isityouyesitsme

Overall, it is shoddy writing. A pet peeve of mine is on display:

"The victim suffered critical injuries but died after reaching the hospital."

The use of "but" here is confusing. It's the wrong conjunction. The author meant "and," as if to say "there were critical injuries and the outcome you expected was what happened," rather than "there were critical injuries, and contrary to what you would expect to have happened, what you expected to have happened did indeed happen."

Holy correlation is not causation, Batman!

In straight dollars, perhaps yes. But the new servers don't show up and spend 3 to 6 months before accomplishing anything meaningful, don't require sick time which can cause the optimizations to slip, and don't take 3 months to find the right fit for hire.

Part of the cost consideration is deterministic results. I will pay a premium for near-guaranteed good but probably sub-optimal results and will actively avoid betting on people I haven't met and don't know exist.

In my hiring, I hire now to solve problems we expect to hit after 4 quarters. It almost never makes sense to hire anyone into a full-time role for any project in a shorter timeframe. If you were wrong about the specific problems you expect to have in a year, you have a person who is trained in your development environment, tooling, and projects, and you already budgeted to use them in-depth in a year. There's no emergency. There is time to pivot. But if you're wrong about the need to hire someone now full time, you front load all of the risk and if it doesn't work out, you are stuck with an employee you do not need (and stuck is the right word. Have you ever terminated someone? It is harder than you think it is, and I don't mean just for emotional reasons).

Buy hardware over people. Treat the people you have as if the business depends on them. Let them know that it does. Everyone is happier this way.

I didn't know that VW owned Tesla!

Perhaps not.

I also don't want some cops to be the ones on patrol, out of fear that they might act on strong biases. But I also wouldn't excuse them for pulling someone over and immediately opening fire with intent to kill in order to bypass the problem.

Scrum as a concept doesn't matter. Agile as a thing doesn't matter. Team structure doesn't matter.

All that matters is who has authority and the business both enforcing that authority and also making sure that authority is being used to accomplish business efficiently and not causing greater risk in the process. The rest just falls in to place. Or doesn't, and the business dies.

The reality is that in order to make the technology safe, you need to be able to expose it to the conditions under which it will operate. To me, this is not the issue. The issue is whether companies have the requisite technology in place to prevent a minor problem from becoming a major problem.

The optics to me look as though most of them are scaling their fleets too quickly and assuming they are capable of more generalized problems than they actually are. I believe that they know this and, in essence, nobody is seriously capable of stopping them because there is not enough interest to do so. Part of that is because the companies are so secretive of their technologies and capabilities.

Voluntary reports are not the answer to this. They will always find a way to fudge them. The only answer that will work without stifling innovation with uninformed laws is to simply hold them to a high standard and give them the stiffest penalties the law allows in each infraction. I think this will have the natural effect of forcing them to have smaller fleets they can better control, or at least have safety drivers (which also would reuse fleet size).

IANAL, so I don't know how to make this actually have teeth since I think traditionally the driver bears the liability.

Based on personal experience, yes if an AV is susceptible to a problem, then all of them are susceptible on at least the same software and hardware configuration. This is the same in every safety-critical field.

The comment is a bit naive though.

What is your statistical model for such failures? let's go with the example and assume that from now henceforth forevermore, all AVs will run through caution tape (which is obviously not true).

What is the frequency of caution tape being drawn across the road in front of an AV vs. the frequency of JUST drivers driving drunk, or JUST speed violations, or JUST texting violations, or JUST distracted driving, etc.?

Though, we definitely ought to hold companies' feet to the fire when they are liable for incidents like this. Which we aren't really doing.

Typesanitizer, I just want to note that I'm not downvoting you. I found nothing objectionable about your comment.

I'm unsure what the expectation is here. I'm allowed to say we had a poor experience, you should be allowed to say how you think you're addressing it.

I don't want to go into specifics.

The problems we encountered were that they could not rewrite the targets in our build system for the automated refactoring, and any missing include path at all would cause the clang-based tooling they were using to barf.

We just asked ourselves why we would spend so much money on a product when we still had to solve all of the fundamental problems ourselves. We liked the UI, but it wasn't worth the insane license fee.

We hired 2 junior developers for maybe 20K more total, in total compensation, than their original quote.

But you (and child) comment made me realize that I don't remember the terms of the proposal, whether it was per year or for 2 years. So it might have been a 1:1, not 1:2.

In the end, their product was just completely insufficient for our needs, and it was clearly just gluing open source tools together. The part we couldn't do as well was the front end, and they clearly put a lot of effort into it. It looked and worked nicely. But that didn't help us when they couldn't parse the code to populate it.

Their support in the demo period sucked, their complex C++ support was lacking, they didn't integrate into modern C++ build systems well, and their prices were insane.

They kept trying to push this "campaign" feature on us, which is an overly-complex auto-refactoring tool that couldn't even support our non-proprietary, well-known build system. For the cost of their license, we instead hired two developers for code refactors, who then went on to make other tooling, and we didn't need to hire someone to babysit their crappy service integration.

I would not say that they had found their niche when speaking to us. Perhaps it has gotten better.

Yeah, everything you're writing is just coming off as projection.

Let's part ways, you have no insights to add, only ugly accusations of people you've never met.

https also provides secure authentication, not merely encryption. The encryption part also guarantees the authentication part by proving that the stream can not have been modified.

In order to meet this guarantee for the scheme you're discussing, the hashes themselves need to have a tamper evident. What is this tamper evident?

I didn't flag it.

I'm not improperly judging anything. I have lived this for too long. "No good reason" is a fantasy.

There is "no good reason" other than the real world standing in the way, which is an economic motivation you keep neglecting, not a racial one.

You are either a racist, unintelligent, or else ignorant. You do not write as though you're unintelligent. I do not personally assume that people are racist because I disagree with them (though your writing makes me challenge that). I can therefore only conclude you're ignorant of what real people do at real jobs.

Perhaps not everyone knows what AUTOSAR is. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AUTOSAR. Think: automotive brake controllers, that type of shit. It is safety critical.

My point isn't that the rules apply universally, it's that something found to be a good practice in a safety critical industry is flagrantly discarded in another, without good reason. Literal state machines in the preprocessor. Metaprogramming in C. But because it is generated code, it is "ok."

Ever write against AUTOSAR?

Vendors will implement full state machines in the preprocessor. Generated code will include the same header 2 or 3 times, because each time through, the state machine has changed and different code is exposed.

I am not joking.

Thinly-veiled racism?

You are conflating geopolitics and economics that could concern someone who could end up being affected by such a trend (which the poster isn't, as they said later) with racism.

Is someone in a given country supposed to be HAPPY that a company founded in their country is intentionally putting support engineers within their founding country out of work, while simultaneously making support a worse experience for users?

Have you ever been in the situation of being on midnight call to the other side of the world while speaking with someone with whom you're having a mutually difficult time communicating? It sucks.

Moving support into localities for better servicing the customer is fine. This isn't the trend. Fuck RH and anyone else who does this.

Thank you for the well-written and polite reply. You taught me that the residence times are the big problem, and for all of the arguments and discussion generated through the years on this, I have never once heard this.

Hmm, most of that passes the smell test to me, thanks.

The part that doesn't: I'm admittedly looking only at my Urban area, but traffic is much less than it was. I still commute to the office, and it just isn't what it used to be, even into the city. My commute takes about 10 minutes less than it used to, 15 minutes instead of 25.

Obviously not a huge city, but definitely one that is well known across the U.S.

In most of 2020, and large parts of 2021, the U.S. economy tanked, along with a substantial number of active road users, air travelers, manufacturing services, logistics, etc. Even today in my not-quite-urban living area, the traffic seems to be 2/3 what it was in 2019.

I live under a pretty big rock. Is there any explanation why this serious reduction of greenhouse has had no effect?

I'm purely curious at this point, I have nothing else to add here---what's your favorite example of the other failure, the type where all the researchers in the industry hype something and then 10 or 20 years later, you can look and say "well, that was a swing and a miss..." ?

Nah.

Nobody complaints when you invent words or phrases to add clarity, but most academic papers are NOT doing this. It's an academic circle-j** where all the authors play the same game to try to fit in with each other.

And in this respect, you're 100% right. Professionals who make a living doing work, even the ones who know more about the topic than the researchers, are not the target audience. The target audience is the others participating in the circle-j** who determine if the paper should be published.

And no, I'm not saying that researchers are worthless and don't know anything. Merely that they have different purposes and standards for their work. And it has always been this way, in every field.

Leetcode doesn't capture this, so it must not be a viable way to work.

/s

"Right" or "left" wing is entirely meant as a sweeping generalized insult these days. The words are otherwise meaningless.

Or more, they only mean whatever the person speaking them means to say.

Example: Some of the most infamous acts of violence of the 20th century were sanctioned by a left-wing radical. Or a right-wing radical. It simply depends on which specific ideals you want to vilify when you by associating them with Hitler.

Were the 2020 US riots were ultra surprising to you because they mostly left wingers burning cities and violently declaring demilitarized zones, or were they "meh" because right wingers are the only violent ones?

I'm unable to ascertain if you're being intentionally obtuse or merely unable to follow how analogies work.

this is a half truth.

everybody was lying on their takeover reports. EXCEPT Uber.

Uber was banned from California because they refused to lie, and refused to be made to look stupid compared to the companies who WERE lying, and who have literally decapitated multiple people while their vehicle was in control.

my time with Uber was rocky, and I had many qualms. I left partially because I didn't want to be part of the culture that produced Herzberg's death. but this specific thing is not one they should be criticized for.

the cultural issues were real. that's fair to say.

To live in a city of any size, let alone a dense one, you need to be highly tolerant of things that irritate you or violate things you consider valuable, and in many cases, you must be tolerant of things that violate basic mores.

The second it becomes a possibility, a significant percentage of people will flee the things that they have difficulty tolerating, simply because they no longer need to tolerate it.

I think you've managed to miss the OP point entirely.

If there was an abundant, inexpensive, legal supply of bread and all the thief had to do was value honesty more than free bread, rather than continuing to steal, across decades, thousands of loafs of bread, yes.

I think it's ok to take the illustration to that extreme, given the postulation that you say someone thinks that you should destroy a person's life over one loaf of bread.