Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Type in the exact number of machines to proceed

rachelbythebay.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 340 posts

Re: Type in the exact number of machines to proceed

#111

Post by vlunkr »

dingaling wrote: post #76
jrumbut wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even having a dry run mode is exciting. Doesn't even have to give complete results just "I was planning to delete 3 files and create 7 files", gives a hint whether the command will blow up the system or not.

I wish SQL had a dry-run mode in updates and deletes for that reason. "Run it as a query first" gets 90% of the way until you drop a constraint by accident whilst rewriting it as an update :o

I've thought the same thing. I also wish SET came after where. I've done "UPDATE table_x SET something = true"; and then forgot the WHERE clause.

Re: Type in the exact number of machines to proceed

#112

Post by nemetroid »

dheera wrote: post #40
csmattryder wrote: post #8

I've seen this called "pointing and calling" [1], Japan's train drivers use the technique to force themselves to perform actions and take notice of the current environment. I personally took it to heart, it's a good system for forcing a cache miss in the brain - make sure you're on "database production" or "database localhost" etc. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pointing_and_calling

> I've seen this called "pointing and calling" [1], Japan's train drivers use the technique to force themselves to perform actions and take notice of the current environment. The concept makes sense, though I don't quite fully get how to translate it to other contexts besides train driving where unexpected and unpredictable events come up all the time. Let's say you're driving a car and the traffic light turns red. D…

The pointing and calling performed by Japanese train drivers is very much about expected events. "Green signal" would be one of the most common call-outs. For example:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afjPmN0GT04

Green signals are pointed at at 2:58 and 3:29.

Re: Type in the exact number of machines to proceed

#113

Post by TravHatesMe »

Reminds me of a study done where a test was given with questions that weren't difficult but likely to make a silly error. Around 85% of participants got at least one question wrong, but when they repeated the same test with a difficult-to-read font, that number dropped to ~25% or so. That's another way to make your brain work, use a terrible font.

Re: Type in the exact number of machines to proceed

#114

Post by kbenson »

This is a topic near and dear to my heart, as I'm often that person arguing to make some slightly less automated because the small trade-off in time is insurance against some of the worst mistakes you can have. Automation to the point of removing humans leads to stupid problems that a human wouldn't make if they looked at what was going on. So we automate tot he point where we minimize human contact, presenting a summary of actions that as humans we can apply our wonderful brains to and prevent those problems. Except some percentage of the time we don't actually pay attention, and depending on how the human interaction was introduced instead of complete automation, some percentage (or multiple!) of errors still sneak through.

Automation to the point of minimal human contact where you assume the human will read the presented information and make an informed decision doesn't work. The point is that we want a human to understand what is being asked, so taking some step to ensure they do understand is warranted. It will never be perfect, but adding steps like she proposes are definitely a step in the right direction, IMO.

Re: Type in the exact number of machines to proceed

#115

Post by myroon5 »

andrewfromx wrote: post #104

i've done this before by displaying unix epoc and asking the user to copy/paste that value WITHIN a 3 second window as an env var. i.e. if you up arrow and run same TIMESTAMP=1603827448 ./foo it won't work because 1603827448 is now way too old.

One of the main benefits is explicitly acknowledging relevant context. Timestamps don't provide additional relevant context

Re: Type in the exact number of machines to proceed

#116

Post by kbenson »

YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #102
csmattryder wrote: post #8

I've seen this called "pointing and calling" [1], Japan's train drivers use the technique to force themselves to perform actions and take notice of the current environment. I personally took it to heart, it's a good system for forcing a cache miss in the brain - make sure you're on "database production" or "database localhost" etc. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pointing_and_calling

>> I personally took it to heart, it's a good system for forcing a cache miss in the brain - make sure you're on "database production" or "database localhost" etc. Yeah, ouch. More ouch if it's the other way around- you delete the test database and it's not the test database. (long story)

> you delete the test database and it's not the test database.

> (long story)

I think you can skip the long story, as most of us can tell a story similar in theme if not specifics (and sometimes, probably some similar specifics too). ;)

With great power comes great responsibility (to not completely screw stuff up because you were on autopilot for a second...)

Re: Type in the exact number of machines to proceed

#117

Post by chrisseaton »

bee_rider wrote: post #103
chrisseaton wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The reasoning behind this proposed interlock is that any logic which concludes that it is moral and rational to harm hundreds of thousands of people must also conclude that it is moral and rational to harm the "interlock" individual. Yes, but you can know it's the right thing to do, but not be able to physically do it. The president's ability to physically cut someone open is not relevant to whether it's a good ide…

Do you mean, like, the physical strength required to cut a person open? That seems like a very specific implementation detail.

Well exactly - lots of specific details of literally cutting someone open that aren't relevant for a considered application of nuclear weapons.

But really I meant being able to 'bring yourself' to cut someone.

Re: Type in the exact number of machines to proceed

#118

Post by rachelbythebay »

csmattryder wrote: post #8

I've seen this called "pointing and calling" [1], Japan's train drivers use the technique to force themselves to perform actions and take notice of the current environment. I personally took it to heart, it's a good system for forcing a cache miss in the brain - make sure you're on "database production" or "database localhost" etc. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pointing_and_calling

I do that when I drive around. Car on the side street. Kid over there... with a ball. Hidden left turner in 3...2...1... yep.

I love finding out that this stuff works.

Re: Type in the exact number of machines to proceed

#119

Post by detaro »

cecilpl2 wrote: post #98
leetcrew wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it really applies to stuff like driving, which almost has to be muscle memory to work at all. even with something routine and non-urgent like switching gears in a manual, the steps have to happen faster than you can say what you're doing. a good example from normal life is (physical) key management. I used to always forget my keys when walking out the front door, which was a big problem since it locks a…

After losing my wallet several times and not having a clue when the last time I had it on me was, I implemented a similar system. I now habitually triple tap my three designated pockets for phone, wallet, keys, every time I walk through a doorway. That way, if any of them are missing, I know they must be in the room I just left.

http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20000501 ;)

Re: Type in the exact number of machines to proceed

#120

Post by bronco21016 »

It amazes me that something like this can be done by a single person.

In aviation any time input is given to the machine, it's entered by one human (typically pilot flying) and then verified by the other human (typically pilot monitoring) before being committed to or executed. For example... when a new altitude is assigned by ATC, say FL300, the pilot flying will spin it in the selector window and keep his hand or finger there until the second pilot agrees with and confirms the selection by reading FL300 out of the selector window.

I know there are meat bags in these giant tubes so that changes attitudes towards safety etc. However, it seems to me that when organizations start putting the power to halt nearly the entire business in the hands of one person, there should be some slightly different attitudes. A breaking change in a million servers could easily cost hundreds of thousands or maybe even millions in lost revenue or employee productivity.

I'm just an outsider though. Perhaps this level of attention is practiced at some shops. It's just interesting to me how in some fields we settle on pretty uniform standard practices whereas others are seen as non-human-life threatening so it's just shoot first, ask questions later.

Post reply on HN