phugoid

Value(s): Building a Better World for All by Mark Carney, the current prime minister of Canada. He starts out with his perspective on the history of economics and money - it reads a bit like a textbook.

He has a knack for being critical and optimistic at the same time. Funny too!

Hardware-wise, the industry has moved from hydraulic to electric motion jacks. It's great if you can avoid pumping high pressure hydraulic fluid. You want to think about capacity to handle the mass you'll put on top. Also, number of degrees of freedom and dynamic response (can it give you twitchy movements, can it also give you large accelerations by massively tilting the platform).

You have a layer that translates the desired accelerations from a physics model (say at 60 Hz) into filtered motion jack length commands (say 400 Hz or more). You don't need massive compute, just keep the latency down and ensure a steady stream of commands to the jacks.

The experience you get from the simulator comes from multiple systems hitting your senses at the same time. You yank a joystick and expect to feel a motion cue and see something in the visual system. For flight sims used in pilot training, you need a response within 150 msec and you want the motion and visual to be in sync to avoid motion sickness.

A car simulator would be a lot more twitchy than passenger aircraft, 150 msec may be too slow.

This really made my day! I was a flight simulator engineer for 20 years and it brings back fond memories of a project I worked on.

Simulating the passenger cabin is important for crew evacuation trainers. Those are large, lifelike fuselage sections that you put on a hydraulic motion platform and run flight/crash/evac training scenarios.

To get a realistic out-the-window view, the trainers I worked on had a PC monitor behind each window opening. We used FlightGear in a master-slave setup: the master node simulates physics and feeds accelerations to the hydraulic platform, and the slave nodes generate out-the-window visuals for each window.

HN is a spark plug that caused various forward motions and explosions in my life.

I learned about open source and Linux; in time that went from a new hobby to a change of direction in my career.

I learned about startups, and figured I should try since I'm also a genius who can build a great product. It took quite a bit of money and time lost to convince me otherwise.

I found out about the online CS Masters program at Georgia Tech and did that a few years ago, this led to moving countries and getting a job doing AI.

Maybe we read different articles, but "Build an initial product" is what he said to do _after_ the hypothesis testing.

Even with a pretty good model, if you introduce new failures that were not anticipated/tested, there's a risk that the system will not behave as per the aircraft. Now you're giving "negative training" to your pilots, maybe worse than no training at all.

Also, imagine you're an airline with thousands of pilots and dozens of instructors: you're running an airline and a school at the same time. You need to build a curriculum of training and testing that will standardize your pilots. There's room for thinking outside the box but not too much.

> Do simulators have the same hardware as real planes, or do they have a software model of the airplane?

If you're looking at the highest fidelity level D simulators, the instruments and controls in the cockpit are either the same parts as the aircraft, or functionally identical (but cheaper).

> If you simulated a broken AoA sensor, would the simulated plane behave similar to the real plane? Would the MCAS system have the same bugs in the simulator as in the one in the real aircraft?

One of the big costs in building a simulator is buying the data package from the aircraft manufacturer, with the aero model and details of system internals, things like electrical and hydraulic schematics. Sim makers build a software model of these internals at a pretty low level. For the most part, if you introduce a fault in some part of the system it will behave the right way as an emerging property, not because you're forcing the system to have the right outputs.

Some software components from the aircraft get installed on the simulator with the same hardware platform from the aircraft, others get run as executables on the simulator's computers, and others get re-implemented from scratch (lots of FORTRAN and C).

That kind of detail comes into play when the instructors introduce multiple failures at the same time - pilots have to take corrective actions to make the faults go away or manage them - if you don't model the systems at a pretty low level you'll never high fidelity.

> Can you try new scenarios in a simulator, or can you just try scenarios that the simulator was designed to run?

There is a list of malfunctions available to the instructor, who runs the session from the back of the "cockpit" on touch panels. For the most part, these malfunctions cover failures that are anticipated by the aircraft manufacturers, and the corrective actions / system behavior are well understood. Each fault is tested to make sure it works properly. You don't go and fail some random component in the system.

When an important failure happens in the real aircraft, it might get added as a training scenario to simulators already in operation.

A good book can immerse you in someone else's way of thinking, in their world. I think the time it takes to read is an essential part of that process, in the same way that watching a two-hour movie can move you more than the 20 second preview that gives it all away.

For example, I ran across this gem recently:

"In the same way as people who've been to a concert carry about with them the melody and haunting quality of pieces they've just heard, interfering with their thinking and preventing them from concentrating on anything serious, so the talk of snobs and parasites sticks in our ears long after we've heard it. And it's far from easy to eradicate these haunting notes from the memory; they stay with us, lasting on and on, coming back to us every so often."

I would never connect those two ideas. It's beautiful. The writer is Seneca, a Roman who was born around the time of Christ. He was idealistic yet street-smart, lofty though sometimes petty, and very opinionated. I enjoyed walking a mile in his sandals.

The author seems very pleased to experience the power gradient of being surrounded by hungry students looking to join the club.

"You’ve got a lot of learning to do - minimum nine months - before you even get to working with me."

Such an unpleasant disposition. People who demand humility of others could use a bit of more of it.

Definitely not a degree mill. Have a look a their well-established OMSCS program, which offers an MSc in Computer Science. This is an offshoot of it.

Getting in to their OMSCS program is far from guaranteed - they have lots of older applicants and they evaluate each on its own merits.

Right now, I am taking the equivalent course to yours in an online CS masters program.

The best thing they've done is structure the entire course around building a web database app. They provide a real-world description of what's needed, and break it down into big chunks that are synchronized to the content of the course's three exams. This gives a clear over-arching goal to the class. For people who have never build web db apps, they will really feel like they've accomplished something by the end.

Probably an impossible-to-find asset. Such a collaborative effort is likely to attract the most vocal and opinionated people, many of whom do not have children of their own. I am simply extrapolating from the median author of the parenting books I've read (and thrown away afterwards).

You may find that successful parents who balance two or more kids with full-time jobs and some measure of sanity will not have the interest or energy to put into such a project. The more enlightened among them may also hold their tongues, having realized that what works for their kids is not universal.

If OP lives in a city, it shouldn't be hard to find a sharp college kid who will tutor.

I force myself to read a book about it, from cover to cover; then I start using it. That gives me a helicopter survey of what the language looks like and its main ideas.

Of course I forget all the details, that's what books are for. It does seems more effective than just trying to map what I know from other languages into the new one.

I was in a similar situation for years, and alcohol was the lesser of my intake problems. I was drinking mostly to stave off boredom; let's call it being comfortably numb.

What eventually helped was getting serious about playing music - practicing every night. I can't practice if I drink. I was excited enough about music that gave me an escape from boredom.

A few years later, I decided to start a part-time online Masters degree, and I'm excited enough about that to keep me from of boredom's abyss. It also fills most of my spare time.

I guess I replaced drinking with something that addressed some/most of the underlying cause. Also important to package the change as something positive; _start_ a degree is more motivating than _stop_ drinking.

From the article:

> He isn’t a bad worker, but the relationship between the leadership style and his work style are clashing.

If refusing to take orders doesn't make you a bad worker, then what does?

I've carried out orders that I didn't agree with many times. Disagreeing with your boss respectfully is a bit of an art, especially when the person who is likely to suffer from a bad decision is yourself. But at the end of the day, this is why we call it work instead of play.

One strategy that seems to work is: be diligent, get things done well and on time, and gain the trust and respect of your team and managers. People will listen to you more when they stop suspecting you of shirking work or just being argumentative. Instead of arguments, you can have conversations and sometimes you might even prevail.

I work in aviation safety/training. The most meaningful work I've done is developing code for flight simulators, so that pilots can learn how to handle real-world problems. Sometimes that means modeling data from flight recorder boxes, which is a special treat.

Reading through the list of things you don't like, one thing they have in common is being software-only. Hardware products have a huge impact on people's safety and well-being that might inspire you. Aviation, robotics, medicine, even manufacturing.

> It’s just not right to say that so few people should get to control the entire continent just because they were there first.

By that argument, it's just not right to say that multi-millionaires should control so much wealth just because they were born into privileged conditions. Wouldn't fairness require a forced redistribution of those resources?

> Having to interact with the phone while driving is a safety problem

Surprised and dismayed if this is the prevailing viewpoint, that using a phone while driving is a necessity that should be made as safe as possible.

I'm bracing for a serious downvote... I have to admit that Anthony Robbins had a big influence on my thinking, particularly with "Awaken the Giant Within." The message was - you can control how you feel.

Nearly twenty years later, I can see the limitations of his ideas - the danger of creating an arbitrary belief system for yourself and the selfishness of simply deciding what you want and rigging everything in your existence to get it. I also came to believe it's OK to not be happy all the time. But I will always respect Robbins' direct explanations of human motivation and how it can be nudged.

That and 'Single Variable Calculus; Early Transcendentals'; the universe is about change and math can model nearly all of it.

Try making a few calls before the important one to break the ice a bit. Another trick is to start the conversation in an unconventional way, so you don't have time to predict what you're going to say (and anticipate the blocking).

What really worked for me was to force myself to _never_ replace words and to accept that I will stutter at times.

I also have a silly trick for overcoming a prolongation. When I'm stuck, I voice the first sound of the word, then take a short silent rest, and continue with the rest of the word. For instance, "f...ailure". Knowing that I can plough through any prolongation and still be understood has reduced them tremendously and lowered my anxiety. I'm not saying this trick will work for everyone, and I haven't seen it in any of the books.

Unlike the author, I think there's nothing wrong with apologizing for a stutter. That's a useful tactic because it brings the issue out in the open, instead of putting all that effort into hiding it. I'll apologize in advance, just to lower my stress level.

Edit: Renamed block to prolongation.

This assumes that wealthy people have a better work ethic than the poor, to the extent that they might not even be able to imagine what a bad work ethic looks like. In my experience, that doesn't match reality at all.

Manual labor jobs are generally unforgiving of slack. Workers are punished quite severely for minor offenses that are not even noticed in a techie or white-collar environment. Showing up five minutes late? A minor uniform violation? Not performing well for one day? Calling in sick a few too may times?

I'm a white dude, but I feel the same way. I have experienced first-hand that the attitude and vibes that make a workplace toxic for women or others will also make my time there unpleasant. For instance, frequent sharing of risque videos and lecherous comments about women are fingernails on a chalkboard to me.

For the specific situation I experienced, interviewer ego would not have been a tip-off. Some of the other posts suggest asking questions that I wouldn't dream of asking in an interview - they border on accusatory.

The number of women working is probably the biggest single indicator I can think of. Even if the problematic attitudes exist, they tend to stay hidden when women holding the same/higher rank are omnipresent.

It need not be on a consistent basis. I recall one bad decision on the part of a manager that caused me to work eight months of 60-80 hour weeks and nearly burned me out. It took some hindsight for me to understand that, and since he didn't have to suffer over it I'm pretty sure he would make the same decision today if he hadn't been promoted to a higher technical position where he can do more damage.

That's not unusual in my experience. I've gone down the wrong path a few times, but I'd like to think I've suffered enough to think twice now. Let's call that suffering "experience."

For the big projects in my life right now, I just keep track of my time spent, on a daily basis, in a text file. I've found that if I spend enough time, things get done. A simple breakdown of 30 minutes on this, 90 minutes on that is enough.

Looking back at what I've been doing this week, it's pretty clear what areas I've been neglecting.

Anything more than this would not get updated regularly. My time log also works like Jerry Seinfeld's Xs on the calendar; I'm motivated to put in a minimum of effort today to avoid breaking the chain.

I second chopsticks.

Good design doesn't have to be user-friendly. I like how chopsticks can be implemented out of almost any material, are dead-simple, and are "opinionated." They impose severe constraints on what/how you cook, and help create food culture.

If you can push yourself hard enough to get the idea built, you will face another bout of crippling self-doubt when you decide whether to show it to anyone. And then a MUCH bigger wall of doubt when you begin to market the idea and realize that good ideas don't sell themselves.

My advice is to choose smaller projects, even if they're not as commercially promising, just to build up your strength and ability to finish the job.

Unless it involves blood transfusions in any form, there's no issue.

At the risk of being argumentative, it would be a case of dying for his own idea of God.

From my point of view, he wasn't a straight-and-narrow JW member because he kept performing material which didn't fit that view. I doubt that anyone had the pleasant surprise of Prince knocking on their door one Saturday morning.

I've changed it so that you can try the calculator without creating an account. Login is only required for saving recipes or for changing the nutrition targets. Thanks again for the advice.

I've changed it so that you can try the calculator without creating an account. Login is only required for saving recipes or for changing the nutrition targets.