Live data from Hacker News

Audiblegate

twitter.com

301–310 of 362 posts

Re: Audiblegate

#301
post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you just model rocket science as a point mass with variable m then yes… But it’s more than that. To name a few: * How does one raise the thrust temperature as high as possible without melting the engine to maximise thrust? (The burning temperature IS already higher than the engine material melting point) * how does one reduce the redundancy (both system wise and material wise) to minimise weight while ensuring the…

Ah so you want aeronautical engineering, not rocket science!

You must be a troll

Re: Audiblegate

#302

Not a judgement on the content of the post, but is anyone else annoyed at the lazy trend to dub any controversy "something"-gate? Watergate was called that because that's the name of the hotel. Gate is not some synonym for scandal. It's just a gate. We used to have more appropriate names for things. At least the Panama Papers had a proper name, even if everyone forgot about it and nothing ever came of it.

This has bothered me for some time now. Most of these handy portmanteaus don't really bother me, but this one makes no sense on its own and just sounds stupid. Sure, I know what they mean, but I cringe every time.

[deleted]

Re: Audiblegate

#303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure what the limits are for returning content, but I'd set some if they haven't already. You shouldn't be able to return the content if you listened on its entirety, for example.

There's a bit of a fine line here. I used a credit on an audible book that was just rehashed, mediocre content and empty promises. The gulf between the marketing promise and content was very, very wide. That was one I read in its entirety thinking that something insightful or useful would come of it and by the end it was clear that the author just read a handful of blog posts on marketing and slapped together a book…

What was the overall consensus for that book in the reviews? Or were you amongst the first ones to buy it?

Re: Audiblegate

#304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Domain-Driven Design > It's not exactly rocket-science either I'd imagine that occasionally "rocket science" is exactly what it is!

This always baffled me. Rocket science is basically F = GMm/d^2 with m changing over time as you burn fuel and also thrust vectoring. Where is the complexity?

From a similar point of view, you could say fluid mechanics is basically just F=ma.

Even just orbital mechanics has a decent amount of complexity. Transfer between celestial bodies in general requires solving the three-body problem (or four for transfer between planets). And it's one thing to solve for just the trajectory of an object given some initial conditions, and another to figure out the correct initial conditions to give to get the trajectory you want, all the while staying within a fuel budget. Then you have to contend with not having instantaneous impulse in real life.

A simplification here is that you can get a decent approximation to the three/four-body problem with patched conics, which is where you assume that the gravity outside of a celestial body's 'sphere of influence' is zero, and within that SOI, all of the gravity comes from that body; in this way, you can treat it as a series of two body problems, where you 'patch' together the solutions (which are conic sections) for the orbital trajectories of the all the bodies involved. This is by no means a perfect approximation, though, and in practice I would expect that one would want to check a given solution found with patched conics with a more complete n-body simulation.

Even simpler than this, though, at least mathematically, is orbital rendezvous. Here, you only have to contend with the gravity of a single body. Yet it's very difficult to get the timing right, and the first couple attempts by the USSR and the US failed, and Buzz Aldrin even submitted a doctoral thesis based entirely around orbital rendezvous (two spacecraft meeting in Earth orbit):

> In its first human spaceflight program Vostok, the Soviet Union launched pairs of spacecraft from the same launch pad, one or two days apart (Vostok 3 and 4 in 1962, and Vostok 5 and 6 in 1963). In each case, the launch vehicles' guidance systems inserted the two craft into nearly identical orbits; however, this was not nearly precise enough to achieve rendezvous, as the Vostok lacked maneuvering thrusters to adjust its orbit to match that of its twin. The initial separation distances were in the range of 5 to 6.5 kilometers (3.1 to 4.0 mi), and slowly diverged to thousands of kilometers (over a thousand miles) over the course of the missions.[1][2]

> In 1963 Buzz Aldrin submitted his doctoral thesis titled, Line-Of-Sight Guidance Techniques For Manned Orbital Rendezvous.[3] As a NASA astronaut, Aldrin worked to "translate complex orbital mechanics into relatively simple flight plans for my colleagues."[4]

> First attempt failed

> The first attempt at rendezvous was made on June 3, 1965, when US astronaut Jim McDivitt tried to maneuver his Gemini 4 craft to meet its spent Titan II launch vehicle's upper stage. McDivitt was unable to get close enough to achieve station-keeping, due to depth-perception problems, and stage propellant venting which kept moving it around.[5] However, the Gemini 4 attempts at rendezvous were unsuccessful largely because NASA engineers had yet to learn the orbital mechanics involved in the process. Simply pointing the active vehicle's nose at the target and thrusting was unsuccessful. If the target is ahead in the orbit and the tracking vehicle increases speed, its altitude also increases, actually moving it away from the target. The higher altitude then increases orbital period due to Kepler's third law, putting the tracker not only above, but also behind the target. The proper technique requires changing the tracking vehicle's orbit to allow the rendezvous target to either catch up or be caught up with, and then at the correct moment changing to the same orbit as the target with no relative motion between the vehicles (for example, putting the tracker into a lower orbit, which has a shorter orbital period allowing it to catch up, then executing a Hohmann transfer back to the original orbital height).[6]

> As GPO engineer André Meyer later remarked, "There is a good explanation for what went wrong with rendezvous." The crew, like everyone else at MSC, "just didn't understand or reason out the orbital mechanics involved. As a result, we all got a whole lot smarter and really perfected rendezvous maneuvers, which Apollo now uses."

Re: Audiblegate

#305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah so you want aeronautical engineering, not rocket science!

You must be a troll

I can see how you can think of me that way based on this discussion.

I studied physics in undergrad and in classical dynamics we covered “rocket science” in these terms. The term is more or less a misnomer as science implies trying to understand how the universe works. Building rockets is engineering but studying their motion does rely on both the equation I gave above and also on fluid dynamics. From the point of view of “science” it is pretty simple. From the point of view I’d actually building a rocket the engineering is very hard. Since that time I’ve always had a bit of a chip on my shoulder about the “it’s not rocket science”. It also doesn’t help that both my parents studied aerospace engineering in undergrad and grad school and tried to impart a decent chunk of it on my as a kid (which I resisted very hard).

Re: Audiblegate

#306
post #271

I worked on a tool at Amazon once that incorrectly calculated royalties, not because Amazon was greedily trying to steal from publishers, but just because of general incompetence (or, lack of sufficient competence maybe). Basically, of the people who wrote the tool, tested the tool, and used the tool, none of them knew exactly how royalties should be calculated and none of them could tell whether or not they were bei…

I don't see how charging ebook authors 15c per megabyte a buyer downloads (it can't cost AZ anywhere near that much) before calculating royalties could possibly be anything other than shady accounting. That's not just a couple engineers confused about the specs. > Basically, of the people who wrote the tool, tested the tool, and used the tool, none of them knew exactly how royalties should be calculated I really don'…

>I don't see how charging ebook authors 15c per megabyte a buyer downloads (it can't cost AZ anywhere near that much) before calculating royalties could possibly be anything other than shady accounting.

Sounds like easy profit from a captive audience.

Re: Audiblegate

#307
post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why was this not defined in a spec document and checked in a unit test? Everywhere I've worked where there were defined formulae (or formulae to be defined) this kind of thing was meticulously checked for correctness. No one should have shipped the service without knowing if the calculations were correct!

> Why was this not defined in a spec document and checked in a unit test? Most companies now-a-days don't write spec up front. That's called Big Design up Front (BDUF) and it was seen in this industry that this was prone to failure which could cause the whole project to fail. That's because it's impossible to know everything up front and often during the project the requirements will change as the stakeholders learn…

I'm not talking about any specific PM strategies though. For the software to be written, it must be specified. Whether that's in a ticket or design doc is irrelevant.

As you point out, the agile manifesto eschews documentation for working software. This is not about having documentation, it's about defining "working" for the software. The ticket could not be written or handled without consultation with legal or BA teams on how the formulae are defined, similarly to how if you're implementing any kind of system where the formulae are critically important for correctness you need to consult back and forth with the expert stakeholders to double check.

I don't know any other way to do this that isn't negligent, not just by the developer, but by the reviewer, the stake holders, and ultimately the PM that signs off on accepting the task as "done" when it hasn't been checked for correctness.

Re: Audiblegate

#308

I worked on a tool at Amazon once that incorrectly calculated royalties, not because Amazon was greedily trying to steal from publishers, but just because of general incompetence (or, lack of sufficient competence maybe). Basically, of the people who wrote the tool, tested the tool, and used the tool, none of them knew exactly how royalties should be calculated and none of them could tell whether or not they were bei…

You are describing incompetence born from undirected malice. While it is true the malice did not lead directly to the greedy behaviour, it leads to an absolute lack of continuous knowledge (due to employees constantly leaving the company). The fact that this is not addressed in a way that actually works makes it at least indirectly purposeful. In that sense, Amazon as an entity is in fact being greedy and it is also…

I guess on the flip side, I was receiving 100$ per month in AWS credits for about 2 years for an Alexa skill I had disabled. This was also incompetence in this case.

Re: Audiblegate

#309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are describing incompetence born from undirected malice. While it is true the malice did not lead directly to the greedy behaviour, it leads to an absolute lack of continuous knowledge (due to employees constantly leaving the company). The fact that this is not addressed in a way that actually works makes it at least indirectly purposeful. In that sense, Amazon as an entity is in fact being greedy and it is also…

I guess on the flip side, I was receiving 100$ per month in AWS credits for about 2 years for an Alexa skill I had disabled. This was also incompetence in this case.

still receiving them lol. its actually a really nice gesture bc the credits expire and the money more than covers the cost but i feel more inclined to use AWS for the next thing i build because of credits

Re: Audiblegate

#310

I worked on a tool at Amazon once that incorrectly calculated royalties, not because Amazon was greedily trying to steal from publishers, but just because of general incompetence (or, lack of sufficient competence maybe). Basically, of the people who wrote the tool, tested the tool, and used the tool, none of them knew exactly how royalties should be calculated and none of them could tell whether or not they were bei…

I self-publish on Amazon and there are so many recurring instances of royalties not being properly recorded and paid out, mostly in Kindle Unlimited. Page reads don't get recorded due to some apparent incident (sometimes admitted by Amazon, other times completely ignored despite it being obvious that something is off in reporting on a large scale), and when the problem is fixed and we start seeing proper reads again we just have to accept that we're collectively out of luck and will not be compensated for the missing hours/days of page reads. Trying to contact Amazon about this has been completely useless.

This is one of the reasons for the uptick of new and experienced authors ditching (or making plans to ditch) Amazon KU exclusivity and going wide.

Post reply on HN