I find it interesting in reading this thread, that (broadly) the non-pilot people want to blame and fix the electronics, and the pilots just say... bad piloting.
Having flown the A320, the B747, and B737 through my career, I have had the joy of comparing Airbus automation and fly-by-wire, with the more conventional Boeing. Whilst the extra layers of automation are technically wonderful, and on paper seem a real bonus to safety, my observation is that the added complexities that were designed to make the aircraft safer, merely generated new failure modes that at times were exceedingly hard to diagnose. I loved my time on the Airbus, and love the Boeing. But do not be led down the primrose path of computers and automation and think that safety is necessarily going to be enhanced by an new shiny black box.
Humans fly aeroplanes, and good people, and good training are vital. People need to connect with the aeroplane, and automation often, if badly designed, removes people form the loop. But a conventional aeroplane, with speed decaying gives off numerous signals and clues. Long before a stall warning, or stick shaker. Two big levers in the middle, in the closed position. Pitch increasing. Noise decreasing. Lots of autopilot trimming. But it is the silence that is the huge clue. Who was minding the stall?
"You have control, your radios, I'll run the checklist".
Distraction management is a key issue here. Only the CVR and FDR will tell us how the flight was, or was not mismanaged.