Hacker News Reader

Comment by gopalv | Hacker News Reader

> it's okay to violate regulations because your engineers want to see their work in their city?

Other than the pointless flaunting of privilege in this ... I think keeping engineers very close to the project is usually a sign that not all is well with the project.

I read that as "We can't let this project out of sight of the engineers ... they need to be able to make changes on a day to day basis, from direct observation."

That these engineers would be moving in breakneck speed (ha!), to fix whatever they see in person rather than the usual separation of concerns in testing mission critical software.

Through those glasses, it is roughly an admission that it is in "patch everyday" phase of development.

View on HN

While in general I agree that Uber is being reckless and arrogant, I otherwise really don't get your comment at all. Are you suggesting that quick iterations facilitated by proximity to that which you are testing and direct observation, especially at an early stage of development, is a bad thing??

If so, I've worked on several hardware projects (IC design) and IoT projects as a software developer and I couldn't disagree more strongly. That the engineers are close to the product so they can make quick iterations without massive amounts of waiting and telephone game confusion is a sign that they are doing a good job and don't have an idiot culture of engineering bureaucracy. IMO.

Perhaps that engineering bureaucracy (not sure what you're referring to, to be honest) in the context of safety-critical systems is not "idiot culture".

> Are you suggesting that quick iterations facilitated by proximity to that which you are testing and direct observation, especially at an early stage of development, is a bad thing??

If it gets a bunch of people killed, yes.

idiot culture of engineering bureaucracy

And here we get to the heart of the difference between what is called "software engineering" and what is, in every other field, called "engineering".

There's a reason why Canadian engineers get the iron ring and legend says the first ones were made from the ruins of a bridge that collapsed (due to poor design). There's a reason why people describe aviation as a field where every regulation is written in blood.

Uber is moving into a field where no amount of "don't bring politics into this" can hide the fact that a "bug" in their product will potentially directly kill humans. Requiring people to A) actually be fucking careful and B) actually prove it is how this world works, and I don't think Uber's going to manage to skirt it with their usual regulatory arbitrage technique. The sooner they grow up and start acting like real engineers, the better.

Give me a break. Seriously.

I should have place my commas differently to emphasize that I have worked on many IC design projects as an EE then later on IoT projects as a software engineer.

No one replying to my comment has at all explained why during early iterations when the product is quickly evolving this separation is a good thing. Frankly it seems to me like (a) people are taking pot-shots are Uber and (b) none of you have actually worked on a hardware project.

There is a time when a strict separation between designers and testers is critical. That time is referred to as Qual, or qualification and it is for validation that a part or system operates correctly over all corners of the devices operating parameters. This is not the phase that Uber is in.

Again, I don't dispute at all that Uber are being arrogant and reckless jackasses. I'm just saying it has nothing to do with the fact that their engineers desire to work near to the systems they are designing since that is actually a sign of a smart and high functioning engineering team, not the opposite as people have suggested.

that is actually a sign of a smart and high functioning engineering team

Do you know what auto makers do in this kind of situation? They build a test track and a workshop at the test track and probably a larger facility adjacent to it, and situate the engineers there. They don't say "well, our engineers live in one of the densest urban areas in the country, let's just test our new car there to be close to them".

Uber should get a test track out in the desert or something and relocate some engineers to it. And maybe without the distractions of the SF office they'd manage to get some basic stuff tested, like "recognizes red lights" or "understands how to turn from the rightmost lane".

You still are arguing something I never even mentioned. All I was refuting was the assertion that their desire to be in the same location as that which they are testing is somehow a sign of their engineering disfunction. I have also said numerous times that they should not be doing this testing in dense urban areas in defiance of local laws.

Maybe they should relocate everyone! Total tangential point!

But that team is mostly in Pittsburgh?

The team is split between Pittsburgh and San Francisco, as Uber acquired SF based Otto.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com