phugoid's comments

HN is a spark plug that caused various forward motions and explosions in my life.

I learned about open source and Linux; in time that went from a new hobby to a change of direction in my career.

I learned about startups, and figured I should try since I'm also a genius who can build a great product. It took quite a bit of money and time lost to convince me otherwise.

I found out about the online CS Masters program at Georgia Tech and did that a few years ago, this led to moving countries and getting a job doing AI.

Maybe we read different articles, but "Build an initial product" is what he said to do _after_ the hypothesis testing.

Even with a pretty good model, if you introduce new failures that were not anticipated/tested, there's a risk that the system will not behave as per the aircraft. Now you're giving "negative training" to your pilots, maybe worse than no training at all.

Also, imagine you're an airline with thousands of pilots and dozens of instructors: you're running an airline and a school at the same time. You need to build a curriculum of training and testing that will standardize your pilots. There's room for thinking outside the box but not too much.

> Do simulators have the same hardware as real planes, or do they have a software model of the airplane?

If you're looking at the highest fidelity level D simulators, the instruments and controls in the cockpit are either the same parts as the aircraft, or functionally identical (but cheaper).

> If you simulated a broken AoA sensor, would the simulated plane behave similar to the real plane? Would the MCAS system have the same bugs in the simulator as in the one in the real aircraft?

One of the big costs in building a simulator is buying the data package from the aircraft manufacturer, with the aero model and details of system internals, things like electrical and hydraulic schematics. Sim makers build a software model of these internals at a pretty low level. For the most part, if you introduce a fault in some part of the system it will behave the right way as an emerging property, not because you're forcing the system to have the right outputs.

Some software components from the aircraft get installed on the simulator with the same hardware platform from the aircraft, others get run as executables on the simulator's computers, and others get re-implemented from scratch (lots of FORTRAN and C).

That kind of detail comes into play when the instructors introduce multiple failures at the same time - pilots have to take corrective actions to make the faults go away or manage them - if you don't model the systems at a pretty low level you'll never high fidelity.

> Can you try new scenarios in a simulator, or can you just try scenarios that the simulator was designed to run?

There is a list of malfunctions available to the instructor, who runs the session from the back of the "cockpit" on touch panels. For the most part, these malfunctions cover failures that are anticipated by the aircraft manufacturers, and the corrective actions / system behavior are well understood. Each fault is tested to make sure it works properly. You don't go and fail some random component in the system.

When an important failure happens in the real aircraft, it might get added as a training scenario to simulators already in operation.

A good book can immerse you in someone else's way of thinking, in their world. I think the time it takes to read is an essential part of that process, in the same way that watching a two-hour movie can move you more than the 20 second preview that gives it all away.

For example, I ran across this gem recently:

"In the same way as people who've been to a concert carry about with them the melody and haunting quality of pieces they've just heard, interfering with their thinking and preventing them from concentrating on anything serious, so the talk of snobs and parasites sticks in our ears long after we've heard it. And it's far from easy to eradicate these haunting notes from the memory; they stay with us, lasting on and on, coming back to us every so often."

I would never connect those two ideas. It's beautiful. The writer is Seneca, a Roman who was born around the time of Christ. He was idealistic yet street-smart, lofty though sometimes petty, and very opinionated. I enjoyed walking a mile in his sandals.

The author seems very pleased to experience the power gradient of being surrounded by hungry students looking to join the club.

"You’ve got a lot of learning to do - minimum nine months - before you even get to working with me."

Such an unpleasant disposition. People who demand humility of others could use a bit of more of it.

Definitely not a degree mill. Have a look a their well-established OMSCS program, which offers an MSc in Computer Science. This is an offshoot of it.

Getting in to their OMSCS program is far from guaranteed - they have lots of older applicants and they evaluate each on its own merits.

Right now, I am taking the equivalent course to yours in an online CS masters program.

The best thing they've done is structure the entire course around building a web database app. They provide a real-world description of what's needed, and break it down into big chunks that are synchronized to the content of the course's three exams. This gives a clear over-arching goal to the class. For people who have never build web db apps, they will really feel like they've accomplished something by the end.

Probably an impossible-to-find asset. Such a collaborative effort is likely to attract the most vocal and opinionated people, many of whom do not have children of their own. I am simply extrapolating from the median author of the parenting books I've read (and thrown away afterwards).

You may find that successful parents who balance two or more kids with full-time jobs and some measure of sanity will not have the interest or energy to put into such a project. The more enlightened among them may also hold their tongues, having realized that what works for their kids is not universal.

If OP lives in a city, it shouldn't be hard to find a sharp college kid who will tutor.

I force myself to read a book about it, from cover to cover; then I start using it. That gives me a helicopter survey of what the language looks like and its main ideas.

Of course I forget all the details, that's what books are for. It does seems more effective than just trying to map what I know from other languages into the new one.

I was in a similar situation for years, and alcohol was the lesser of my intake problems. I was drinking mostly to stave off boredom; let's call it being comfortably numb.

What eventually helped was getting serious about playing music - practicing every night. I can't practice if I drink. I was excited enough about music that gave me an escape from boredom.

A few years later, I decided to start a part-time online Masters degree, and I'm excited enough about that to keep me from of boredom's abyss. It also fills most of my spare time.

I guess I replaced drinking with something that addressed some/most of the underlying cause. Also important to package the change as something positive; _start_ a degree is more motivating than _stop_ drinking.

From the article:

> He isn’t a bad worker, but the relationship between the leadership style and his work style are clashing.

If refusing to take orders doesn't make you a bad worker, then what does?

I've carried out orders that I didn't agree with many times. Disagreeing with your boss respectfully is a bit of an art, especially when the person who is likely to suffer from a bad decision is yourself. But at the end of the day, this is why we call it work instead of play.

One strategy that seems to work is: be diligent, get things done well and on time, and gain the trust and respect of your team and managers. People will listen to you more when they stop suspecting you of shirking work or just being argumentative. Instead of arguments, you can have conversations and sometimes you might even prevail.

I work in aviation safety/training. The most meaningful work I've done is developing code for flight simulators, so that pilots can learn how to handle real-world problems. Sometimes that means modeling data from flight recorder boxes, which is a special treat.

Reading through the list of things you don't like, one thing they have in common is being software-only. Hardware products have a huge impact on people's safety and well-being that might inspire you. Aviation, robotics, medicine, even manufacturing.

> It’s just not right to say that so few people should get to control the entire continent just because they were there first.

By that argument, it's just not right to say that multi-millionaires should control so much wealth just because they were born into privileged conditions. Wouldn't fairness require a forced redistribution of those resources?

> Having to interact with the phone while driving is a safety problem

Surprised and dismayed if this is the prevailing viewpoint, that using a phone while driving is a necessity that should be made as safe as possible.

I'm bracing for a serious downvote... I have to admit that Anthony Robbins had a big influence on my thinking, particularly with "Awaken the Giant Within." The message was - you can control how you feel.

Nearly twenty years later, I can see the limitations of his ideas - the danger of creating an arbitrary belief system for yourself and the selfishness of simply deciding what you want and rigging everything in your existence to get it. I also came to believe it's OK to not be happy all the time. But I will always respect Robbins' direct explanations of human motivation and how it can be nudged.

That and 'Single Variable Calculus; Early Transcendentals'; the universe is about change and math can model nearly all of it.

Try making a few calls before the important one to break the ice a bit. Another trick is to start the conversation in an unconventional way, so you don't have time to predict what you're going to say (and anticipate the blocking).

What really worked for me was to force myself to _never_ replace words and to accept that I will stutter at times.

I also have a silly trick for overcoming a prolongation. When I'm stuck, I voice the first sound of the word, then take a short silent rest, and continue with the rest of the word. For instance, "f...ailure". Knowing that I can plough through any prolongation and still be understood has reduced them tremendously and lowered my anxiety. I'm not saying this trick will work for everyone, and I haven't seen it in any of the books.

Unlike the author, I think there's nothing wrong with apologizing for a stutter. That's a useful tactic because it brings the issue out in the open, instead of putting all that effort into hiding it. I'll apologize in advance, just to lower my stress level.

Edit: Renamed block to prolongation.

This assumes that wealthy people have a better work ethic than the poor, to the extent that they might not even be able to imagine what a bad work ethic looks like. In my experience, that doesn't match reality at all.

Manual labor jobs are generally unforgiving of slack. Workers are punished quite severely for minor offenses that are not even noticed in a techie or white-collar environment. Showing up five minutes late? A minor uniform violation? Not performing well for one day? Calling in sick a few too may times?

I'm a white dude, but I feel the same way. I have experienced first-hand that the attitude and vibes that make a workplace toxic for women or others will also make my time there unpleasant. For instance, frequent sharing of risque videos and lecherous comments about women are fingernails on a chalkboard to me.

For the specific situation I experienced, interviewer ego would not have been a tip-off. Some of the other posts suggest asking questions that I wouldn't dream of asking in an interview - they border on accusatory.

The number of women working is probably the biggest single indicator I can think of. Even if the problematic attitudes exist, they tend to stay hidden when women holding the same/higher rank are omnipresent.