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

Air traffic failure caused by two locations 3600nm apart sharing 3-letter code

flightglobal.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 311 posts

Re: Air traffic failure caused by two locations 3600nm apart sharing 3-letter code

#221

Post by seaal »

lelanthran wrote: post #209
tovej wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not what an exception proving a rule means. It has a technical meaning: a sign that says "free parking on sundays" implies parking is not free as a rule. When used like this it just confuses a reader with rethoric. In this case netflix is just bad at live streaming, they clearly haven't done the necessary engineering work on it.

> That's not what an exception proving a rule means. It has a technical meaning: a sign that says "free parking on sundays" implies parking is not free as a rule. So the rule is "Free parking on Sundays", and the exception that proves it is "Free parking on Sundays"? That's a post-hoc (circular) argument that does not convince me at all. I read a different explanation of this phrase on HN recently: the "prove" in "ex…

50% proof alcohol? That isn’t how that works. It’s 50% ABV aka 100 proof.

Re: Air traffic failure caused by two locations 3600nm apart sharing 3-letter code

#222

Post by lelanthran »

seaal wrote: post #221
lelanthran wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's not what an exception proving a rule means. It has a technical meaning: a sign that says "free parking on sundays" implies parking is not free as a rule. So the rule is "Free parking on Sundays", and the exception that proves it is "Free parking on Sundays"? That's a post-hoc (circular) argument that does not convince me at all. I read a different explanation of this phrase on HN recently: the "prove" in "ex…

50% proof alcohol? That isn’t how that works. It’s 50% ABV aka 100 proof.

> 50% proof alcohol? That isn’t how that works. It’s 50% ABV aka 100 proof.

50% proof wouldn't be 25% ABV?

Re: Air traffic failure caused by two locations 3600nm apart sharing 3-letter code

#224

Post by oofabz »

lelanthran wrote: post #222
seaal wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

50% proof alcohol? That isn’t how that works. It’s 50% ABV aka 100 proof.

> 50% proof alcohol? That isn’t how that works. It’s 50% ABV aka 100 proof. 50% proof wouldn't be 25% ABV?

Since 50% = 0.5, and proof doesn't take a percentage, I believe "50% proof" would be 0.25% ABV.

Re: Air traffic failure caused by two locations 3600nm apart sharing 3-letter code

#225

Post by starspangled »

philsnow wrote: post #217
kelnos wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For those of us who haven't worked at Google, what's "Chubby" and what's a "cell"?

Ah, chubby is a distributed lock service. Think “zookeeper” and you won’t be far off. https://static.googleusercontent.com/media/research.google.c... [pdf] Some random blog post: https://medium.com/coinmonks/chubby-a-centralized-lock-servi... You can run multiple copies/instances of chubby at the same time (like you could run two separate zookeepers). You usually run an odd number of them, typically 5. A group of chu…

Not trying to "challenge" your story, and its interesting anecdote in context. But if you have time to indulge me (and I'm not a real expert at distributed systems, which might be obvious) -

Why would you have a distributed lock service that (if I read right) has multiple redundant processes that can tolerate failures... and then require clients tolerate outages? Isn't the purpose of this kind of architecture so that each client doen't have to deal with outages?

Re: Air traffic failure caused by two locations 3600nm apart sharing 3-letter code

#226

Post by lmm »

mithametacs wrote: post #213
lmm wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If it's a good bug accurately describing a real thing, there's no reason to throw that work away rather than just marking it lower priority. Perhaps. But the triage to separate the "good bugs accurately describing real things" from the chaff isn't free either.

Storage is cheap, database indexes work. Just add a `TimesChecked` counter to your bug tracker. Now when considering priorities, consider not just impact and age, but also times checked. It's less expensive than going and deleting stuff. Unless you're automating deletions? In which case... I don't think I can continue this discussion.

In what world is adding a custom field to a bug tracker and maintaining it cheaper than anything? If someone proves out this workflow and releases a bug tracker that has the functionality built in then I'll consider adopting it, but I'm certainly not going to be the first.

Re: Air traffic failure caused by two locations 3600nm apart sharing 3-letter code

#227

Post by mithametacs »

lmm wrote: post #226
mithametacs wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Storage is cheap, database indexes work. Just add a `TimesChecked` counter to your bug tracker. Now when considering priorities, consider not just impact and age, but also times checked. It's less expensive than going and deleting stuff. Unless you're automating deletions? In which case... I don't think I can continue this discussion.

In what world is adding a custom field to a bug tracker and maintaining it cheaper than anything? If someone proves out this workflow and releases a bug tracker that has the functionality built in then I'll consider adopting it, but I'm certainly not going to be the first.

Wild.

Okay, keep deleting bug tickets.

Re: Air traffic failure caused by two locations 3600nm apart sharing 3-letter code

#228

Post by lelanthran »

oofabz wrote: post #224
lelanthran wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 50% proof alcohol? That isn’t how that works. It’s 50% ABV aka 100 proof. 50% proof wouldn't be 25% ABV?

Since 50% = 0.5, and proof doesn't take a percentage, I believe "50% proof" would be 0.25% ABV.

Good catch :-)

Re: Air traffic failure caused by two locations 3600nm apart sharing 3-letter code

#229

Post by rob74 »

barbazoo wrote: post #14
jp57 wrote: post #9

FYI: nm = nautical miles, not nanometers.

Given the context, I'd say NM actually https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nautical_mile

Yes. And, to quote the Wikipedia article: "Symbol: M, NM, or nmi". Not nm (as used in the title, but the article also uses it).

Re: Air traffic failure caused by two locations 3600nm apart sharing 3-letter code

#230

Post by taejo »

lelanthran wrote: post #209
tovej wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not what an exception proving a rule means. It has a technical meaning: a sign that says "free parking on sundays" implies parking is not free as a rule. When used like this it just confuses a reader with rethoric. In this case netflix is just bad at live streaming, they clearly haven't done the necessary engineering work on it.

> That's not what an exception proving a rule means. It has a technical meaning: a sign that says "free parking on sundays" implies parking is not free as a rule. So the rule is "Free parking on Sundays", and the exception that proves it is "Free parking on Sundays"? That's a post-hoc (circular) argument that does not convince me at all. I read a different explanation of this phrase on HN recently: the "prove" in "ex…

The rule is non-free parking. The exception is Sundays.
Post reply on HN