Enginerrrd

When riding a motorcycle, you’ll encounter people that don’t see you almost every trip. The same is not true in a car.

Riding a bike is just a 100% engagement thing with higher risks and lower margins for error, for all kinds of reasons. And it’s not just traffic, minor pavement imperfections become relevant, the necessary skill floor is also higher. It just demands more attention, straight up.

In a car, you shouldn’t, and it’s not without risk, but you CAN occasionally get away with minor distractions: adjusting the radio, seat, etc. That just doesn’t work on a bike as well. I’m failing to properly articulate the why, but it really is fundamentally different in some ways. I’ve spent many years doing both, and the bike just demands more of your attention resources, independent of your vulnerability in the event of an accident.

I definitely can do more with them, but the speed up isn’t anywhere close to an OOM. I would say they let me drift into scope I probably didn’t understand when I started, and that can be dangerous waters, but I absolutely use them as a tool to speed up my understanding of that new territory. And I wouldn’t say that pushing the boundaries of my understanding on ambitious projects is in anyway unusual for me. It’s just that I can push a little further a little faster.

(30 seconds of googling.)

Or perhaps you meant Q clearance nuke stuff? That would be QUITE a bit harder to find and illegal to share. But it’s lack of availability is hardly a counterpoint to the comment you were replying to.

The advanced treatment stages take care of it. Between UV, ozone, and nanofiltration, etc. we can remove the pharmaceuticals.

Actually the problem is the water comes out too pure out of a well designed water reuse system, to the point where the mineral content can be too low and you need to add some back in.

Ideally, we like it if the red team can suggest solutions, but that’s not always their job or expertise and I’ve rarely if ever heard someone express the sentiment you are within that context by suggesting a really good red team person isn’t useful if they can’t fix the holes they find.

In my personal life I use AI a lot for information discovery and high level discussion of the problem space. I use it occasionally to write some prototype code to get started on something. It makes a great debugging and problem solving tool, though I typically find that I need to have an idea of what the problem is to steer it in the right direction. It makes a poor intuition generator, but a great intuition checker and can run with an idea for much faster iteration. I use it essentially zero in my day job as an civil engineer though.

I would essentially NEVER use it to write an email. By the time I’ve specified what it is I’m trying to say, I’ve basically said it. Wordsmithing beyond that usually has almost zero value. Same frankly with writing engineering reports. By the time I’ve told it what it needs to say, I’ve basically written that section. In general, I feel like LLMs are just bad writing tools… In writing I typically find that if I can farm it out to have an LLM write something, then it frankly probably just didn’t need to be said.

The article is really about solving a particular problem with the backend of their infrastructure. Discussion about VMs, Linux kernel syscalls, file systems (virtual, FUSE, etc) would all be relevant.

Your comment is a question about whether and how people use the software itself, which is pretty unrelated to the article.

It’s a bit like an article about Porsche identifying a particular engineering nuance in their fuel injectors, and how things didn’t work the way they thought at a low level, and how they solved it once they realized it. And then you come in with a comment about what people like to do with their Porsches. Like, sure, it involves the same company but what would that have to do with the underlying article on automotive engineering?

Combine that with a growing disdain for the insistence of certain segments of the tech scene to make everything about agentic workflows, (an echo to the constant evangelism of cryptocurrencies or blockchain in the recent past) and you have a recipe for downvotes.

And introversion can be a wonderful asset in some professions as well.

However, I do agree that conscientiousness is probably pretty universally better.

For updates, Debian and Ubuntu are great. For upgrades… not so much for me.

In that case though, I actually still disagree, but again I must refuse to elaborate. I will only say that in an asymmetric conflict, creativity disproportionately favors the underdog.

And those utilities are mandated by building codes so they have benefited from many developers who foot the bill for their infrastructure. The local jurisdiction and private property is undoubtedly littered with easements for their power distribution. This was OBVIOUSLY done under the context of a social contract that they would supply power. No one thought to codify that because no one envisioned someone could be that immoral.

I’m obviously not going to suggest specific forms of retaliation on the internet. But I will say that the people in power are overplaying their hand. They’re telegraphing exactly how they intend to treat you the instant they think they have the benefit of technological superiority and autonomous security.

There is no amount of regulation that can keep this level of moral bankruptcy in check. Full stop.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbp3kdJZ1_A

Some don't like to sell themselves and compete.

Some have confidence issues.

Some have ADHD and an on-paper track record that looks terrible.

Some want nothing to do with corporate America.

Does credibility really mean nothing anymore?

The gifted are more over represented in prison then black males, however, most of those gifted are themselves minorities.

However, I really wonder how formula 1 teams manage their engineering concepts and driver UI/UX. They do some crazy experimental things, and they have high budgets, but they're often pulling off high-risk ideas on the very edge of feasibility. Every subtle iteration requires driver testing and feedback. I really wonder what processes they use to tie it all together. I suspect that they think about this quite diligently and dare I say even somewhat rigidly. I think it quite likely that the culture that led to the intense and detailed way they look at process for pit-stops and stuff carries over to the rest of their design processes, versioning, and iteration/testing.

And even on markets where someone would benefit from inside information... insiders leak a lot more information than you'd think before it tends to hit the market. Even reading the news can tell you more than you'd think if you look at it right. The single biggest hint is "Why am I reading this, and why now?". News stories on geopolitics almost never arise naturally, and that question will get you to a LOT of information that was not explicitly stated.