I couldn't disagree more with this description of why technical debt exists and it's a dangerous line of reasoning. Sure, maybe requirements weren't clarified. But often it's impossible to clarify them and you have to build something and even if the requirements were clear to begin with who is to say they'll still be the same by the time you've finished the project let alone 5 years later. Maybe the develop chose a stable and dependable technology because it's battle worn and proven? Maybe the sales person has to manage an impossible situation between an engineering team which can't commit to the time line needed to win the sale?
There are lots of good reasons tech debt exists, and it's worrying that this person seems to think that they all boil down to "I don't know how but someone, somewhere, fucked up"
As someone else mentioned here: not all technical debt is created equal. I agree, sometimes the problem are changing requirements, etc. But it is also true that there is technical debt caused by developers who don't take the time to properly design features and will simply implement the first thing that came to their minds. I agree with the author, this kind of technical debt is caused by a mediocre attitude which often propagates to all the team if there is no one that calls it out.
The more interesting discussion to me is: how do you solve this problem once it exists in a team? I guess there are many approaches, but I tend to think that 'lead by the example' is the best you can do as an engineer, but a top-down approach might work better which is what happened at Microsoft when Satya Nadella became CEO.
It's worse, they seem to think tech debt is just a "state of mind", a "personality defect":
> The code was calcified because the developers were also. Personality types who dislike change tend not to design their code with future change in mind.
This line of thinking (we will make it with future change in mind!) is of course exactly the bullshit that is tech debt in the first place.
The definition of technical debt is the compromises you intentionally make (generally to ship something thus not going bankrupt). Thus by definition nobody made a mistake: this was an intentional decision that was believed correct at the time. You will pay a cost later for the decision, but it is rarely a mistake to make those compromises.
I think these sorts of criticisms boil down to "Why didn't you make a different movie". She's wondering how much he cares about uplifting marginalized voices. That's not what the movie is about! It's just not, there's a very clear idea he's exploring in the movie and it is not that. You could examine those topics. But you're basically just saying "Go make a different movie about my personal interests". Well how about you go make that movie.
I don't see how you could watch that movie and think that the film maker is endorsing the way that character is treated. It's fairly obvious that those stereotypes and "her" treatment is a direct indictment of the main character. I'm not sure I can help if you don't see that.
I think one of the underdiscussed things is how in the last couple of decades industries like car manufacturing have become steadily more state controlled.
Today, to be a successful car company you need to be producing cars whose safety features are incredibly tightly regulated by government bodies to the point of doing actively user hostile things (try and get a new car in the UK that won't actively beep at you for going faster than it thinks you should drive).
You need to be producing them at government mandated price levels (cars listed for more than £40k pay an additional £2.5 tax, except electric vehicles for whom the tax only kicks in at £50).
You need to be using a propulsion method approved by government, not only the Euro 6 emissions standards, but also the labyrinthine Benefit in Kind regulations that accidentally gave every small business owner massive incentives to buy a Porsche Taycan.
Oh and on top of that the UK government runs a charity that purchases 20% of all the new cars sold in the UK each year (with that number climbing to 50% in Northern Ireland).
What makes it worse is that governments are doing this somewhat unintentionally.
The US CAFE standards that effectively push large turbocharged vehicles were never intended to do so, the UK salary sacrifice rules were never intended to push PHEV range rovers, and the European emissions rules were never intended to be so harsh on Toyota hybrids.
> All new motor vehicles, including cars, vans, trucks, and buses now need to integrate intelligent speed assistance solutions, cameras, or sensors for reversing detection, attention warnings in case of driver drowsiness, as well as emergency stop signals. In addition, cars and vans should now be equipped with lane keeping and automated braking systems and event data recorders. To prevent bus or truck collisions with pedestrians or cyclists, these vehicles now require technologies for better recognising possible blind spots and integrate warning systems, as well as have specific tyre pressure monitoring systems.
You've just been presented evidence that your law makers are doing something immoral, something that should be illegal, and your idea is to pay them more. Do you also advocate putting a little pot of cash at the front of every walmart so the shop lifters can just take the cash and pay for the stuff they were going to steal?
> Do you also advocate putting a little pot of cash ...
Yes, obviously I would support that /s
The idea of increasing pay for members of Congress is that we naturally discourage seeking out other forms of building wealth and/or paying bills while in office regardless of existing laws. You can also have laws that explicitly stop things like insider trading too, but obviously you can't solve for every scenario so this would be a blanket solution.
I understand that corruption can't be solved by this one action and that members can still be corrupt after a pay increase, but on the whole, I think it'd be a positive change. It's a hard problem to solve without burning everything down... which only sounds good in theory and may not result in a better system.
So the video starts by introducing an isochrone map, and then goes on to do a lot of work to do with warping based on spring between points. This is actually doing something subtly different than the original idea. The original isochrone has an important constraint, it is drawing the circles based on travel time to a single point. This is important because there is 1 solution to that. You can't generalize that because point B could be 5 minutes from points A and C, but A could be 3 minutes from point C. He gets around this by quantizing - the spring trick, but it does mean the map is meaningfully wrong. Cool looking maps though.
It is. The problem is latency. All these fields are moving very fast, and so it doesn't sound bad spending 6 months tuning something, but in reality what is happening is that during those 6 months the guy who built the thing you're tuning has iterated 5 more times and what you started on 6 months ago is now much much better than what you got handed 6 months ago whilst simultaneously being much worse than what that person has in their hands today. If the field you're working in is relatively static, or your performance gap is large enough it makes sense. But in most fields the performance gap is large in absolutely terms but small in temporal terms. You could make something run 10x faster, but you can't build something that will run faster than what will be state of the art in 2 months.
If I don't want my child doing something, it's up to me to enforce that. I don't want my kid eating snacks before dinner, have I called upon the UK government to shut down the biscuit aisle at Tesco from 3pm-5pm?
The core of this issue is a kind of backwards notion that the internet needs to be a safe place, that the UK government says it can legislate that everyone on the internet has to verify who is accessing their site and then enforcing the UK's laws around it. It's nuts.
It's also not solving a problem. If you want to control what your kid sees on the internet there are already safeguards you can use, you can set up content restrictions on basically any device today. This law appears to be in place to be the mummy of children whose own mummies don't want to enforce certain restrictions on internet access.
I hear next month the M25 is going to be prosecuted for letting a child walk down the hard shoulder.
>Who are you going to trust, these Washington insiders, “people who matter”, or an actual hacker like myself?
To be honest, with the contents of the post, probably neither. It's fine if you want to point at different sources and go "ooooh WEF" and make scare quotes with your hands, but that's not actually evidence it's just a description of your existing bias.
Frankly, the overstating of the threat in the original article is frankly about as bad as the overstating of the article being bogus. The feds shut down some sim farm. Is is a massive national security threat? Probably no, that's a bit of an overstatement. The NYTimes ran a clickbaity article, is it bogus? Probably no, that's a bit of an overstatement.
I don't understand why people like this get so wound up by the way places like the NYTimes write up articles. This is the way journalism is written, you don't write articles that say "X happened, but it's probably fine!". You write "X happened, and it could have Y impact!". People are smart enough to read the article and understand, we don't need you making baseless accusations about their sourcing.
I believe we're making very similar points in essence - see my other reply.
Personally, I'd say that foreign security services having some involvement in this is slightly more plausible. If nothing else, just because some are basically nation-wide gang states, which very well could be doing this just for monetary reasons. Seems a bit more likely, not much, than a fed agency trying to do something (unclear what the author claim is about the point of the lie - "hype it up", I guess), concluding that lying about what they know in a case is a good way to do it, and choosing this case and this particular lie.
Tesla said the data recorded during the crash had been lost or deleted. The hacker produced the data. The data was used in court. The verification is the data. What's your suggestion? That they fabricated the data recovered from the car?
I'm saying we do not have any way to verify the details.
Where is the court document?
Isn't this a forensics expert that testified in court? Why aren't they named? Wouldn't most forensics "hackers" be elated to be quoted?
From the article:
> The hacker, known online by his X handle @greentheonly, did not testify in the case.
It seems like a strange grey zone to have a hacker that uncovers all the information but will not testify in court, etc. I don't see how this wouldn't introduce chain of custody problems, etc. for the evidence which is why he would ultimately be testifying. Perplexing.
EDIT - Meh, whatever. If you guys want to read articles that have zero proof and believe whatever they say because some anonymous hacker is quoted, etc. go for it. I don't get paid to educate anyone here.
Not just such a guy exists. The business model of these games almost totally rely on these people to be profitable. When you spend any time thinking about this at all it's totally unethical. It would be trivial for them to put a simple spend cap in. Sorry, no matter how into this game you are you can't spend more than $1,000 in a year, or $100 in a day. That would make them tonnes of money and prevent most people making life changing mistakes. But they don't do that because their entire business plan relies on getting hundreds of thousands out of these players.
There are lots of good reasons tech debt exists, and it's worrying that this person seems to think that they all boil down to "I don't know how but someone, somewhere, fucked up"
reply