It's a tough watch with some hairy moments, however really well captures the kind of culture and environment that led to the somewhat dire and/or depressing state of space exploration that we are at today.

Even the infrequent successes like Curiosity were billions (with a 'B') over-budget and years delayed.

My point is not "care 100% about your job/company/product/idea and 0% about everything else", but rather striking a better balance.

To bring it back to the OP, selling Figma to Adobe was, in my view, part of an epidemic of SaaS companies valuing payout above creating a long-term sustaining business.

You are technically correct, in the same way "following the letter of the law" can be technically correct whilst missing the spirit.

For what it's worth, the engineers I have worked with in the past who take this utilitarian view of work often produce the poorer quality work and sometimes be really quite difficult to work with. This is because, with this view, "documentation", "design", "planning", "quality", and all those sorts of things tend to take a back seat in their mind as they become totally engrossed by "MVP", "well it works, so?", etc.

Personally, I think nuance is important here - I agree, there's a time for keeping the lights on, getting something to show, appeasing shareholders, and so on. However, there's also a time for taking a step back and taking some time to design, plan, optimize, ensuring quality, long-term stability, and hell, dare I say a bit of craftsmanship; life is short, might as well enjoy what you are doing for 1/3 of it and lavish in the art.

Takes all to make a world, I guess.

I'm getting on to 10 years in the software industry as an engineer at the moment and in my view this is one of its most disappointing and frustrating aspects.

The whole software start-up scene just feels saturated with FIRE-obsessed individuals who prefer just about anything (money, vacation, travel, fame, ...) over company, product, real building, craftsmanship, etc.

I legitimately hear phrases like "5th time's the charm for an exit and payout!" way too often. It frequently just exacerbates the consolidation of technology, knowledge, wealth, and often hurts innovation, let alone can result in the solid team(s) of engineers left out to dry (although some can be also gunning for the payout in the end too).

In my view, there are just too many sell-outs pawning off solid products and teams to the highest bidder. I wish it wasn't that way.

To me, it only communicates that the issues were embarrassing, inconvenient, or otherwise do not shine a good light.

Am I reading too much into this, or does this kind of pithy announcement usually hide skeletons? Genuinely curious here.

I'm waiting for the stuxnet-like report on this as much as anyone.

* Polish train maintenance company, SPS, was getting suspicious as trains made by a company, Newag, kept on "randomly" breaking and couldn't be fixed. They was getting fined millions by Polish government as they had a contract that fined them for being too slow with repairs.

* They secretly hired literal hackers (Dragon Sector) for 2 months to dig around Newag train code.

* Hackers found out some incredible things, generally that fit under the umbrella of "late-stage capitalism", or more specifically, corporate protectionism, sabotage, ransom, etc.

Some examples of the secret code that the hackers found:

* Breaks the trains if they go into geo polygons that are right around the warehouses of 5 Polish train maintenance companies, including SPS.

* Breaks the trains after 1 million kilometers.

* Breaks the trains if they don't move for 10 days.

* Secret button press combination (basically Tekken, Street Fighter, etc.) to disable the "malfunctions".

I see this complaint quite frequently about flows being disrupted due to office/slack, having to "mute slack to get anything done", etc. In my experience, those who I have observed IRL complaining about this are, more often than not, those that tend to struggle writing clear and maintainable code, those that struggle writing concise and readable documentation, those that struggle writing up tasks properly, and so on. Equally more often than not, I have found that they often fit into the "Super Smart Engineer Individual Contributor" bin, who are clearly incredibly good at solving very challenging problems, sometimes performing great, field-leading feats of engineering, but fall short on the human side of the job. I know this is highly generalizing and not all fit this description, but it truly is what I have seen.

About me, I have been WFH for a long time, before the pandemic: <2019 60+% WFH, >2019 100% WFH.

* Saved 2,500 hours by no commute - around 100 extra days of life.

* Saved ~15,000-20,000 GBP by no train/car commute

* I'm quite particular about my food and drink, and invest quite heavily in it (some would say too much when it comes to tea and coffee :P). I fear hot drink vending machines, "nespresso pods" (which I disagree with on perhaps a spiritual, even cosmic level), and/or plastic "bag tea". Eeeek D:

* I'm quite particular when it comes to peripherals. My back hates Herman Miller knock-offs, generally any kind of "different" from my at-home setup to be honest. Thunderbolt, in 2023, remains at best a challenge, at worst a mystery for multi-million and a number of multi-billion companies.

* Office equipment in the last ~5 or so years has been on a somewhat downwards trajectory since 2019. Companies don't invest in quality software engineering equipment like they used to (understandable as paying for equipment that few use is a waste). This troubles me often; I fear that the pandemic has sparked a rapidly spiraling, high momentum, positive feedback doom-loop, i.e.:

1) Pandemic --> 2) WFH --> 3) Companies invest less in office equipment --> 4) More employees want WFH for better equipment --> 5) Companies invest even less in office equipment --> GOTO 3

If you think leetcode-like problems is always about the algo, "BFS or DFS" etc., then at best you are not realizing the data structure choices you are making, at worst you may not be so good at solving them or haven't progress that much through leetcode-like challenges.

Personally, I tried it during v1.0.3, and although it seemed to manage a `bun install`, it fell over on almost every node project at my place on the execution side (`bun run`, etc.). It felt like it needed at least a couple months to get rid of all the rough edges, memory leaks (which is basically a death-nail for real world use as far as I can see), etc.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37991313

Points: 3

# Comments: 0

* Previous studies have used charged antimatter like positrons and antiprotons, which they imply is kind of silly because the electromagnetic force is 10^42 times stronger than gravity, so you have to set up absolutely impossibly precise electromagnetic confinement apparatus to measure the relatively tiny gravitational force

* So instead, they formed anti-hydrogen (which is neutral), and shot them (10^6 at a time, as my understanding of the text goes?) into a vertical magnetic trap

* They waited for the anti-hydrogen to either "rise up" or "sink down" to the top or bottom walls of the apparatus and measured the frequency of annihilations

* They biased the vertical magnetic field to various values, to see, at what magnetic field bias, the "top" and "bottom" annihilations were exactly 50/50.

* If anti-matter is repulsive, they would expect to need a magnetic field bias that would "help the atoms stay down" to get to the 50/50 "top" and "bottom" rate.

* They measured that they needed a magnetic field bias applied to the anti-hydrogen equivalent to "pushing them up" with 0.75g (+/- 0.25g or so), so anti-matter is attractive. No new physics.

* 10^-13 % chance that anti-matter is repulsive

* Rules out quite a lot of cosmological work that used repulsive antimatter to explain various troublesome cosmology roadblocks (dark energy, etc.)

I'm still convinced that this theory, in a sort of occams razor way, is the most likely to be true.

If SLS was just "a jobs program", then what is the government's motivation for "a jobs program"? It keeps unemployment lower? Is that true though? If the SLS didn't exist, the engineers would just move on...no?

To me, it seems clear that it is just a knowledge preservation program; a way to keep STEM, rocket science and engineering in America, in-house.

I'm currently based in the UK, and lord knows how messed up our manufacturing sector is today because it got all exported to the rest of the world, because the government didn't inveat and ensure that we maintained a sizable manufacturing worker force. US is just doind what every other government is trying to do nowadays - keep valauble (military, industrial, etc.) skills in-house.

There's really no other convenient way to do this. It was awesome to be able to run the tool on a fresh MacOS install, test the effects, make some changes, then do it all over again with little fuss.

Thanks UTM!

My inspiration was winston [0].

Verba has some nice built-in behaviors that I've been missing from anything else in an all-in-one solution:

* TTY functionalities (loading spinners, progress bars, etc.)

* Tables and JSON formatting

* Nesting to provide defaults (e.g. log codes for separate parts of your application)

* Built-in support for dead simple color and formatting of text

* Couple others

What's the worst yet another Node logger could do?

[0] https://www.npmjs.com/package/winston

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37326330

Points: 1

# Comments: 0

I find it oddly reductive, unsubstantiated, and meaningless.

Perhaps I'm not the intended reader :P

[0] http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S...!

E.g.1: Galileo saw Jupiter, not The telescope saw Jupiter.

E.g.2: Joe built the wall, not The crane built the wall.

In this case, AI is the thinker, not a human, hence the phrasing.

A human creating the AI does not remove the attribution either, just as we never say Joe's mother built the wall just because Joe was created by his mother.