, but now I think rotation is not the issue.
The casing split in half all the way around the circumference at the weakest point (where the recess is), splitting into two pieces, a forward half and a rearward half. The half forward of the split moves forward and the half rearward of the split moves rearward. That is what they inspect for every sixty months to see if the bearing casing has broken.
An unbroken casing is normally prevented from moving forward or backwards by the ball (how the hell do they make the bearing like that?!).
It appears that the unbroken casing itself is designed for the outside to be able to slide forwards and backwards within the lugs (very little movement?).
The primary force this bearing is preventing is pitching of the engine relative to the wing (vertical force). And secondarily to prevent yawing of the engine relative to the wing (horizontal force). Rotation (roll of the engine relative to the wing) has to be prevented by the main mount and the engine surely can't twist much therefore I suspect rotational forces at that bearing are rather irrelevant.
As the engine thrusts and stops thrusting, the thrust changes create pitching forces on the engine, and there would be vertical movement at the broken bearing - a clunk!?
The main mount would flex a little more due to the extra pitch movement; and I guess we'll have to wait and see whether the bearing failure is relevant to the crash. It appears to be a smoking gun, but could be a red herring?
The main mount is obviously not supposed to fail even if that bearing has broken.
I owned a machine shop, and I'm the founder of a mid sized CNC gear factory. I think I know my way around bearings, lubrication, press fits and other such bits & pieces.
As for the rest of your comment:
What a load of tripe.
I'm doing the exact opposite of what you claim. I am just taking the bits of evidence already available and rejecting root causes that would require those bits of evidence to not exist, which is entirely valid, this still leaves a massive amount of uncertainty which I have underlined on more than one occasion.
Your suggestion:
> "A bearing that fails for whatever reason, welds it self, and then gets spun around in the bore by its shaft is nowhere near unheard of"
is not compatible with what reputable operators of airliners would expect from their gear and if it happens as a rule people die and the NTSB gets involved, see TFA. This is not just any bearing and this is not your average bench top, industrial or vehicular application, this is an aircraft and a major load bearing component in that aircraft.
> Unless you personally designed the mount of have insider knowledge of comparable ones you are speaking with degrees of certainty that are indicative of ignorance so massive it is functionally malice.
I think that's worth a flag, especially coming from an anonymous potato.
> The BS about how aircraft don't fly with worn bearings is just that, bullshit. Everything has service limits that allow degrees of wear. Now on some parts it might be zero or specific preload, but all that stuff is well defined.
Yes, there is 'acceptable wear over the lifespan of a part' and then there is 'worn out'. Bearings in aircraft are replaced well before they are 'worn out'. Don't conflate design life wear with excessive wear to the point that a part can no longer function.
>I owned a machine shop, and I'm the founder of a mid sized CNC gear factory. I think I know my way around bearings, lubrication, press fits and other such bits & pieces.
Then you have no excuse for having such a nuance free opinion for you must know things are often not obvious at "first glance of pictures someone else took" which is what we're all doing here.
>I'm doing the exact opposite of what you claim. I am just taking the bits of evidence already available and rejecting root causes that would require those bits of evidence to not exist, which is entirely valid, this still leaves a massive amount of uncertainty which I have underlined on more than one occasion.
I disagree. You are acting like this is a cut and dry situation wherein the Boeing advice that this was not safety critical is just wrong on it's face. That assessment was made 15yr ago (perhaps by "old good boeing" engineers) and on a part already under a lot of scrutiny from the other MD11 that lost an engine. Sure they could be wrong, but I wouldn't bet on it so confidently.
This bearing moves a few degrees. It's not like the engine is doing loops around the pylon. It's possible that for whatever reason the bearing stopped doing bearing things as well as it should. Now, this is a plane, everything is light, aluminum and made to flex to varying degrees. It's hard to say where exactly the movement was taking place in lieu of the bearing. Without specific knowledge it's hard to say how the failure happened. Maybe things got loose and failed from stress concentration. Maybe the movement happened in the wing assembly and the force+vibration of making that happen caused the engine mount to fail. You don't know. I don't know. Nobody in these comments know with a sufficiently low chance of being wrong to point the finger in any one direction.
To act like "well of course when the bearing wore/failed/whatever it ripped its mount right in two because now the force was concentrated and the part it was concentrated on was sus to begin with" is to confidently oversimplify the situation.
Engine pylons, landing gear, control surfaces, these are key systems, not the "built to within an inch of their life because they gotta be light" like a lot of other things on an airliner (though I admit the MD11 is a particularly questionable application of this heuristic)
Big planes generally don't fall out of the sky because one party misleadingly labeled something in the service literature. I would be very surprised if there weren't also maintenance failing of some sort here.
> I disagree. You are acting like this is a cut and dry situation wherein the Boeing advice that this was not safety critical is just wrong on it's face. That assessment was made 15yr ago (perhaps by "old good boeing" engineers) and on a part already under a lot of scrutiny from the other MD11 that lost an engine. Sure they could be wrong, but I wouldn't bet on it so confidently.
Well, those good old Boeing engineers and their management have misled the world more than once and no longer deserve the benefit of the doubt. That advisory is black-and-white, there is no arguing with what it says or does not say, you can read it for yourself. If your conclusion is the same as Boeing's then that's fine, you can have a different opinion. My conclusion is that if a load bearing component has these kind of potential issues that you need to act with an abundance of caution because of the price in case you get it wrong.
Yes, that bearing only moves a few degrees. But this is not about how much it moves, this is about what happens when it can not move and given the forces involved the outcome of that is fairly predictable, in spite of your previous statements. There is absolutely no way in which if that bearing is seized or otherwise constrained that this is safe.
> I would be very surprised if there weren't also maintenance failing of some sort here.
I explicitly left the door open for that. But regardless, this bearing should have never failed.
There are a couple of HN members whose pension depends on Boeing stock so I can see how this might ruffle some feathers but this is not a company that has behaved in a morally responsible way when it came to issues such as these om the past and you are effectively already blaming the maintenance people with your 'I would be very surprised if there weren't also maintenance failing of some sort here.'.
That is jumping to conclusions.
I would not be surprised if it were the case, but I also would not be surprised if it wasn't the case. That's the degree to which Boeing has squandered its erstwhile stellar reputation.
But, since you feel comfortable attacking my reputation from behind your shield of anonymity I suggest you flesh out your profile and Bio and tell us a bit about yourself and why you feel so emotionally involved in this.
I apologize... My original comment was poorly thought out and naive, which misled potato and you.
You and potato followed that wrong path and unfortunately didn't correct me or yourselves. I tried to correct myself later (see my sibling comment), but I wouldn't be surprised if I've made another huge cockup with the facts.
> Yes, that bearing only moves a few degrees
It certainly does not move a few degrees (except maybe after a crash).
Thinking back to my one undergrad mechanics paper, I think the design purpose was to make torsions equal zero, so that the mechanical analysis would be tractable.
The torsions should still be extremely low because nothing can rotate (except maybe a tiny amount due to deformations).
If we can't get the engineering facts straight, then our opinions on engineering management are likely to be even more pointless and flawed.
You seem to have gone off the rails as much as potato.
The report seems to be implying that the broken bearing is the cause of the accident. The bearing was still in place after the accident so presumably the bolt didn't shear. If the engine has full acceleration then the engine is pitching upwards against the wing and the force on that bearing is upwards?
I think the report implied the fire occurred at the same time as the structural failure.
What might be the chain of events from a broken bearing to a fire?
Which may have been a very reasonable conclusion based on what they knew of the issue. The letter sent out reported a split of the bearing race. A split bearing race won't prevent it from supporting the load. It's easily possible that Boeing's simulation of an aircraft operating with a split bearing race was fine.
The NTSB investigation found that for this crash, not only did the bearing race crack, but also that the bearing lugs, which hold the bearing in place, were fractured. I don't have access to the original text of the letter Boeing sent out, but based on the NTSB report, it sounds like only the issue with the bearing race was previously identified. The two may very well be related, but that doesn't mean that the lug fractures are an expected result of the race failure - perhaps some contributing factor made the lugs more susceptible than predicted. It also remains possible that the bearing damage is a red herring; the aircraft was nearing the end of its service life and had known structural issues in other parts of the pylon. The fact is that for more than a decade after the bearing race issue was reported, it didn't result in a safety of flight condition.
The insinuation that Boeing was deliberately trying to hide or downplay a known issue is simply unwarranted. It would be irresponsible for the NSTB not to mention a known issue that could have potentially been relevant, it's not evidence the issue was improperly handled.
Don't be duped by China's clean energy talk. Their energy infra is mainly coal and they continue to build (dirty) coal plants.
They sell you solar infra so that you can feel good about protecting the world while they continue to build coal plants. For reference, in 2023 they built 95% of the world's new coal plants...
They also connected more solar to their grid than the rest of the world combined. China is massively increasing their power generation capacity and yes most of it is still coal. They are also building 20+ nuclear reactors. The scale of what China is doing is mind boggling.
You're right, but it's not quite so black and white. They are certainly continuing to build out coal capacity, but they are building solar/hydro/nuclear/wind generation at a greater rate, such that the proportion of generation from coal has been falling, from over 70% ten years ago, to about 55% currently.
It's strange that people in SV pretend like if they refuse to build software then nobody else will. Palantir exists (and has been so successful) because the government was trying to build this software (either themselves or through defense contractors) and ended up spending WAY too much money and only delivering a product that put US soldiers at risk.
We should be clear about these cases that are brought against him (I'm not saying he isn't guilty, but context is important here):
Case 1 - as Minister of Communications he, allegedly, tried to get a tax extension for a company whose owners had given him expensive cigars and jewelry to his wife (worth $3100). The extension was not granted. He also tried to get a US visa for one of the owners.
Case 2 - One of the newspapers in Israel said that if he gave them advantages over a competing newpaper they would paint Bibi and his family in a positive light in their coverage
*Case 3 - seemingly similar to Case 2, a large news website offered to portray Bibi in a better light if he would push through regulatory changes as Minisiter of Communications.
> Case 3 - seemingly similar to Case 2, a large news website offered to portray Bibi in a better light if he would push through regulatory changes as Minisiter of Communications.
Favorable coverage was the original charge (סיקור אוהד). However, since this website was exteremely hostile to Netanyahu, the charge was changed to being unusually responsive* to requests from Netanyahu's spokespeople (הענות חריגה).
They used a computer program to target hamas members based on signals and other intelligence inclusive of people who are not in any way combatants.
Bombs including and especially large not particularly sophisticated bombs were dropped on entire buildings preferentially at night to ensure the target would be likely to be home with their wife and family and you know any other families in the same building.
Previously such strikes with very large numbers of collateral damage were authorized to kill top members of Hamas. Now they were authorized to hopefully an 18 year old cook irrespective of the 7 children that would burn to death painfully in the fire.
They recovered around 150 hostages at the cost of 50,000 children being killed or injured.
Remember that Gaza isn't a democracy. Hamas is 50k people out of 2M of which the number of people that actually have decision making power would fit in a small room. Most people in Gaza aren't Hamas.
Israel is presently starving a large city full of people under the pretense of forcing them to leave knowing that can't do so. Starving people isn't morally different than herding them all into gas chambers.
If there is a place that needs immediate intervention it is using force to enforce peace in Gaza before all the remaining people in Gaza die.
They're starving 2 million people in broad daylight and basically everyone in the highest levels of the administration has said blatantly genocidal shit, but yeah it's all just bias.
Bringing up Al Jazeera as an unbiased source about Israel is weird.
Amnesty international emitted report that say "Israel is not commiting genocide according to existing definitions, thus definitions should be changed":
> As outlined below, Amnesty International considers this an overly cramped interpretation of international jurisprudence and one that would effectively preclude a finding of genocide in the context of an armed conflict.
Somehow people cite it as a proof of genocide.
BBC has produced a documentary with narrator being son of Hamas official, and were forced to apologize for that [1]. They sheleved another documentary with impartiality concerns. They have contributors calling to "burn Jews like Hitler" [2].
So yeah, there are unbiased critics of Israel, just none of those you listed
> Amnesty international emitted report that say "Israel is not commiting genocide according to existing definitions, thus definitions should be changed"
Source? Perhaps older report, before the country dropped any pretense of respecting international norms on human rights. Today Amnesty sees a clear case of genocide underway against indigenous palestinians in Gaza. See https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2024/12/amnesty-inter...
> 5.5.2 STATE INTENT
The jurisprudence on genocidal intent on the part of a state is more limited. The ICJ has accepted that, in the absence of direct proof, specific intent may be established indirectly by inference for purposes of state responsibility, and has adopted much of the reasoning of the international tribunals.380 However, its rulings on inferring intent can be read extremely narrowly, in a manner that would potentially preclude a state from having genocidal intent alongside one or more additional motives or goals in relation to the conduct of its military operations. As outlined below, Amnesty International considers this an overly cramped interpretation of international jurisprudence and one that would effectively preclude a finding of genocide in the context of an armed conflict. The organization considers that the Genocide Convention must be interpreted in a manner that ensures that genocide remains prohibited in both peacetime and in war and that ICJ jurisprudence should not be read to effectively preclude a finding of genocide during war.
Regarding state intent, it appears this means that Amnesty is just remarking that a state can't launder genocide intent by parallel constructing additional motives or goals that are legitimate sounding.
So that does not support your conclusion that "Israel is not commiting genocide according to existing definitions, thus definitions should be changed". Alas, the text is misquoted, as it doesn't appear anywhere in the document. Those are not Amnesty words, neither the text actually in the report supports it.
> Alas, the text is misquoted, as it doesn't appear anywhere in the document.
I wrote the direct quote after the colon and ">" symbol. The part in quotes in my rephrasing. Of course AI wouldn't write such thing directly, they need to hide it deep into the report behind convoluted language.
This paragraph consists of
1. Explaination how genocide definition is interpreted by international courts, specifically ICJ.
2. Claim that existing interpretation preclude a finding of genocide in the context of an armed conflict (for example, war in Gaza). I'm not sure that it's true, because for example, Srebrenica massacre happened during armed conflict and was found an act of genocide, but let's take their claim on face value.
3. Conclusion that we need change the interpretation of definition of genocide to be able to find during war conflict (specifically, war in Gaza)
Part 2 is what I summarized as "Israel is not commiting genocide according to existing definitions", and part 3 is what I summarized as "thus definitions should be changed". Technically they want to change interpretation and not definition, so the better summary would be "Israel cannot be found guilty of genocide according to existing interpretation of genocide, so the interpretation should change". Or do you disagree with this one too?
Iran has killed, threatened, or killed-through-proxy many Americans in the last 50 years. They have created and sown instability throughout the region threatening Israel, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia just to name a few. Notice that none of their regional neighbors have come to their defense.
They have consistently and openly threatened US leaders.
What a bunch of assholes, you're right, there's no talking to them. I wonder why they're so angry at us?
"The last 50 years", you say? Oh, so right around the time when the US and Britain overthrew Iran's democratically elected Prime Minister to install a religious nutcase, because that nutcase would agree to sell them oil at a better price?
>"The last 50 years", you say? Oh, so right around the time when the US and Britain overthrew Iran's democratically elected Prime Minister to install a religious nutcase, because that nutcase would agree to sell them oil at a better price?
When people are mixing up basic facts like this you know the mainstream's knowledge of Iran is heavily propagandized. Really would help if people actually read a history textbook for once instead of believing everything they hear from someone else.
>>The disagreement with the board was supposedly related more to elements of the board trying to parts up and sell off bits of Intel.
If true this would be very interesting. The most recent rumors were TSMC was trying to grab a part of Intel and have Nvidia/Broadcom/AMD take over the rest. Bringing in a CEO that literally left the board because he was against carving up Intel would be quite the signal from the board.
There's a lot of gray going on here.
reply