I've thought about this in the past. There's a modern way to build architecture, and cloud providers are in general only providing the building blocks and requiring you to put them together. It's unscalable to expect every company to hire someone smart enough to construct a good architecture (let alone the time) but at the same time, people who have been working on infrastructure long enough know that there's really only a handful of useful architectures that solve 90% of problems. I thought of it as CTO-as-a-service or CTO-in-a-box.
Service meshes like istio.io start to solve a portion of this.
Almost certainly there is endless complexity but I bet you can come up with something useful. Good luck!
> people who have been working on infrastructure long enough know that there's really only a handful of useful architectures that solve 90% of problems
I totally agree with you on that point.
Also, given that architectures are created on your own cloud provider account you could easily add the missing parts.
I hadn't seen this before, really cool. Found more information on Wikipedia:
> In 1991, the United States Congress passed the ISTEA Transportation Authorization bill, which instructed USDOT to "demonstrate an automated vehicle and highway system by 1997." The Federal Highway Administration took on this task, first with a series of Precursor Systems Analyses and then by establishing the National Automated Highway System Consortium (NAHSC). This cost-shared project was led by FHWA and General Motors, with Caltrans, Delco, Parsons Brinkerhoff, Bechtel, UC-Berkeley, Carnegie Mellon University, and Lockheed Martin as additional partners. Extensive systems engineering work and research culminated in Demo '97 on I-15 in San Diego, California, in which about 20 automated vehicles, including cars, buses, and trucks, were demonstrated to thousands of onlookers, attracting extensive media coverage. The demonstrations involved close-headway platooning intended to operate in segregated traffic, as well as "free agent" vehicles intended to operate in mixed traffic. Other carmakers were invited to demonstrate their systems, such that Toyota and Honda also participated. While the subsequent aim was to produce a system design to aid commercialization, the program was cancelled in the late 1990s due to tightening research budgets at USDOT. Overall funding for the program was in the range of $90 million. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_self-driving_cars)
It's interesting to wonder whether and how much farther we'd be with self driving cars and computer vision in general if the government had continued to put its resources behind this project.
With even minimal cooperation from the road, self-driving is far easier. Volvo wanted to drive magnetized nails into the pavement for better navigation in heavy snow.
Certainly agree with most of this. It has a couple of underlying ideas that I've also noticed.
1. Use empathy to both overcome resistance and do the right thing. The strategy in Step 2 for reframing an interaction in a way that gets the person to understand that you're trying to help them, and also reminds you to remove your ego and that the goal is to improve things for everyone, is one I've used a lot. Not because people think you're trying to be difficult but because it overcomes defensive barriers and helps ease them into the context switch of thinking about the problem.
2. Get a foothold with iterative progress. The author did this by splitting adoption and (the process for) configuration. Especially with tools and processes, people will often try to jump to the final state and if they can find any holes or issues with the proposal as is they'll be inclined to throw it all out at the start. If you instead make it clear that we're a) trying something new that will b) be improved as we learn more about it and c) can always be reversed if we decide it was a bad idea, people are usually much more open to it.
One thing the article mentions though is "spending" leadership capital. I like instead to think of it as "investing" capital. If the decision you invested it in ends up being bad, you lose it. If it ends up making people's lives better, you've gained more. Thinking about it this way also can get junior people, as mentioned in the article, to be more inclined to help with decision making. They don't have a lot of capital to spend but they can choose to invest the little capital they have in order to grow it.
The amount of Elon Musk hate I see online is crazy. It seems like people are hellbent on hating this guy. When he announced that Tesla could help Puerto Rico, the number of snarky and demeaning comments was huge. Now, so quickly, they've actually accomplished something good. I wonder if any of those snarky people, most of which probably did nothing to help Puerto Rico, will care.
All I can say is I saw this headline and breathed a sigh of relief. I haven't heard anything good coming out of PR at all.
For what it's worth, while I like the idea of solar power as the revival of PR's power grid, I would not be breathing such a sigh of relief if the feds had helicoptered in with the kind of energy they reserve for invading countries and restored power and set up relief for villages far from the port.
>The amount of Elon Musk hate I see online is crazy.
It's called envy. They think they are saying something about Elon Musk but in reality they are telling what kind of monsters they themselves are.
In Dutch we have an expression: The inn keeper is as the inn keeper trusts his guests. As in: good people assume good intentions. Bad people assume bad intentions. Those who trust are trustworthy, those who do not are not.
This article is kind of absurd in its assumption, I think it's irresponsible. By saying that you thought police would modify their behavior in response to being filmed, and especially (but not only) by citing a bunch of studies where CRIMINALS changed their behavior in response to being filmed, you are implying that the officers would change their behavior because THEY KNOW THEIR BEHAVIOR IS WRONG and they were doing it anyway. You're essentially saying you are surprised more officers are not actively criminals.
The actual problem is more likely that in the vast majority of incidents officers DO NOT KNOW what they're doing is wrong, that for instance they're acting with bias or unreasonably against someone of color in a way they wouldn't act against a white person. The ACTUAL purpose of the body cameras is to create a record that allows ACCOUNTABILITY for officers ("I felt threatened" with no evidence is no longer enough to justify a shooting). Only with that accountability can we start to PROVE that officers are acting unfairly whether they consciously intend to or not, and then fix the problem (with "training" as the article says but with no detail may as well have been saying nothing).
I think the article does, to some extent, address this when it says that the situations that we would most hope for modification in police behaviour are also likely to be the situations where the officer is under significant stress and has defaulted to their most primal response. So while I take your point that police don't think they are doing anything wrong when they misbehave, I think it is more correct to say that police aren't considering moderating their behaviour when they are in those particular situations.
I think the bias of this article against the cameras is obvious. I never thought the purpose of body cams were to improve police behaviour by some psychological effect (though a great benefit if it does), but to provide a record of what actually happened. They are also about protecting officers when they use force that is justified, or other situations where the need to defend their actions.
> working a job they probably don't necessarily like very much
Worse yet, trying to make tech people feel bad just for finding a job they actually like and going to a city where those jobs exist! If only we could all be so lucky. Like the job or not, I haven't seen very much indication that people are going into tech in droves just for the money (unlike what I assume you see in banking).
I was able to use one of these at Google Next. It's pretty reasonable but I was still unimpressed. I have a very simple test for drawing applications that represents something I would do in reality: draw a system diagram with multiple components by drawing and labeling a couple components, copying them multiple times, drawing arrows between them as appropriate, and then rearranging it in a new way.
I very quickly found early limitations of the jamboard like (iirc) not being able to copy drawings or group text and drawings. I'm sure over time the programming will get better.
I think that's a bit of an unfair comparison, Jamboard looks like a collaboration tool, essentially a whiteboard with some added features. It's not a drawing tool for producing pretty diagrams.
Wow, pictures of the dashboard! No main instrument cluster as expected. Not sure how I'll like the speedometer being that far away from the steering wheel. I was hoping there was a HUD hidden in the windshield but Elon's twitter replies seem to imply that there won't be.
It's an extremely bad design if they're sticking with it. When I first saw that with the initial promos they did, I assumed the monitor was a temporary stand-in because of how bad of an approach it was. In my opinion, people are not going to like having a large, stand-out, awkwardly placed computer monitor as the sole instrument panel. Even worse is how ugly the concept is, that it's not integrated into the design of the console / center panel area. It's jarring, out of place and requires your eyes leave the road to a much greater extent just to check basic readouts. Even now I find it hard to believe Tesla could make such an obviously bad decision, surely it's still an older test example.
The car itself already borders on ugly. The Model S is a much better looking and well designed vehicle. Throw in the monitor mistake and I wouldn't pay $20,000 for the Model 3. I'd rather wait and see what the European competitors come up with, and or wait and see if Tesla builds a better follow-on version.
The Model 3 will dramatically underwhelm on sales. Tesla will miss Musk's infamous initial sales target by a minimum of 50%.
I love it and will buy it. Had the speedometer in the middle of the car on my Toyota Yaris and never had any problems with it. Lots of people wanted more buttons when the first iPhone came, but then all of that changed. Also, I think the car is beautiful but, but of course the Model S is the premium option, but it also cost 2x.
I think people are getting hung up on the speedometer for little reason other than it's a departure from the usual placement of the cluster. In traffic you go with the flow. With little traffic you might keep an eye on the speed but most of the times it's in an area you know so you have a good idea of what speed you need to be driving at. On the highway you set the cruise control. With Tesla eventually having fully automated driving the speedometer won't matter at all.
I don't like it at all. Personally, I want a screen that displays the speed and the battery status directly in my line of vision, not on an LCD screen off to the right that you can't read in direct sunlight.
My previous car - Toyota Yaris - had an LCD speedometer in the center of the dashboard, and it worked fine. On the Yaris there was a system of mirrors so that the speedo was focused at infinity, thus you could look at it without your eyes adjusting focus at all.
You're the third comment like this so far. I don't care what Scion does or does not have in the middle or otherwise. I've never owned one and most likely never will.
If you don't have something constructive to add to a conversation, you should stay out of it. You and the other two comments "informing" me that other car models use center mounted dashboards are at best a distraction from the conversation (the model 3) and at worst condescending.
what exactly are you adding to the conversation by being hostile? less than me thats for sure. If you think im not contributing use the downvote function, thats literally what its for. Taking out your frustrations on other people is something a child would do, grow up
Any hostility you're "feeling" is a result of your own projection. Only a child keeps whining about his feelings on the internet. Grow up.
I know you're not new to HN. You have a decent amount of karma. You can't downvote replies to your own comments. Suggesting I use the downvote in a situation where it isn't an option is the definition of a useless comment.
i said nothing about feelings, you havent made me feel anything, i'm just pointing out that you communicate like a child throwing a tantrum.
>Suggesting I use the downvote in a situation where it isn't an option is the definition of a useless comment.
yeah youre right, any reasonable person wouldve surely lashed out at the people who responded to them and acted like an insolent brat. you've definitely got the moral highground here - i bow to you
Doubt if impossible burger was at in-n-out it would cost $19. For people's comparison, the normal hamburger at Cockscomb is $15 (+$20 if you want to add foie gras ;)
Service meshes like istio.io start to solve a portion of this.
Almost certainly there is endless complexity but I bet you can come up with something useful. Good luck!