464192002d7fe1c

Completely agree. I've been forced to rescue a number of projects that have gone completely off the rails. Nearly invariably in my experience its because someone decided that their American workers were too expensive so they decided to either hire in foreign workers, or offshore the work to a contractor.

In every situation where I've seen that situation happen, projects go completely off the rails. I don't think its because their foreign, but, I think people expect too much of these foreign workers (because they were getting that from local workers). They require far more supervision, both on a technical level (making sure the code they commit is sane) and on a managerial level (making sure they're actually committing code), and by far the worst offender, actually making meaningful progress towards the goal.

To explain what I mean by meaningful progress, I was brought in to figure out what was going on with a telephony app project that was off shored to Indian developers (think: twilio but definitely not twilio). The team of about 20 offshore developers had been plugging away for over a year working on the code at that point. Measured by things like code commits, they were amazingly productive. Thing was, there was no actual usable code. Firstly, the technology the team had been working with on both the frontend and the backend had changed multiple times, converting frameworks and methodologies repeatedly. Think: completely dumping a prototype-d Python framework application (with 100000s lines of template-generated MVC code) of and deciding to reimplement in Ruby-on-Rails, then after converting all their MVC concepts to 100000s of lines of MVC in RoR, they then converted to a symphony PHP framework (I wish I was kidding). When I arrived, the team was mulling switching to yet another framework (I want to say converting to nodejs on the backend?). The frontend had gone through many similar revisions as well.

The thing is, by many metrics, the team was actually amazingly productive. They had lots of meetings, had tons of commits, had massive numbers of bugs found/reported/fixed.

But, they had no idea about how to make the core of their product. They had no ability to answer basic questions, like, "how are you going to interface with the PSTN?" or even, like, "what database server are you planning on running in production?" Everything up to that point was based around running SQLite on their local dev machines. They didn't understand why they couldn't just continue to do so in production and moreover had no idea why (ORMs aside) their choice of database server might be important.

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm sure there are good and great Indian (and other foreign) developers. I just don't think that they are more common than great local developers and moreover I don't think they are ever cheaper than great local developers.

> whomever is responsible for brand communication at Google should be let go.

I assume that's the crux of the problem. Whomever that is is either entirely impotent to impose a coherent vision across google or, probably more likely, that person simply doesn't exist.

> welfare would be erased and a cash payout

I'm basically fine with that concept behind that. I even think we can figure out how to pay for it. But, I think a lot of people aren't behind the first half of that statement.

Since "welfare" isn't exactly a thing, we need to specifically define what programs UBI would be replacing. TANF? SNAP? Unemployment? SSI? SSDI? Medicare/Medicaid? Social Security in general? Section 8? Depending on your answers to those questions, 20000/year can either be a lot or a little.

I'm not remotely sold on UBI (not sold against it either) but this article is just nonsense. It's very obviously intended to "preach to the choir" and not to discuss UBI in any serious terms or to convert anyone to the concept of UBI. In fact, for me someone who is skeptical of UBI but not against it, it pushes me further away from the idea of UBI.

"If the supporters of UBI think like this, I don't want to be anything like them"

That russia hacked the DNC and Podesta's email, and gave their emails to wikileaks (something with assange explicitly denies), thus exposing how the DNC was rigging the primaries against Sanders (DNC hack) and how corrupt the clinton campaign was (Podesta emails).

I'm saying I don't believe that their conclusions aren't politically motivated. If someone can show evidence beyond "trust us, we swear russia did it!" then I will.

How is primary rigging fake news? Its very obvious from reading the wiki leaks emails that the DNC was brazenly biased towards Hillary and against Sanders.

al jazeera wears their biases on their sleeve, when I read something from them I know to read it with the understanding that its from the Qatar state-run media outlet. My primary issue with outlets like WaPo is that they pretend to be objective journalism while publishing rather blatant propaganda pieces. Same reason why I can (and do) read sites like breitbart, they don't pretend to be objective news sources.

ISIS, being famously known for not doing things against their best interest.

Technically I also used my real name as my account name... just the md5 of my name :)

Published? Link?

Why do you think that individual smaller efforts are more likely to succeed than a single unified global effort. I see no evidence to support that. We're obviously going to spend a few years researching this before we start figuring out how to stop the asteroid to determine if we should be fighting this asteroid menace as a whole, or individually.

IRR would be cool, you can just ask for ASN.

Suggestion: Please give me a longer text box I can paste a list of CIDRs into. I was copy/paste/click-add/rinse/repeat-ing for a while.

Why wouldn't you sign up? It took me 30 seconds to sign up and another few minutes to copy/paste a list of my networks....

The fuel imbalance check-sheet also points out to make sure that the fuel imbalance isn't the result of a leak, and they did (somewhat -- it was dark outside) try to check for a leak.

They could also have looked at the rate of fuel consumption across both tanks to determine that the fuel consumption on the right tank was way higher than the engine could consume, but that was not SOP at the time (it is now, and the A330 [and probably other planes] now compute that information and alarm on it).

Its all layers, planes, with minimal exception, really don't crash from a single failure.

Replying to myself to point out that basically every single air incident that people are bringing up in this thread is also covered on this show. Its well worth a watch.

Agreed, the earlier episodes were better, but I still don't think they were great. The last season of the show (when it was just Jayme/Adam) was actually fantastic though.

I've never actually seen any of the biography series (I just associate it with shallow celebrity profiles) I'll have to dig up the earlier episodes, thanks!

How delightfully British.

RAT provides electrical generation too. Its all layers of protection, there are batteries for limited duration and limited equipment. RAT provides more (duration and functionality).

There are some components that are considered like that GPS that have small enough power requirements and are critical enough that they can have significant battery and others that are powered by the RAT, and yet others that just don't work with a main engine failure.

Highly suggest watching some of the Mayday episodes about the power failure incidents like Gimli, its very educational.

This is all historical revisionism. You need to look at the reasons that were given at the time, not the reasons people made up to justify and obfuscate what they did decades later.

I suppose after watching this show, I now understand it better. But I now realize that pilot error is never just pilot error. Without some other failure or extraordinary circumstance, pilots have a damn hard time crashing a plane on their own.

they should rename the flag button to #FakeNews

As much as I watch and enjoy Mythbusters, I rarely come out of watching that show feeling like I really learned something new or am particularly more knowledgable on a subject.

Mythbusters is fun and entertaining, Mayday is educational and entertaining.

I think the very cool thing with this show is that it really illustrates how crashes are virtually never the byproduct of a single failure.

The most fascinating ones to me are the ones where there is a completely survivable mechanical failure, combined with human failures that lead to crashes. The one that comes to mind there is the plane where the engine was leaking fuel, so the tanks were not equal so the pilots engaged the cross-feed valve, causing BOTH tanks to drain leading to an out-of-fuel situation. If they hadn't done that, they could have easily made it to their ETOPS airport with minimal issues.

Also, that show makes me sound smarter than I am. I've had conversations with pilots, who will ask if I'm a pilot. Its great fun for parties when you run into pilots (GA and commercial).

I'm not saying to completely dismiss it, but, keep a few things in mind.

Firstly, there is no evidence from the CIA regarding the election hacks. There are anonymous sources who claim to work with/in the CIA and/or have information from the CIA.

Secondly, I'm not saying to outright dismiss it, but, that you need to frame the information in the context of their success rate. (and, no, you don't get to consider secret unknowable wins in that calculation)

All of the actual evidence that I've seen so far is equivalent to an investigator seeing "made in china" written on a hammer used to smash a store window and saying "china broke into wal-mart".

As far as Russia benefiting from the election, what benefit do you think Russia gets out of the situation that isn't just a large, common benefit that could be equally attributable to anyone?

EG: if you say Russia wanted Trump elected because Trump would be a better friend to Russia that doesn't convince me that Russia was involved in that at all. Fixing Russia/US relations has massive, global benefit, it seems equally fair to say that Belgium hacked the election (whatever that means) to prevent Hillary from ending up in a nuclear war with Russia which would obviously be bad for, well, everyone (to be crystal clear, i'm not saying this is true or that I believe this would have happened).

My point isn't that everything I'm saying is correct, merely that there are lots of equally plausible scenarios here.

First, I haven't seen anyone, CIA or not, provide any evidence to link russia with the DNC hacks (assuming that's what we mean by "russia hacked the election" this week)

Second, "its complicated" is a terrible excuse. Lots of things are complicated, this election was really complicated to some people too.

Third, yes, the leadership changes as the CIA director (and lots of the people who work for him) are political appointees. More evidence that they are politically motivated if they ever make any public claims w/r/t the election (which, btw, they haven't actually).

Fourth, I did not suggest that, you read into my statement. My point is purely that we should not accept the word of the CIA (if they ever actually speak about this, and its not just "anonymous sources") at face value and should question and that their historical accuracy should be a factor in that deliberation.

I believe they did.

I can highly recommend the Mayday (Air Crash Investigation/Air Emergency/Air Disasters/whatever its called this week) episode that deals with this, https://youtu.be/Bct1mWUp8to, and the show in general.