Amazing? Positively Russian.
13044 posts • joined 3 Jun 2008
Amazing? Positively Russian.
This should go under "BOSS CODE"
This morning from O'Reilly
NO! *CK YOU KYLE SIMPSON, WHOEVER YOU ARE.
At least Java is a language that has some reasonable (though old-school/clunky) design and a skillbase behind it. Maybe it's time to move to F#
but sitting on the pad does the fact the rocket underneath has done 17 trips already make you feel more or less confident
We just don't know. Failure modes will have to be tested and battled ("exploratory testing", right?)
How much inane "yippee kay-yay" squeaky sounds does one need today when Generation Z is self-pretendingly ascendent to count as "positive"?
Anyway, for SpaceX: "NOW THIS IS DEVOPS!"
SpaceX demands that I install Flash to livestream theior launch attempt.
What the fuck is this
This posting opened my mind.
It also has a container with particularly gorgeous
Every spaceship needs that!
Eagles would be nice (but one has to invent wormholes first to transfer reaction mass to these elegant birds while they fly)
Yeah but do you REALLY want to pass on tweeting your excitement to followers while blogging about the UX of the capsule and keeping an eye on the latest Trump/Hillary soundtardbite from the corner of your eye?
What happened to the idea to de-orbit the old golden battlehorse anyway?
We are aiming for launch in 1h6min30s from .... now!
I will just cite copiously from the link to the review given above.
Upside-down rocket exhaust as icon because "If this part starts pointing towards space, you are having a bad day and you will not go to space today".
"Risk and the Work Group Culture"
After [Diane Vaughan] systematically rejects the hypothesis that in managerial decision making, any amoral calculators was at play [in the Challenger Launch Decision], she turns her attention to recreating the work group culture and the environment in which NASA engineers and managers worked, negotiated risk and took decisions under uncertainty. She attempts to create a “native view” of the workgroup culture in NASA. There was always a “residual risk” present in all the flights, due to unique design of the shuttle, and a large number of uncertainties associated with such a large complex technical system, which did not have any prior experience, therefore “work groups were calculating risk...where it was fundamentally incalculable” The concept of “acceptable risk”, which was a formal status conferred upon a component by following a prescribed procedure based on a documented engineering analysis and technical rationale, is key to estimating the flight risk. Whereas other enquiry commissions expressed their surprise at the use of “acceptable risk”, it was a norm to fly in NASA culture with a known residual risk. The decision to assess risk and to categorize it as “acceptable risk” was based on scientific method and engineering judgment based on tests and data, and was often negotiated in the work groups.
"Normalization of Deviance"
Normalization of the deviance in performance of O-ring incrementally increased the “acceptable risk” criteria. Also, the (strong) belief in redundancy (there were two O-rings in shuttle design, one primary, and one backup, as opposed to the Air force’s Titan III solid rocket, which had only one O-ring) led to the construction of risk, which was normalized when test performance deviated from design predictions. The early decision to accept the risk became a precedent and part of the workgroup culture, which led to repeated normalization of the deviance. Diana Vaughan explores the normalization of deviance in chapter five and also revisits and revises the post-accident accounts of controversial NASA actions to continue to fly after observing extensive erosion on the STS-2, declaring the space shuttle operational, and failing to report the joint performance during the Flight Readiness Review to the upper-level NASA administrators. After fourth flight of the shuttle, it was declared operational, which resulted in reducing the testing of vehicles and its components, and requirement for reporting problems. This decision had serious structural impacts that affected the work group’s decision-making process.
Astronauts know that all of the West's losses in spaceflight have been ultimately attributed to managerial failings. It was known that a pure oxygen atmosphere was a dangerous idea. It was known that measuring the circularity of a booster segment at only six places wasn't good enough and that launching at such cold temperatures would mean that sealing rubber wouldn't be pliant. It was known that insulating foam got stripped off the external fuel tank and could hit the shuttle during the launch climb.
The first one I agree but the other two were only "known" with hindsight. This was not reckless or even bad management: problems and warning signs got swamped by the managerial processes and clear-headed step-back-and-think remedial action never got off the ground. Which of course means that said managerial processes should be flattened or rejigged. (More on this here as usual). Or maybe one should just. not. build. a Hail Mary contraption built on bleeding edge technology like the Shuttle where one of the side-goals is to funnel pork money to industrial players in the first place.
A sticky throttle valve being dealt with on the pad by fiddling with the launch sequence?
Welcome to the real world. Don't tell me this kind of think isn't done in state space programs.
A wise astronaut wouldn't think twice, they'd drive home.
No-one drove away from NASA though.
But what the browser do? Automatically write a nastygram to congresscritters?
"Testing shows the presence, not the absence of bugs"
Obvious to the meanest first-semester intelligence. The more so as bugs may be in the eyes of the beholder. Dijkstra's provable microproblems continue to make one think, but they are still irrelevant to real-world software (plus they were written in imperative style, which is hard to think about and hard to apply first-order logic on, in order words, inappropriate -- I hope Dijkstra-inspired curriculae have been reworked, mine was rather horrid btw. but it was probably also meant to weed out freshmen easily disgusted by mysterious symbology)
More interesting, in (paywalled):
Steve Tockey, "Insanity, Hiring, and the Software Industry", Computer, vol.48, no. 11, pp. 96-101, Nov. 2015
"Software project and product outcomes strongly suggest that the software industry still suffers from dismal performance. A brief survey of job postings reveals a significant gap between what hiring managers of software developer positions are asking for and what they actually need" (i..e NOT people "skilled in C++" but in actual system engineering and economic thinking)
The next question we should ask is, “What drives poor software project and product performance?” I’ve identified four major causes of poor performance, listed here in decreasing order of significance:
1) Vague, ambiguous and incomplete requirements
2) Inadequate project management
3) Overdependence on testing: It’s impossible to comprehensively test nontrivial code. .... Typical software testing teams are between 60 and 70 percent effective at finding defects, meaning users discover 30 to 40 percent of software defects. The cost to repair any defect increases exponentially as the project progresses—that is, fixing a defective requirement after code has been written is many times more expensive than fixing that same requirement defect before design and coding work has begun. Return on investment for software inspections—a form of peer review—has been reported as high as 44:1. Thus, each person-hour spent inspecting requirements and design avoided as many as 44 person-hours of rework later in the project
4) Uncontrolled code complexity
But that's just by the by
"it is mathematically impossible to prove a program is correct"
For most values of "correctness".
However, it is possible (in some cases) to mathematically prove that code conforms to a (specially crafted) specification.
What he WANTED to say is that "it is mathematically impossible to prove the absence of 'errors' (however defined, the definition is left as an exercise to the reader) IN THE GENERAL CASE". The general case is generally not sought. This is why incompleteness theorems are rarely relevant in the real world.
"The Self Driving Car" does not need code correctness btw - it needs safe failure modes. Safe failure in a complex environment cannot be obtained by code inspection or testing, but needs to be determined by going out, driving around, and doing the statistics.
Ahem. Anything important which relies on md5 is breakable - it has been publically explotable since 2008 using nothing more than a bunch of Playstations.
Granted that SHA-1 or whatever is "best" now should be used. Still:
I challenge you to write code that:
0) Still compiles
1) Hashes to the same md5sum as the original code
2) Has the same functionality as the original code
3) Doesn't immediately raise a red flag by eyeball inspection alone
a criminal gang that on-sells
What happened to english grammar?
nothing further to add
So we are left with an "un-knowledge base article" (or an "un-knowledge un-base article" or even an "un-knowledge un-base un-article")
The Washington Post has a far bigger problem with rank neocon siegheiling disguised as "opinion pieces" on the front page.
If they are not shilling for the latest bullshit oozing out of White House or State Department "Press Meetings".
That paper is done, put a fork in it.
The BBC in particular is quite fond of abdicating journalistic responsibility in favour of regurgitating tweet sequences.
What a long-winded way of saying that they are shite.
Yeah but can I have some witch burning later this week?
Seriously this is beyond belief disgusting.
Also "importance of respect for nations' sovereignty in cyberspace"
Code for "I want to make it internationally acceptable to control information by setting up firewalls and firing off extradition demands for leakers and other anticitizens whenever they damn well please".
"Cyberspace" doesn't exist. Nations already have "sovereignity" on their claimed territory. This is about putting lipstick on the information "crackdowns" and "lawfare" pigs by speaking in tongues
Now, given the current Russophobia/Sinophobia in US "thinkfluencing" circles and and the pivots to Ukraine and Asia, I doubt this attempt at bringing in the bacon will go anywhere.
> we might never know
we will never need know
Individual leaders of the DNC can support Hillary Clinton in any way they want, but they are not going to sabotage our campaign – one of the strongest grassroots campaigns in modern history.
Someone misspells "astroturf".
Perhaps: any programming which is sufficiently powerful to be deeply useful is also powerful enough to damage the system on which it runs? Dunno if that holds water as a general rule. Have to think about it.
Unless sandboxed: yes. This is related to Langsec
The next message from Dadmin was "I have wee problem reading my files.... anybody can help?"
Sometimes it would be cool if anyone of the board had any skill whatsoever.
We could actually start with demanding that board members pass the brain scan checking for sociopathy. That would be useful.
I think we are still killing Vietnamese via Agent Orangization.
Pray the Karma Container will never spring a leak.
Should have asked in 1950s or so.
"Due to recent global tragedies, we have new security procedures for CES."
Why are Trump, Hillary and the current White House Occupant security problems for CES?
On the contrary.
Sometimes you just need to flush stuff and see whether the phone rings soon (or not so soon) after. Because finding out by questionnaire whether anyone still has valid data on this 15-year old storage rig is pointless.
That was sarcasm though.
If the whole construction drops on the floor like spaghetti when challenged, that's where it should be.
Hillary is just as crazy fucked up as Trump, she just has another coiffeur and had already the occasion to utterly wreck a country while gloating on prime time TV like the Joker.
Low-IQ, high arrogance and generally mental.
A fine selection of the "produce" of local politics.
Carly Fiorina, who actually used to be a tech CEO and so should have a pretty good understanding of how technology works and the interplay with politics and law enforcement...
The only thing that Carly knows how to do is ram a company into the ground based on nothing more than utter certainty that she has understood something about what she is supposed to do. Which isn't necessarily in agreement what the universe thinks about that matter.
[Shutting down parts of the Internet] is something that only a government can really do and even then only if there is a reasonably stable rule of law in a country.
Unfortnately this is hockum: You just need the rule of men, or the rule of force. And we are rapidly getting there because hell, I admire the rule of law in the rear view mirror whenever I open the newspaper...
Theories of physics that attempt to reconcile the quantum world with relativity have postulated the existence of additional spatial dimensions: the mathematics of superstring theory gave spacetime a total of ten. However, these theories cause the extra dimensions to wrap themselves up in such a way that they are microscopic - which is not a great help to FTL travel.
Worse: these rather mythical because very-much undetected spatial dimensions do not help to travel FTL: There would just be additional spatial degrees of freedom at each point, but photons would still wander around at c in this more-freedomy micro-space or even, in case those dimensions are unrolled and our 4-D space is a subspace of a larger "bulk" space, in a more freedomy macro-space (though photons do not seem to leave the "brane").
But in any case, my money is on 4D and that's it. I mean, a 4D space with an infinite family of reference frames in each point depending only on relative velocity is already extravagant enough.
Reasons to be excited: naively combining CMS and ATLAS gives something of 4 sigma significance, people are making the analogy with the early Higgs signal. Reasons to be less excited: in the case of the early Higgs signal, the tentative signal was what was expected from the Higgs, and we had very good reasons to believe there was a Higgs roughly in that mass range. Here I know of no well-motivated models that predict this: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and this is not that.
Commentary from Matt Strassler.
Best explanation and discussion of the implications of the diphoton excess is from Jester
And also, no SUSY:
Whatever you thought the remaining probability was for SUSY after the negative Run 1 results, it’s significantly smaller today.
It's probably settle-down time, check all the connections, didn't-you-forget-something, what-does-mission-control-say, review of what occurred etc.
My olden skipper said that when on sea, you have to work on shiptime, which is slower than the one used by landlubbers, otherwise shit will hit the fan. spacetime is probably even more redshifted.
This is a team making the mistake though.
At least one hopes it is a team..
Looks like de-skilling is in progress.
Unfortunately, it ain't.
I can't imagine it will be long before "our" duhmucratic "leaders" decide to take a page or two from that particular book..
Who is that Harry? A member of the royals?
Why is this illustrated with a photo of Huawei Shenzen Headquarters?
Some kind of Space Station?
> Content has been removed