Google Maps has removed the collapsed I-5 bridge in WA
maps.google.com
maps.google.com
Edit: http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/Interstate-5-bridge-c...
Here's the Reddit thread a FB friend linked: http://www.reddit.com/r/Seattle/comments/1ey32g/i5_bridge_in...
[0] http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/Interstate-5-bridge-c...
The technological aspect of google maps being able to so quickly update it is in fact, new for HN.
Another thing that I agree would be interesting is a detailed technical explanation of why the bridge collapse, that I'd assume would be HN material as well.
I tried to mark it as closed, but did not find any option for that in potlatch. Can someone else with more experience with OSM help out?
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changesets?bbox=-122.345...
But at the default zoom level, I do see it: http://puu.sh/30828.png
The vector generated tile at the higher zoom has been redrawn while the tile below has not been redrawn yet, I would assume the redraw rate would be less frequent the more you zoom in do to decreased demand for the tiles.
The second interesting thing is that even though the raster tiles have had the bridge removed from the draw instruction the vector data for the click map on the map is still intact. That is interesting because that means that the vector data used to render tiles is operating at a different version than the vector data that is draw on the map. Which could lead to all kinds of weird scenarios.
Guessing, that gmaps switches to drawing vector data at a certain zoom instead of rendering the road line vector data to the TMS tile.
This simply means that the version of the vector data used to draw at the increased zoom is the older version but is actually being used to draw the roads on the browser instead of rendered into the tile before transfer.
I actually had a similar thought yesterday when thinking about how the cars would handle object-avoidance. Say a deer hops out in front of the car. The car is constantly aware of its environment for 100+ feet in all directions, so it could tell if there are no cars in a neighboring lane and swerve to miss the deer. But what if there _are_ cars in neighboring lanes and the only available direction is to go onto the shoulder or into the ditch? If the ditch is fairly level with the road, then this could be the safest option. But if the ditch is steep, then it would be more dangerous than simply hitting the brakes and hoping you don't hit the deer too hard.
For the deer, I would expect the programmed response to be to brake as much as possible given traffic. Hitting a deer is unlikely to result in anything but damage to the vehicle. Swerving is less predictable than that.
Btw, there are plenty of nerdy ppl to correct the web. Ref: http://xkcd.com/386/
So why didn't it remove calibration scores, and convert the Perf Room to something fun like an arcade (well, it already is a casino, so maybe something else) many years ago?
(For the record, I feel bad saying this... but I'm also just returning snark with snark, so... oh well.)
However, I've articulated deep managerial problems with Google that the company refuses to solve, and many of those can be fixed easily and for free.
So there's no comparison between what I say and what you said.
Every quarter, managers get together to horse-trade "performance points" (or "calibration scores") and generate a company-wide stack ranking of all engineers. If you end up in the bottom 5% (which sometimes happens to people just because their managers don't show up) then you end up on a PIP and your career at Google is over. That monstrosity is called Perf.
The "Perf Room" is a metaphor on most campuses because most of the smaller ones don't actually have a dedicated room "where it happens" for calibration.
"Take you into the Perf Room" is a common managerial threat, but actually everyone is calibrated and the meeting happens in secret (most engineers never learn their scores) so people don't actually literally get taken "into the Perf Room". It's just an expression for a bad review.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5508058
I also know you think there are easy and free solutions to the problems that every company on the planet struggles with every day (measuring and rewarding performance).
I think you're arrogant, disrespectful, and that you over-simplify problems to an absurd degree.
I can conclude that if I worked at Google, I don't think I'd appreciate working on your team.
And you're right, my post didn't have very much to do with yours. Did yours have a lot to do with Google Maps responding quickly to an emerging tragedy? No, it did not.
You shaved off the enclosing context: $100M payouts to nontechnical executives when regular engineers can't even transfer without permission of the perf-industrial complex. I'm sorry, but I just can't defend a company that behaves that way. Seriously, you think it's okay that engineers have to deal with phony scarcity ("calibration score" and "headcount" nonsense) when non-technical executives make several hundred times more?
I think you're arrogant, disrespectful, and that you over-simplify problems to an absurd degree.
It's more that I don't have patience for junk complexity that exists only to keep power for those who don't deserve it.
Did yours have a lot to do with Google Maps responding quickly to an emerging tragedy?
Yes, actually. It's good that they updated their map quickly. If they paid the same respect to internal problems, they'd be a much better company.
It's good that they got you to leave. If they got everyone like you to leave, it would be a much better company. See, my post has exactly as much relevancy as yours does.
If what you say is true, I would think HN would vote it to the top of the front page, and that could lead to reporters calling you and giving you the opportunity to make your case in front of a much wider audience.