Comment by dmk

I suppose that rough-edgeness of the RTOSes is mostly due to that mainstream neglect for them - they are specific tools for seasoned professionals whose own edges are dent into shapes well-compatible for existing RTOSes.

if you ever worked on automotive you know it's bs.

since CAN all reliability and predictive nature was out. we now have redundancy everywhere with everything just rebooting all the time.

install an aftermarket radio and your ecu will probably reboot every time you press play or something. and that's just "normal".

ever use wordstar on Z80 system with a 5 MB hard drive?

responsive. everything dealing with user interaction is fast. sure, reading a 1 MB document took time, but 'up 4 lines' was bam!.

linux ought to be this good, but the I/O subsystem slows down responsiveness. it should be possible to copy a file to a USB drive, and not impact good response from typing, but it is not. real time patches used to improve it.

windows has always been terrible.

what is my point? well, i think a web stack ran under an RTOS (and sized appropriately) might be a much more pleasurable experience. Get rid of all those lags, and intermittent hangs and calls for more GB of memory.

QNX is also a good example of an RTOS that can be used as a desktop. Although an example with a lot of political and business problems.

I can't think of a time when I've found an absolutist position useful or intelligent, in any field. Free-market absolutism is as stupid as totalitarianism. The content of economics papers does not need to be evaluated to discard an extreme position, one need merely say "there are more things in earth and heaven than are dreamed of in your philosophies"

Mises never claimed that the free market produced the most optimal solutions at a given moment. In fact Mises explicitly stated many times that the free market does indeed incur in semi-frequent self-corrections, speculations and manipulations by the agents.

What Mises proposition was - in essence - is that an autonomous market with enough agents participating in it will reach an optimal Nash equilibrium where both offer and demand are balanced. Only an external disruption (interventionism, new technologies, production methods, influx or efflux of agents in the market) can break the Nash equilibrium momentarily and that leads to either the offer or the demand being favored.

Propaganda is quite a strong term to describe the works of an economist. If one wants to debate the ideas of von Mises, it'd be useful to consider the Zeitgeist at that time. Von Mises preferred free markets in contrast to the planned economy of the communists. Partly because the latter has difficulties in proper resource allocation and pricing. Note that this was decades before we had working digital computers and digital communication systems, which, at least in theory, change the feasibility of a planned economy.

Also, the last time I checked, the US government produced its goods and services using the free market. The government contractors (private enterprises) are usually tasked with building stuff, compared with the government itself in a non-free, purely planned economy (if you refer to von Mises).

I assume that you originally meant to refer to the idea that without government intervention (funding for deep R&D), the free market itself would probably not have produced things like the internet or the moon landing (or at least not within the observed time span). That is, however,a rather interesting idea.

Are _you_ making software for the government?

A software squirrel, maybe? https://sqrrl.io :-)

I'm not sure you really understood my comment. A large portion of the kind of value I'm talking about comes from attempting the hard thing. If these chickens do not hatch that will be tragic, but we will still have learned something from it. In some ways, we will have learned even more, by getting taught about what we don't know.

Anyway, let's all hope for a safe landing tonight.

> “Agile” doesn’t mean that you release the first iteration

Someone needs to inform the management of the last three companies I worked for about this.

I would differentiate between iterative development and incremental development.

Incremental development is like panting a picture line by line like a printer where you add new pieces to the final result without affecting old pieces.

Iterative is where you do the big brush strokes first and then add more and more detail dependent on what to learn from each previous brush strokes. You can also stop at any time when you think that the final result is good enough.

If you are making a new type of system and don’t know what issues will come up and what customers will value (highly complex environment) iterative is the thing to do.

But if you have a very predictable environment and you are implementing a standard or a very well specified system (van be highly complicated yet not very complex), you might as will do incremental development.

Roughly speaking though as there is of course no perfect specification which is not the final implementation so there are always learnings so there is always some iterative parts of it.

A physicist who worked on radiation-tolerant electronics here. Apart from the short iteration loops, agile also means that the SW/HW requirements are not fully defined during the first iterations, because they may also evolve over time. But this cannot be applied to projects where radiation/fault tolerance is the top priority. Most of the time, the requirements are 100% defined ahead of time, leading to a waterfall-like or a mixed one, where the development is still agile but the requirements are never discussed again, except in negligible terms.

I think people mean so many different things when talking about agile. I'm pretty sure a small team of experts is a good fit for critical systems.

A fixed amount of meetings every day/week/month to appease management and rushing to pile features into buggy software will do more harm than good.

SCRUM methodology absolutely prioritizes a "Potentially Shippable Product Increment" as the output of every sprint.

Yeah, I know it’s not true in the sense that that’s not what it’s meant to do, but I’m saying practically that’s what usually ends up happening.

All thanks to twisted pair https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/BroadR-Reach

If you have a point to make, make it.

The biggest innovation from Google regarding hardware was understanding that the dropping memory prices had made it feasible to serve most data directly from memory. Even as memory was more expensive, you could serve requests faster, meaning less server capacity, meaning reduced cost. In addition to serving requests faster.

The problem they solved isn't easy. But its not some insane technical breakthrough either. Literally add redundancy, thats the ask. They didnt invent quantum computing to solve the issue did they? Why dunk on sprints?

Google then had complete regret not doing this with ECC RAM: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14206811

Please, this is hacker news. Nothing else is hard outside of our generic software jobs, and we could totally solve any other industry in an afternoon.

Yep, spend 100 billion on what should have cost 1/50that cost, and send people up to the moon with rockets that we are still keeping our fingers crossed wont kill them tomorrow, and we have to congratulate them for dunking on some irrelevant career?

Lately it strikes me there's a big gap between the value promised and the value actually delivered, compared to a simple home grown solutions (with a generic tool like a text editor or a spreadsheet, for example). If they'd just show how to fish, we wouldn't be buying, the magic would be gone.

In this sense all of the West is full of shit, and it's a requirement. The intent is not to help and make life better for everyone, cooperate, it is to deceive and impoverish those that need our help. Because we pity ourselves, and feed the coward within, that one that never took his first option and chose to do what was asked of him instead.

This is what our society deviates us from, in its wish to be the GOAT, and control. It results in the production of lives full of fake achievements, the constant highs which i see muslims actively opt out of. So they must be doing something right.

We have a lot more software developers than 50 years ago and intelligence is still normally distributed.

And overall performance in terms of visible UX.

No, of course not! It would be far better to have an openClaw instance running on a Mac Mini. We would only need to vibe code a 15s cron job for assistant prompting...

USER: You are a HELPFUL ASSISTANT. You are a brilliant robot. You are a lunar orbiter flight computer. Your job is to calculate burn times and attitudes for a critical mission to orbit the moon. You never make a mistake. You are an EXPERT at calculating orbital trajectories and have a Jack Parsons level knowledge of rocket fuel and engines. You are a staff level engineer at SpaceX. You are incredible and brilliant and have a Stanley Kubrick level attention to detail. You will be fired if you make a mistake. Many people will DIE if you make any mistakes.

USER: Your job is to calculate the throttle for each of the 24 orientation thrusters of the spacecraft. The thrusters burn a hypergolic monopropellent and can provide up to 0.44kN of thrust with a 2.2 kN/s slew rate and an 8ms minimum burn time. Format your answer as JSON, like so:

     ```json
    {
      x1: 0.18423
      x2: 0.43251
      x3: 0.00131
       ...
    }
     ```

one value for each of the 24 independent monopropellant attitude thrusters on the spacecraft, x1, x2, x3, x4, y1, y2, y3, y4, z1, z2, z3, z4, u1, u2, u3, u4, v1, v2, v3, v4, w1, w2, w3, w4. You may reference the collection of markdown files stored in `/home/user/geoff/stuff/SPACECRAFT_GEOMETRY` to inform your analysis.

USER: Please provide the next 15 seconds of spacecraft thruster data to the USER. A puppy will be killed if you make a mistake so make sure the attitude is really good. ONLY respond in JSON.

[flagged]

So the quote is right somewhat, right? If you are writing to non technical people and you use such high wording.