See, you are probably right about that new hire. But the way you say things here, you do come across (at least to me) as "that guy". You know? "That guy" that says "we've always done it this way and that is why it's good and why we still do it that way".
What happened to "never change a running system" is that if the system is barely running at all, you better do change that system.
If I'm the new guy and you tell me how to do things and those things seem bad and there's no explanation for why they need to be that way, I'll also ignore you, coz I know how I want to do things and how things can be done better. Don't tell me to do things X way. Many roads lead to Rome and some are better than others. See my other reply. At my very first job I was also told how things work and how to do things. But things sucked and so I made them better anyhow.
Now, in the other part of the thread you also did mention how they just sent you error logs without reading and thinking about them themselves and such. That definitely is a red flag and the kind of thing that will make me fail someone's probation period. Definitely. But just because someone doesn't think that "the way we've always done things" is a good reason to keep doing something bonkers is where I'm no longer with you. And again, probably just your wording/what you disclose in various parts of these threads but it explains why "we concentrate on certain things only" ;)
> "That guy" that says "we've always done it this way
I most definitely am not, and constantly push back for changing processes, and do make changes when I am allowed, even when it's not budgeted for or even officially allowed, because we have legacy systems that need to be maintained and some things are truly outdated and need some love. In fact, as a new hire in another life, I used to get scolded for changing _too much_ because I like to constantly improve things. The problem is, in order to ship code at our company and within our budget constraints, you don't have time to constantly refactor, unfortunately.
> is that if the system is barely running at all
Our system is and has been running just fine for many years, thank you very much :)
> there's no explanation for why they need to be that way
There is an explanation: There is no shell script because there is no root for all the repos, and some repos are shared across multiple projects.
I hate reiterating this yet again but is it really that hard to copy/paste a couple git commands? The readme is quite short, and once you've done it one time, it's fairly easy and straightforward to understand.
See, I would probably have been the guy that ignores the dest part. On purpose. Just to see whether this pile of poo shits itself and how much.
I would also recognize what happened when I see the error messages though and then silent quit until I've been with you guys for long enough my resume doesn't take a hit just because your interview process duped me into starting at your place.
Yes this sounds harsh. I know. Nothing against you personally. But I've been at too many such places. One can do things better.
haha I would totally empathize with you. But see, you would realize immediately that it doesn't work and why, but you are smart enough to realize it and would just rename the folder (as mentioned in the readme as the very first thing to do), hit build and voila, everything works as expected, instead of sending me log files, letting me debug your errors, ignoring my repeated instructions, waste my time helping you debug, back and forth until finally you just rename and move on. I had to say it 4x before it finally stuck. This guy seemingly wanted to get an initial build done so he could move on to actually fixing bugs. Maybe it's intentional to waste everyone's time so that he can book hours in the system and get paid for futzing around? :shrug:
and btw the system doesn't shit itself that much: the compiler errors are fairly straight-forward: this folder doesn't exist.
Of course everyone can always do better, but it's a legacy inherited system, and works fine, as long as things are named correctly. The readme is actually very short - literally the git commands are there to copy/paste and will create the correct directory names. There are plenty of other things to get hung up on, but naming folders correctly should IMO not be one of them.
Hehehe, definitely been there and dealt with that guy that I definitely didn't let pass his probation period. I see we do understand each other.
And I might not silent quit right away and try to actually improve things and see how it goes/how you "let me".
This does actually remind me of my very first job actually. It's been many, many, many years now. I found a stinking pile of disparate shell and perl scripts that made up the "backend" of the application I was hired into working on. Grown histerically for almost 15 years prior to me being hired fresh out of university. I started extracting common library code out of every single one of these every time that I was tasked with adjusting one of those scripts. I introduced a proper deployment from source control to production the second time I "broke" something, because someone had previously fixed a bug directly in production and forgot to check the fix into source control (and no, I didn't believe that it was not the guy that was working on the project w/ me for one second after seeing how they coded and how they defended everything that was bad about that pile of poo and how "it's too complicated to do X".
Well guess what, this new grad did all of that anyway. Without AI and without IDE refactoring support (I mentioned Perl and shell scripts, did I?) and without a single QA person in sight. And yes, every single one of the readers here very probably has bought a product that was "touched" by that software, without knowing, since it was an in-house administration tool.
Matrox Mystique was a combination 2D/3D consumer card, which at the time, was still something that mattered. Sure a Voodoo addon card mattered more, very soon, but then quickly things shifted back to combination 2D/3D card with Nvidia!
Also, how is a "first $2000 consumer card" something that "matters"? That's precisely the kind of thing that doesn't matter. My entire laptop cost less than that and I play games with it. What matters much more is that I can play quite a bunch of games that are even pretty recent with a laptop that cost less than that, all with an integrated graphics chip from a company that is precisely known for having abysmal 3D performance: Intel (I have an Iris Xe)
Haven't done it in a while, but I've done some tasks with both Codex and Claude to compare. In all cases I asked both to put their analysis and plans for implementation into a .md file. Then I asked the other agent to analyze said file for comparison.
In general, Claude was impressed by what Codex produced and noted the parts where it (i.e. Claude) had missed something vs. Codex "thinking of it".
From a "daily driver" perspective I still use Claude all the time as it has plan mode, which means I can guarantee that it won't break out and just do stuff without me wanting it to. With Codex I have to always specify "Don't implement/change, just tell me" and even then it sometimes "breaks out" and just does stuff. Not usually when I start out and just ask it to plan. But after we've started implementation and I review, a simple question of "Why did you do X?" will turn into a huge refactoring instead of just answering my question.
To be fair, that's what most devs do too (at least at first), when you ask them "Why did you do X" questions. They just assume that you are trying to formulate a "Do Y instead of X" as a question, when really you just don't understand their reasoning but there really might be a good reason for doing X. But I guess LLMs aren't sure of themselves, so any questioning of their reasoning obliterates their ego and just turns them into submissive code monkeys (or rather: exposes them as such) vs. being software engineers that do things for actual reasons (whether you agree with them or not).
Hah! Funny how everyone here seems to be thinking the same: They said something about "finally 4k moon rocket images" and the stuff we got in the news was like blurry 800x600 type with lots of JPEG artifacts and such.
Even the smallest resolution images I see in the link that the parent edited into their comment have better quality than what news outlets posted.
I want TIFFs that takes ages to download and I need to scroll around in/zoom out on!
They will be posted when they get them. Right now, NASA doesn't have them because they're still on the SD cards in the capsule (probably been copied to their PCDs too). There's not a lot of bandwidth to be pushing large RAW files. They have to share the bandwidth with all of the telemetry and comms. They sent some small files down just to make some PR announcements and tease what will be coming.
It is operating only when it can be pointed towards Earth, while also avoiding the Sun, which did not happen during the flyby.
The laser is on one side of Orion, and when that side is not oriented towards Earth for various reasons, the optical communications cannot be used.
For continuous communications, at least when there is no interposed body, like the Moon, multiple lasers located around Orion would be needed to ensure coverage. When by the far side of the Moon, a relay orbiting around the Moon would be needed.
Doesn't that require line of sight with limited receivers available? Maybe the current positioning is preventing it until the constellation changes. With the constellation that is the craft in respect to the two ground stations in a narrow patch of the US. I could not find anything about throughput rates except for the theoretical maximum but I also suspect that max is only in LEO.
i heard mention of 100 megabit. they downloaded 50GB of data the night after the flyby. they probably keep downloading as much as they can. and they still need to sift through all that to find the pictures worth publishing. they could do a data dump, but that's not interesting for the general public. the stuff is coming. slowly.
"sammeln" can have multiple translations. "Collect" would be more like "einsammeln". In the context of "Pilze sammeln", you'd use "forage". You forage for food.
namely your high cost weapons take out air defense capability, so you can stop using them and use cheaper more numerous systems to hit the now undefended targets.
That makes no sense to me. Why would I spend millions times, dunno how many do you need for a guaranteed kill for an S-400, if you could spend hundreds of thousands on cheaper ways to kill the same S-400, while the S-400 still defends itself with millions worth of its own missiles?
That's precisely what Ukraine was/is doing and has developed. The West provided lots of military support, including the US of course, but way not enough as we can see now play out in even the US itself vs. Iran. They developed cheap drones that can shoot down cheaper Shaheds. Shaheds that are way too cheap to use regular interceptors for. But even cheaper drones tip the scales back.
Why would I want to waste Tomahawks 1:1 vs. S-400 interceptors, if I can kill it with a much cheaper drone swarm?
Not saying those precise conditions/weapons exist today. I have no idea. But if they did, why would I still waste my high cost weapons.
Agreed. Start with the low cost munitions in a zergling rush. Maybe it gets through, maybe it does not, but the defenders will still have to expend their interceptors. Only if the low cost stuff proves ineffective, follow-on with the better equipment.
Because your low cost weapons will be intercepted by their low cost weapons.
The enemy gets a say in your plans, and is much more likely to have low cost weapons available then high cost ones.
The interceptor for a SHAHED is a quadcopter which doesn't need to fly as far or carry as much payload. Anyone can build this.
The interceptor for an Iskander ballistic missile is a Patriot interceptor: literally nothing else can successfully stop it reliably. Only the US can build this.
If your attacking systems are cheap, then the enemy can field just as many: Russia has a lot of drones in Ukraine now too, they were just playing catch up.
"The next war" won't have surprise drones as a problem, it'll have highly developed and optimized drone and counter drone systems.
Not quite the scenario from my parent. They said "high cost weapons taking out air defenses". Whatever the US equivalent of an Iskander would be (I used a Tomahawk as an example), the S-400 (i.e. Patriot "equivalent") would be used to defend against it at first/in his scenario.
If you want to turn it around, sure. Let's see how you'd want to take out a Patriot: high cost weapons, like an Iskander might try it? Costs about as much as a Tomahawk? Would need multiple ones, because the Patriot would defend itself against even multiple ones? But the Patriots cost as much and you want multiple interceptors for each Iskander sent its way?
What if I could send, for less money/resources, a drone swarm that also takes out the Patriot or at least expends more money/resources in interceptors shot from it, than I had to spend on the drone swarm?
I totally agree, it's "just a race". If I build an offensive drone swarm for $x, which is less than your high cost interceptors, you better build an "anti drone whatever thingie" (which might be anti-drone drone swarms) that's even cheaper.
But, thanks, essentially you're agreeing with me: Don't use your high cost stuff to take out SAMs and then use cheap drones. Instead, use cheaper stuff to swarm it out of existence. Just gotta be faster at being cheaper. Doesn't matter if you're the attacker or defender.
"what if I just had a better system with no downsides or logistical costs that was also cheaper".
In reality: Ukraine reliably downs Shaheds using a mix of low cost technologies.
They mostly can't defend against ballistic missiles without high cost interceptors.
The Shaheds could do a lot of damage to the Patriot site if they could hit it...but they never get anywhere near it. That's the point: your low cost system does not have the capability to threaten the high cost one.
And in all this you've forgotten that attacking the SAM site is only being done to enable other operational objectives. The Patriot battery is defending targets many times it's value, including the logistics and launch sites of all those low cost defensive systems - or the logistics and launch sites of your own low cost offensive systems.
To the article: the Tomahawk missile costs about $2 million per shot. Assuming this article is true, the missile in question gives you maybe a 20:1 cost advantage...but can it do the same mission? Does it have the same range, or targeting, or precision? If you cannot fire these from the same range as a tomahawk, or they don't realiably hit targets, then they can be substantially worse for a much higher logistics cost to deploy (perhaps total: the truck blowing up because you had to drive it to the front line is rather a problem).
This so much. As a user, especially a private user, I want my apps I can install and run locally, no internet connection, nobody forces updates on me for an app that does exactly what I need and I'm used to it.
As a developer, SaaS all the way. I really really love not having to deal with versions, release branches galore, hotfixes on different releases and all that jazz. I'm so glad I could leave that behind and we have a single Cloud "version" i.e. whatever the latest commit on the main branch is. Sure we might be a few commits behind head in what's actually currently deployed to all the production envs but that's so much more manageable than thousands upon thousands of customers on different versions and with direct control over your database. We also have a non-SaaS version we still support and I'm so glad I don't have to deal with it any longer and someone else does. Very bad memories of customers telling you they didn't do something and when you get the logs/database excerpt (finally, after spending way too much times debugging and talking to them already) you can clearly see that they did fudge with the database ...
I'm normally firmly against piracy, because I believe it to be morally equivalent to theft and I want to fund the artists making stuff I enjoy. But if Valve shreds my purchases when Gabe dies or retires, I will hoist the black flag on those games and not feel an ounce of guilt. As the saying says: if buying isn't owning, then piracy isn't stealing.
But we'll see. I hope it doesn't come to that. That said, I'm trying to change my purchase habits over to GOG because even if Gabe's successor doesn't screw over the Steam customers, eventually someone will. With GOG there's no possibility of the games I pay for being taken away from me.
They have shown its a wildly successful model. They would be very crazy if they changed it, and it would make them vulnerable to Epic and the Windows store. It's more likely that your OS/ hardware will change in a way that isn't supported by an old game.
Unfortunately, "this is a wildly successful model that prints money for us with almost no upkeep required" has historically not been a bulletproof argument when new management comes in and wants to prove themselves. Human beings are not necessarily rational and the kinds of people that tend to rise to the top of large corporations don't necessarily have the best interests of customers or the business itself in mind.
That being said, I believe that Gabe is taking his "succession planning" seriously, so I'd be fairly optimistic for the next decade at least.
One thing to keep in mind is that Valve is fully private so Gabe can not just be replaced by some random person by a board of directors like in other companies.
He probably already has a will set up that details how ownership should be transferred.
It is, but I'm not sure why that's relevant? xdertz's point wasn't, "Valve is private and therefore it engages in ethical consumer practices"; the point was "Valve engages in relatively ethical practices and because it's private, the board can't replace Gabe with a CEO who would engage in more unethical practices".
Not sure if this is relevant, but I have read reports[1] that Tencent currently holds a 28% stake in Epic Games. So private, but with unknown levels of ownership.
That was literally the first thing I thought reading from OP comment down to your parent.
Then I thought: Sure but management made the devs promise these things. We don't do it of our own volition (exceptions prove the rule - some people are conditioned to do it of course).
What happened to "never change a running system" is that if the system is barely running at all, you better do change that system.
If I'm the new guy and you tell me how to do things and those things seem bad and there's no explanation for why they need to be that way, I'll also ignore you, coz I know how I want to do things and how things can be done better. Don't tell me to do things X way. Many roads lead to Rome and some are better than others. See my other reply. At my very first job I was also told how things work and how to do things. But things sucked and so I made them better anyhow.
Now, in the other part of the thread you also did mention how they just sent you error logs without reading and thinking about them themselves and such. That definitely is a red flag and the kind of thing that will make me fail someone's probation period. Definitely. But just because someone doesn't think that "the way we've always done things" is a good reason to keep doing something bonkers is where I'm no longer with you. And again, probably just your wording/what you disclose in various parts of these threads but it explains why "we concentrate on certain things only" ;)
reply