Concorde holds the world record in both directions actually.
F-BTSD did it:
- westbound in 32 hours 49 minutes and 3 seconds on 12/13 October 1992, LIS-SDQ-ACA-HNL-GUM-BKK-BAH-LIS (Lisbon, Saint-Domingue, Acapulco, Honolulu, Guam, Bangkok, Bahrein, Lisbon)
- astbound in 31 hours 27 minutes and 49 seconds on 15/16 August 1995, JFK-TLS-DXB-BKK-GUM-HNL-ACA-JFK (New York, Toulouse, Dubai, Bangkok, Guam, Honolulu, Acapulco, New York)
HTC Vive as a SteamVR/PC hardware device. Possibly the name will live on as something else, but it's probably not going to be the same category as the current product
OP acknowledges that it can "create". It can create "endless waffle, drivel, pointless rambling, and hallucinations". So if you're in the business of that, AI can replace you ;)
In my org, seniors spend a lot less time building things: writing components, etc. They do spend a lot of time navigating office politics. But they are engineering specific office politics: how does system A interact with system B? What are the architectural implications? Ownership of long term data and technical and business strategies?
The "art" of negotiation can be ass-kissing but quite often genuinely with the goal to advance the projects they own and the enablement of the "people who actually build things", which at some point also involves the seniors. You need to build raport and relationships to negotiate seriously.
I do think it's a bad thing, but not for the reason you think.
Promotion is an inherently political process. "Impact" is really short for "impact on the business leaders' opinion of me".
I think it's a bad thing when a promotion process that is political, pretends to not be political by dressing itself up with flowery language. What it leads to is engineers burning themselves out trying to deliver real value, then getting passed up because they didn't make the right appeals to the shadow council.
If we all know the process is political then we should at least work toward transparency, so that people know that it's not enough to work hard and deliver results, you also have to advertise and network yourself.
In the orgs that I have worked in, there were very few developers who could actually handle coding complex features and applications. The people navigating the office politics are important, but let's not pretend they are actually capable of pulling off the work. They can understand that "system A interacts with system B" at a high conceptual level, but are not capable of digging down at the detailed level necessary to make it happen.
My current org is the opposite. Loads of Very Smart Developers all building supposedly brilliant stuff in isolation for their fiefdom without any regard for how it fits into the bigger picture.
I'm not the one you responded to, but I definitely feel like it's not necessarily a "good" thing or a "bad" thing. Having a senior be more involved in writing some functionality should mean more maintainable code with more complex issues factored in to the solutions, which should mean better predictability when it comes to planning new work.
At the same time, having seniors involved in more abstract discussions before implementation should also lead to better end results. That being said, having my engineers be involved in "ass-kissing" as you put it is honestly not a good use of their time. Leave office politics to engineering managers and project managers, in my opinion.
Writing code is easy when you have a spec to work to. It more or less writes itself - see <30second submissions to Advent of Code last month (likely AI - but it doesn’t matter how it was written for this point; just that it was written and solved the spec).
Getting that spec is damned hard.
What do i mean by spec? Basically are you going to build the right thing. A hard problem - if you think it’s easy, it more than likely means you didn’t understand the problem.
The reason pinning down a spec is so hard is because at the macro level, there are very few actual solutions - mostly only trade-offs are available to work with.
Sorry, I think that's delusional and if anything maybe only applicable to the very narrow and simple problem space. Nobody writes out the "spec" for the next best inference engine or the next best distributed database.
The senior needs to figure out that the next best inference engine or the next best distributed database are what needs to be built in the first place (or beating about the bush as you said). That’s hard. Lots of conflict to be explored.
Once it’s been captured what needs to be done (spec) enabling the rest of the team (execute) is comparatively easy.
Fail to spec, and the team can’t execute. They don’t know what needs to be built.
> Writing code is easy when you have a spec to work to. It more or less writes itself - see <30second submissions to Advent of Code last month (likely AI - but it doesn’t matter how it was written for this point; just that it was written and solved the spec).
I'm sorry, but it's hard to take your comment seriously when your definition of "spec" is AoC puzzle.
The context of this conversation is the actions of a senior developer. If the senior developer allows someone else to write the plan in isolation (thus allowing a completely useless plan to be devised), then they’re by definition of the senior role, not a senior developer, right?
Part of the reason why Crowdstrike have access, why MS wasn't allowed to shut them out with Vista was a regulatory decision, one where they argued that somebody needs to do the job of keeping Windows secure in a way that biased Microsoft can't.
So, I guess you could have some sort of escrow third party that isn't Crowdstrike or MS to do this "audit"?
MS could have provided security hooks similar to BPF in Linux, and similar mechanisms with Apple, rather than having Crowdstrike run arbitrary buggy code at the highest privilege level.
They could have, however the timeline the regulators gave Microsoft to comply was incompatible with the amount of work required to build such system. With a legal deadline hanging over their heads Microsoft chose to hand over the keys to their existing tools.
^ This statement cannot be accepted without proof. It sounds outlandish and weird. Which regulator? Under what authority. Also Microsoft doesn’t listen to ANYBODY.
I've seen this stated before, but I haven't been able to find reliable data on when regulators required Microsoft to provide the access that they provided, or whether there's been time to provide a more secure approach. Do you know?
Replied in another comment, but I’m aware of the regulation that made msft give access. To my knowledge though, there’s nothing in the regulation that stops them from saying “you have to pass xyz (reasonable) tests before we allow you to distribute kernel level software to millions of people”
So updating the rules is not the same as updating the software? Who says this is different here? How do you define the difference between a "tax rule" and business logic?
The changes go beyond tax band thresholds and percentages across NIC & IT. Eg the (now-scrapped) Health & Social Care Levy would've been a completely new tax - you need a complex schema to encode that and even then the Treasury will come up with something you haven't thought of next.
Arlanda is my favorite major-city airport. I'm not as well-traveled as many, but I've been to dozens and it's my favorite. I've transited between Stockholm, Norrtalje, and the airport in bus, tax, and train, with each being the easiest experience I've had with that respective form of transit.
Zurich Airport was much better for me, a few minutes to Zurich by train and they go every few minutes and tickets are cheap since those are the commuter trains. No need to plan, just go to the train station and hop on the first train and you are there in less than 10 minutes.
It really blew my mind when I first visited, I never thought getting to a major international airport could be that convenient. Swiss transit is so well designed.
That's not true. "strictly necessary cookies" are allowed without consent (but information on their use must be available).
Examples for what that means given by the EU itself [1] include "cookies that allow web shops to hold your items in your cart while you are shopping".
And on the policing - there are a lot of laws that cannot be "policed". It requires trust, goodwill, collaboration and savy users to report violations to the webmaster or relevant ICO.
Airbnb's Lottie has a Web Player now I think? Make your animation in AE or Figma, export to "Lottie JSON" with players in JS, Swift, Kotlin & React Native.
