4dpuzzle

What’s the second problem after topo naming that’s getting fixed?

FreeCAD has already merged the solution for the infamous ‘topological naming problem’. The 1.0 release may happen soon!

I’m an adult and am not responsible for anything you described. They were all there even before I was born. In fact, the same may apply to my parents or even grandparents. I’d rather blame a sociopolitical class than any single generation for all those ills.

But to answer your question, yes, I’d blame that entire class for the harm caused by young people using murder tools they introduced. They did it with the full knowledge of its consequences. They valued momentary material gains above the wellbeing of entire generations. They absolutely should be punished for all the mass shootings in schools, because they knew it could happen. Yet they chose the blood money. Similarly, if an entire city is under a drugs epidemic (like the current opioid crisis), wouldn’t you want to hunt down the producers and suppliers, instead of the users?

It’s extremely nuanced. ‘Light years ahead’ is correct since you are thinking about a race where one competitor is a long distance ahead of others. On the other hand, ‘light years away’ doesn’t make sense, since we think of achievements in terms of time needed, rather than distance.

You are right, except for one detail. Package managers almost always validate the packages using digital signatures, to avoid man-in-the-middle attacks. You don’t need to trust the network anymore. Shell scripts piped to a shell don’t have that protection. You still have to trust the developers and maintainers, though.

Wasn’t that the point behind hanging, drawing and quartering?

No. Just leave their corpses in the jail for multiple lifetimes.

The sort of mental gymnastics and cognitive dissonance that these subhuman c-suite employ to justify stealing everyone else’s data while demonizing sharing of their data, is just infuriating. If these scumbags were incarcerated for a day each for every time they showed this hypocrisy, they would all rot in the jails for their entire lifetime, perhaps more.

I know I’m going to be bludgeoned for this. But I’m mystified by this ‘iterative’ approach to development. I wonder if they got this from the IT industry. Charles Bolden once remarked that the congress would have shut down the Apollo program if they lost vehicles at the rate spacex does now. These failures also often feel like the result of lack of foresight and critical thinking, rather than the consequence of complex chains of events that are hard to predict.

Consider the first flight. They decided to launch it without a flame deflector or a deluge system. They thought that it would be OK based on a hot test of the superheavy at half thrust. I don’t think any other rocket company would have made the same decision. Even if the concrete slabs didn’t shatter into a thousand pieces, the reflected shock wave would have been damaging enough to the engine compartment. They predictably lifted off with several failed and failing engines.

Another problem was the stage separation maneuver. They had planned on a full 360 degree cart wheel to separate the upper stage with centrifugal force. Not only was it going to cause enormous lateral and bending loads on the two stages, I’m still confused about how they would separate at all when the airflow is pushing the top stage (whichever happens to be on the top) against the bottom one. Perhaps the sideways loads might snap the joint. But the two stages are still in danger of collision due to airflow. This concern was proven to be valid when that flight cartwheeled several times without separating and then buckled. I don’t know if that’s the reason why they abandoned the maneuver, but something was definitely wrong with it. And it was bad enough to switch to hot staging.

I don’t have many comments about the second flight. Both stages failed in flight. The first stage failed due to problems with filters. I’m willing to give them a pass here.

As for the third flight, the superheavy exploded 400m above the seas. It was clear that it didn’t decelerate enough due to engine failures. More engine problems. But a pass here too, since engines are generally hard and the raptor is particularly nasty at that.

The real problem in that flight was the starship. It was tumbling pretty badly even in space. The video didn’t give any clue about how they could arrest the tumbling. I was looking for the operation of attitude/RCS thrusters and I couldn’t find any solid evidence of any of it. It was more like the starship had no attitude control at all, rather than one failing. Perhaps I’m completely wrong and it had attitude thrusters. But it was clearly deficient at least. The commentators of flight 4 said that they added more thrusters for attitude control. That would mean that either they didn’t consider tumbling as a problem or they completely underestimated it for flight 3. Why? Attitude control isn’t the hardest problem in rocketry. Very good simulation and analysis techniques exist for it. Anyway, a sideways reentry is bad enough. Even worse is an unarrested attitude rate at reentry. The atmosphere predictably incinerated the ship’s engines and exposed steel skin.

If this afterthought feels like a conspiracy theory, remember the time when Musk made a change to starship after Tim Dodd (earlyastronaut) asked him a question on the same? Or the time when someone on Twitter asked Musk why they didn’t start two raptor engines and then shutoff the underperforming one during Starship’s flip maneuver at landing? They do this now. Afterthoughts are evidently not a rare thing at SpaceX.

And finally flight 4. I’m not taking any credit away from them. They seem to have just made it till the landing. Superheavy worked all the way for the first time. But my concern is about the place where the starship’s fin burned through - exactly at the hinge. I would have expected them to focus more on that region as a weak spot and to have given it a better thermal protection. That would be the last region I would expect a burn through. Instead, it would have been in some spot where they didn’t expect any problem and missed something very subtle.

All these give me the impression that they are trying things and seeing what sticks. That’s not how traditional rocketry works. There’s a s**t load of analyses, simulations and small scale tests that precede the production stage. The result is that when such rockets fail, they fail in a spectacularly complex, unpredictable and mind bending sequence of cascading failures (unlike what I see on starship). They also tend to succeed with minimum test flights and work reliably over decades. Apollo is a great example. The first test flight achieved everything that starship achieved in 4 flights.

The only other industry that I’ve seen behaving like this is the IT industry. “Deploy whatever you have and we’ll debug in production”. Coincidentally, Tesla does the same with their cars - the only car company to do so. So perhaps there is a Musk factor here. The SpaceX engineering team is incredibly talented, skilled and capable. The only reason I can think of for them to behave like this is an enormous pressure on them to deliver results at high rates. That’s the only reason I can think of for them to proceed without satisfying themselves.

Now you may want to argue that SpaceX’s approach is better than what everyone else does. After all, they make bigger things, faster. They advanced the industry like no one else did or could. Perhaps you’re right. Only time will tell, since this approach is so novel that we haven’t had enough opportunity to assess the results. But my instincts worry me about one thing - technical debt. Mechanical engineering is not like software engineering. In software, a problem once solved is gone forever. In mechanical engineering, any problem you work around is a disaster waiting to happen in the future. The right approach here is to design things properly and meticulously so that the final product has minimum work around. I fear that the software style of design is leaving unknown flaws or technical debts that may compound together into a cascading failure on some flight in the future.

To those who are planning to reply:

What I wrote is not a criticism of the SpaceX employees or Starship programme. I’m genuinely fascinated by the interplay of technical design, development styles, management styles and human factors. I’m extremely curious about how the situation is evolving.

Please don’t attack me or question my abilities if you feel that I’m being unfair about this (that’s definitely not my intention). I may be just a kid in this arena, but it’s never wrong to ask, is it? I’m extremely interested in hearing your insightful opinion on this topic, based on your experience or your logic. If you think I’m wrong on any of these, please share your perspective and reasons here - I (and possibly others) may learn something new.

Exactly what we need! More pods! SMH!

Even then, you’ll be opted into sharing your information with Microsoft and their 942 business partners.

I wish they undid a lot of their stupid redesigns instead of doubling down on it.

The fact any board of directors considers this man employable at all is mind boggling to me.

All recent events indicate that the board of directors are seriously manipulated by the chief executive and are not good at taking sane decisions. Musk companies, OpenAI and Theranos are good examples.

As I recall, there was a board meeting of Theranos where they summoned Elizabeth Holmes to fire her for misleading them about the state of development of the project. But she managed to get them to reverse that decision and then take action against the person that reported her.

Honestly it’s not as bad as I expected.

Based on what you know.

I’m shocked that the human trail was authorized at all, considering the fate of the monkeys that were subject to the same. I’m not confident that this man or any future subjects will be truly safe. We won’t know even if something goes wrong.

You have seen what he has done to twitter/X. For all his talks about freedom, free speech and survival of mankind, he is fundamentally a conservative billionaire oligarch who has no qualms about exploiting others to death to add to his wealth.

Now just imagine if a brain implant goes the same way. Forget his delusions about backing up the human brain and telepathic nonsense. Even simple implants meant to help paraplegics are going to be dangerous under the control of people like him. Just the way the brain moves our limbs can be used against us.

This is why it’s important to report on matters like this. So that people understand the danger and avoid it, instead of falling for the propaganda that he is some sort of tech messiah.

Covid demonstrated that the physical presence of the staff in the office is not necessary for many types of jobs. WFH is shown to be economic, time saving and improving the work-life balance of those workers, without sacrificing productivity. It’s not like any of these companies are willing to compensate the workers for the hours lost in the commute.

If you still refuse to return to the office, then you’re just being lazy at that point.

That is classic gaslighting. What matches the current situation better is that the corporate overlords are being greedy AF. They are worried more about the returns on their real estate investments than about employee wellbeing, practicality and sustainability.

They’re not addicted to work. Just money. In exploiting regular people - both workers and customers - by robbing their wealth. Do you think their pay is proportional to their work? How do you think they get time to socialize and scheme against plebs if they are addicted to work?

In this particular context, they insist on return to office because WFH represents a loss of returns on the investments they made on corporate real estate.

While their addiction to money is a disorder, it’s as bad to the general public as people with antisocial and criminal tendencies. The only difference is that these rich sociopaths have enough capital to buy their way out of being held responsible. They won’t seek help because they enjoy the harm they inflict - just like how criminals don’t consider their sadism as a mental disorder. They need to be treated the same way as any other criminal - as a threat to society. And measures should be taken to prevent them from inflicting harm on normal people. Something like locking them in a cell and throwing the key away.

Modern legged robots are great. But they’re no match for crafty humans yet. It will get blown up from all sides. I’m pretty sure that the IDF has much more sinister and lethal weapons.

One weapon I’m particularly worried about is a swarm of mini drones equipped with AI to detect their targets and kill them with shaped charges. The only humans who deserve to be killed by it are the ones who were evil enough to invent it in the first place.

I think you misspelled ‘backdoors’.