[Bad News Gone Right]: 40% chance of "where's the gone right?".

18384868889101

Posts

  • CalicaCalica Registered User regular
    edited April 2020
    Docshifty wrote: »
    Man surprised with a jet fighter flight inadvertently ends the experience while still in the air.

    https://www.cnn.com/travel/amp/france-fighter-jet-ejection-scli-intl/index.html
    When the jet was 2,500 feet above ground and the pilot began to climb, the passenger panicked and reached for something to hold onto.
    Unfortunately, that something was the ejector seat button -- and the 64-year-old flew from the fighter jet.

    He was uninjured.

    Hmm, I would have assumed for any situation that would normally warrant ejecting from a fighter jet, that pulling the eject handle would eject both seats, as that could save the life of the second person if they were unconscious or incapacitated. Though perhaps it's a trainer version and set up that way so such dumb incidents are less likely to result in the loss of the aircraft.

    The article I read elsewhere mentioned that the pilot should've been ejected but wasn't due to mechanical failure resulting in the breaking of the cockpit glass and his suffering minor facial injuries, but the CNN article doesn't. I'll see if I can find my earlier source.

    Although to your point, it seems like in any modern military aircraft in which you are carrying civilians, you would want to disable just about everything they could possibly reach.


    Edit: found it.
    If the ejection process had gone as intended, the pilot, too, would have been launched from the jet. The pilot’s canopy was shattered, but because of a technical malfunction his seat remained in the plane, and he was able to return to the airbase and land safely. He suffered minor cuts to his face.[/quote

    Well, it is a legitimate safety feature. On the aforementioned P-51 ride, the pilot went through a quick rundown of what to do if he determined I or both of us needed to bail midflight.* I'm sure the ejection seat would have been included in that if the passenger seat had one.

    *"Duck so you don't get decapitated when I release the canopy" sure is a thing to hear!

    edit: fixed quote tags

    Calica on
    Jedoc wrote: »
    The GOP cares about babies until they're born, soldiers until they're in need of care, and families until they interfere with stockholder dividends.
    Kayne Red RobeElvenshaeAimGnome-InterruptusMvrckL Ron HowardfurlionKlytus
  • PhyphorPhyphor Building Planet Busters Tasting FruitRegistered User regular
    Docshifty wrote: »
    Man surprised with a jet fighter flight inadvertently ends the experience while still in the air.

    https://www.cnn.com/travel/amp/france-fighter-jet-ejection-scli-intl/index.html
    When the jet was 2,500 feet above ground and the pilot began to climb, the passenger panicked and reached for something to hold onto.
    Unfortunately, that something was the ejector seat button -- and the 64-year-old flew from the fighter jet.

    He was uninjured.

    You can get fighter jet flights?

    Brb, heading to France

    OrcaAimmjn6172SmrtnikInvectivusL Ron HowardRingo
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Bad news: The Wisconsin GOP worked to subvert democracy in a recent election for the Wisconsin Supreme Court to protect a conservative justice.

    Gone right: They failed.


    Decision Desk HQ projects @judgekarofsky will win the Wisconsin Supreme Court election.

    Decision Desk HQ is an election tracker.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
    mrpakuFryCalicaElvenshaeBlackDragon480TNTrooperKayne Red RobeLaOsOrcaHappylilElfAimNobeardNitsuaRhesus PositiveLabelBullheadGnome-Interruptusmjn6172PolaritieSmrtnikRichyStabbity StyleDuke 2.0L Ron HowardMarekwebguy20marajiRingofurlionFleur de Alysvalhalla130KlytusboogedybooKadokenKamarIncenjucar
  • CalicaCalica Registered User regular
    Phyphor wrote: »
    Docshifty wrote: »
    Man surprised with a jet fighter flight inadvertently ends the experience while still in the air.

    https://www.cnn.com/travel/amp/france-fighter-jet-ejection-scli-intl/index.html
    When the jet was 2,500 feet above ground and the pilot began to climb, the passenger panicked and reached for something to hold onto.
    Unfortunately, that something was the ejector seat button -- and the 64-year-old flew from the fighter jet.

    He was uninjured.

    You can get fighter jet flights?

    Brb, heading to France

    From a quick googling: https://www.flyfighterjet.com/

    Jedoc wrote: »
    The GOP cares about babies until they're born, soldiers until they're in need of care, and families until they interfere with stockholder dividends.
    Elvenshae
  • BlackDragon480BlackDragon480 Bluster Kerfuffle Master of Windy ImportRegistered User regular
    edited April 2020
    Calica wrote: »
    Phyphor wrote: »
    Docshifty wrote: »
    Man surprised with a jet fighter flight inadvertently ends the experience while still in the air.

    https://www.cnn.com/travel/amp/france-fighter-jet-ejection-scli-intl/index.html
    When the jet was 2,500 feet above ground and the pilot began to climb, the passenger panicked and reached for something to hold onto.
    Unfortunately, that something was the ejector seat button -- and the 64-year-old flew from the fighter jet.

    He was uninjured.

    You can get fighter jet flights?

    Brb, heading to France

    From a quick googling: https://www.flyfighterjet.com/

    Only 18000 Euro to find out how many ways you can pass out and/or shit yourself in a half hour in a MiG 29 doing a suborbital supersonic flight, seems reasonable.

    I've taken a 40 minute spin in an F-16c, I'm still proud of myself for not puking or blacking out, though I came damn close of the latter during a 6g turn. Was in civilian airspace, so no supersonic, but we did hit about 650 straight cruising.

    BlackDragon480 on
    First they came for the Muslims and we said...NOT TODAY MOTHERFUCKERS!
    TynnanElvenshaedestroyah87Kayne Red RobeOrcaCarpyShadowfireBullheadGnome-Interruptusmjn6172FrySkeithL Ron HowardCalicawebguy20marajifurlionvalhalla130boogedybooKadoken
  • TNTrooperTNTrooper Registered User regular
    Bad news: The Wisconsin GOP worked to subvert democracy in a recent election for the Wisconsin Supreme Court to protect a conservative justice.

    Gone right: They failed.


    Decision Desk HQ projects @judgekarofsky will win the Wisconsin Supreme Court election.

    Decision Desk HQ is an election tracker.

    Turns out when you force people to go out during a pandemic to vote, the now pissed off voters don't vote for you.

    steam_sig.png
    BlackDragon480ElvenshaeLaOsHappylilElfNitsuaRhesus PositiveMidniteGnome-InterruptusEchoSmrtnikMoridin889SkeithJoolanderL Ron Howardmarajivalhalla130Incenjucar
  • ShivahnShivahn Unaware of her barrel shifter privilege Western coastal temptressRegistered User regular
    edited April 2020
    Is that "smart person thinks they know everything about all fields" thing actually universal? I feel like I see it a lot less from biologists and chemists than I do from economists, doctors, and physicists (probably on that order). But I don't know if that's a broad truth, a complete lie, or an artifact of the fact that crazy economists and doctors are politically useful*.

    Not sure why the physics thing seems to be the case, though. I'm extremely tired of these suggested articles I keep getting with titles like (literally the first thing in my feed, the thing that triggered me making this post) "Physics Can Explain Human Innovation and Enlightenment."

    (actually, I think "computer scientists" are also pretty bad re: this, but that is primarily an artifact of the extremely disproportionate power they have over modern society. Also, a lot of the wacky computer scientists don't actually have advanced degrees, so I'm not sure it counts.)

    *actually the economist thing also sticks out to me because I'm a biologist subclass and economists seem to love thinking that they can explain evolution.

    Shivahn on
  • jothkijothki Registered User regular
    Shivahn wrote: »
    Not sure why the physics thing seems to be the case, though. I'm extremely tired of these suggested articles I keep getting with titles like (literally the first thing in my feed, the thing that triggered me making this post) "Physics Can Explain Human Innovation and Enlightenment."

    I'd argue it's better than "Physics Can't Explain Human Innovation and Enlightenment".

  • MichaelLCMichaelLC In what furnace was thy brain? ChicagoRegistered User regular
    Mvrck wrote: »
    The fact that he got to find out his ejection seat is broken without being in a situation needing an ejector seat is basically the best piloting discovery he could've asked for.

    Also, you know, really good for all the other folks on the ground that would have been in danger with the plane suddenly being sans pilot.

    Couldn't they just use the wire to fly it to a safe location?

    Echo wrote: »
    Something working on the first try is a source of great suspicion.
  • tynictynic PICNIC BADASS Registered User, ClubPA regular
    One of my epidemiologist friends is complaining about a microbiologist sounding off about epidemics. But I do think some fields seem to instill their practitioners with more overconfidence than others. (Or maybe the cause/effect goes the other way)

  • jothkijothki Registered User regular
    Being a programmer has only served to convince me that getting things correct on the first try is really, really hard.

    NitsuaRanlinChiselphanePolaritieEchoRMS OceanicKupiSmrtnikCarpyTofystedethStabbity StyleMvrckshrykeCalicawebguy20TeriferinmarajifurlionFleur de Alysvalhalla130IncenjucarMr Ray
  • Inquisitor77Inquisitor77 2 x Penny Arcade Fight Club Champion A fixed point in space and timeRegistered User regular
    Smart people tend to overvalue their expertise and undervalue difficulty in fields which they are not themselves expert precisely because they are smart and they assume that, given enough time and focus, they can achieve and understand anything. A message which is generally reinforced over their lifetimes. I think most of us are guilty of this fault in varying degrees for various things.

    Wisdom lies in knowing that the additional time and experience are often what make all the difference.

    BlackDragon480SleepmrpakuOrcaElvenshaeMidniteBullheadGnome-InterruptusJohn MatrixStabbity StyleSkeithCalicaOghulkmarajifurlionvalhalla130Incenjucar
  • discriderdiscrider Registered User regular
    Physics is the science of making approximations to things I've seen before, so it makes sense that that attitude will carry across into other knowledge areas.

    Steam Community page: http://steamcommunity.com/id/discrider/
    Some sorta sentient internet aggregator
  • NobeardNobeard North Carolina: Failed StateRegistered User regular
    I think part of it is the prestige that some fields have. Doctors are put on a high pedestal in our society which can lead to arrogance and an inflated sense of intellect.

    Economist are highly regarded because the economy is super important so they must be too. Or maybe they're just frustrated they can't do any experiments.

    Physicists I have no clue. I've heard Niel Degrasse Tyson is kinda arrogant so maybe that's just him.

    I'm not saying we are going to have an autocratic dystopia, but things keep happening that look like they come from an autocratic dystopia.
  • Inquisitor77Inquisitor77 2 x Penny Arcade Fight Club Champion A fixed point in space and timeRegistered User regular
    medical doctor = human body mechanic
    economist = self-loathing social scientist who pretends to be a mathematician
    experimental physicist = probabilistic engineer
    theoretical physicist = naturalist philosopher

    ElvenshaeShivahnmrpakushrykeDavid Walgasmarajifurlionvalhalla130Incenjucar
  • Dis'Dis' Registered User regular
    Shivahn wrote: »
    Is that "smart person thinks they know everything about all fields" thing actually universal? I feel like I see it a lot less from biologists and chemists than I do from economists, doctors, and physicists (probably on that order). But I don't know if that's a broad truth, a complete lie, or an artifact of the fact that crazy economists and doctors are politically useful*.

    Not sure why the physics thing seems to be the case, though. I'm extremely tired of these suggested articles I keep getting with titles like (literally the first thing in my feed, the thing that triggered me making this post) "Physics Can Explain Human Innovation and Enlightenment."

    (actually, I think "computer scientists" are also pretty bad re: this, but that is primarily an artifact of the extremely disproportionate power they have over modern society. Also, a lot of the wacky computer scientists don't actually have advanced degrees, so I'm not sure it counts.)

    *actually the economist thing also sticks out to me because I'm a biologist subclass and economists seem to love thinking that they can explain evolution.

    I think biologists at least are experienced in 'shit just happens, 10% measurement errors is a good result, everything is a mess' as opposed to expecting clean confident models.

    The relatively low pay of a lot of bioscience positions doesn't inspire master of the universe thinking either.

    Tynnantynic
  • klemmingklemming Registered User regular
    jothki wrote: »
    Being a programmer has only served to convince me that getting things correct on the first try is really, really hard.
    Being a programmer has taught me that it's okay to put out a broken product as you can fix it later and probably charge extra for the privilege.

    I'm honestly surprised more programmers don't go into politics.

    Nobody remembers the singer. The song remains.
    DoodmannGnome-InterruptusSmrtnikCarpyBullheadshrykeElvenshaeL Ron HowardFleur de AlysboogedybooIncenjucar
  • PolaritiePolaritie Sleepy Registered User regular
    jothki wrote: »
    Being a programmer has only served to convince me that getting things correct on the first try is really, really hard.

    It's taught me:
    1) To doubt anything that works right the first time
    2) The harder it is to find a bug, the smaller and dumber the mistake

    Steam: Polaritie
    3DS: 0473-8507-2652
    Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
    PSN: AbEntropy
    AngelHedgieSpecial KGnome-InterruptusEchoSmrtnikCarpyTofystedethBlackDragon480ChiselphaneBullheadMvrckElvenshaeL Ron HowardSorceboogedyboomarajiIncenjucar
  • ShivahnShivahn Unaware of her barrel shifter privilege Western coastal temptressRegistered User regular
    Dis' wrote: »
    Shivahn wrote: »
    Is that "smart person thinks they know everything about all fields" thing actually universal? I feel like I see it a lot less from biologists and chemists than I do from economists, doctors, and physicists (probably on that order). But I don't know if that's a broad truth, a complete lie, or an artifact of the fact that crazy economists and doctors are politically useful*.

    Not sure why the physics thing seems to be the case, though. I'm extremely tired of these suggested articles I keep getting with titles like (literally the first thing in my feed, the thing that triggered me making this post) "Physics Can Explain Human Innovation and Enlightenment."

    (actually, I think "computer scientists" are also pretty bad re: this, but that is primarily an artifact of the extremely disproportionate power they have over modern society. Also, a lot of the wacky computer scientists don't actually have advanced degrees, so I'm not sure it counts.)

    *actually the economist thing also sticks out to me because I'm a biologist subclass and economists seem to love thinking that they can explain evolution.

    I think biologists at least are experienced in 'shit just happens, 10% measurement errors is a good result, everything is a mess' as opposed to expecting clean confident models.

    The relatively low pay of a lot of bioscience positions doesn't inspire master of the universe thinking either.

    Biology is also just intrinsically complex. There's too much there to reasonably even feel like you know most of. Physics is, in a way, less complicated (not that it's easier, just that there is not as much in terms of raw volume as the diversity of life on Earth), so I could see that being relevant, too. There's also the sense that physics can garner where "everything can be explained, ultimately, through this," which is kinda-sorta true, if not useful.

    Doctors are the outliers here, but they're not biologists, really, and I think that's more of a status thing than anything else.

    Special KMoridin889valhalla130
  • EchoEcho Moderator mod
    jothki wrote: »
    Being a programmer has only served to convince me that getting things correct on the first try is really, really hard.

    Something working on the first try is a source of great suspicion.

    Echo wrote: »
    Let they who have not posted about their balls in the wrong thread cast the first stone.
    PolaritieSpecial KFryRMS OceanicKayne Red RobeAimNitsuaDibbitCarpyTofystedethJust_Bri_ThanksStabbity StyleMvrckshryketynicElvenshaeL Ron HowardAuralynxCalicaOghulkMichaelLCTeriferinmjn6172Mr FuzzbuttForarFleur de Alysvalhalla130boogedyboomarajiSageinaRageIncenjucarAustinP0027Mr RayDrovek
  • DibbitDibbit Registered User regular
    Echo wrote: »
    jothki wrote: »
    Being a programmer has only served to convince me that getting things correct on the first try is really, really hard.

    Something working on the first try is a source of great suspicion.

    If something works on the first try, it's just 2 bugs cancelling each other out.

    Also, "It's highly unlikely that the fault is in your framework, it's probably you, until you know, there's totally a bug in the framework"

    Special KTofystedethBlackDragon480MvrcktynicOghulk
  • Special KSpecial K Registered User regular
    Shivahn wrote: »
    Biology is also just intrinsically complex. There's too much there to reasonably even feel like you know most of. Physics is, in a way, less complicated (not that it's easier, just that there is not as much in terms of raw volume as the diversity of life on Earth), so I could see that being relevant, too.

    I think it's more that physics tries very, very hard to be able to isolate and control variables. When you have complex interacting systems (as is the norm in biology and social sciences), that gets extremely tricky.

    In principle, "the diversity of life on earth" is a subset of "physics" - and is therefore susceptible to the same approaches available to physics (cf. that cartoon continuum of social sciences to physics). The problem is controlling the variables, and anyone with lab experience will no doubt have a bunch of fun stories about that from their own personal experience!

  • TynnanTynnan seldom correct, never unsure Registered User regular
    Special K wrote: »
    Shivahn wrote: »
    Biology is also just intrinsically complex. There's too much there to reasonably even feel like you know most of. Physics is, in a way, less complicated (not that it's easier, just that there is not as much in terms of raw volume as the diversity of life on Earth), so I could see that being relevant, too.

    I think it's more that physics tries very, very hard to be able to isolate and control variables. When you have complex interacting systems (as is the norm in biology and social sciences), that gets extremely tricky.

    In principle, "the diversity of life on earth" is a subset of "physics" - and is therefore susceptible to the same approaches available to physics (cf. that cartoon continuum of social sciences to physics). The problem is controlling the variables, and anyone with lab experience will no doubt have a bunch of fun stories about that from their own personal experience!

    Understatement of the week :rotate:

    Special KPhoenix-DMoridin889ElvenshaeL Ron Howardfurlion
  • KupiKupi Registered User regular
    I'm hesitant to accuse any field of disproportionately overvaluing its understanding of other fields since the members of that field who don't overvalue their own understanding aren't speaking, by definition.

    My favorite musical instrument is the air-raid siren.
    Gnome-InterruptusKayne Red RobeFleur de Alys
  • PhyphorPhyphor Building Planet Busters Tasting FruitRegistered User regular
    Echo wrote: »
    jothki wrote: »
    Being a programmer has only served to convince me that getting things correct on the first try is really, really hard.

    Something working on the first try is a source of great suspicion.

    Something compiling on the first try usually means you were editing files in the wrong tree

    Just_Bri_ThanksCarpyBlackDragon480Special KkimeElvenshaeevilmrhenryForarFleur de AlysboogedyboomarajiIncenjucar
  • FoefallerFoefaller Registered User regular
    Physists think they can solve everything because their job is to express things in a perfect mathematical formula, so there must be such a formula for every problem that can identify and fix it.

    Economists think they can solve everything because everything they deal with involves changes in behavior due to market forces and supply/demand, so by creating the right economic environment you can get anyone to do anything.

    Doctors think they can solve everything because they are given massive amounts of money and prestige for what they do, and why would that be the case if they weren't smart enough to solve everything?

    steam_sig.png
    Special KNobeardElvenshaeIncenjucar
  • Inquisitor77Inquisitor77 2 x Penny Arcade Fight Club Champion A fixed point in space and timeRegistered User regular
    I think most laypeople think physicists think that they know and can describe anything, when most physicists know better and appreciate that they are just describing conceptual models.

    The issue is that physicists think they can apply the same standards to their work to other fields, and that's where it falls apart. It's really easy to create a model for something when you can control every variable (or at least pretend to control every variable, and hand-wave the rest as "dark matter" or "phlogiston"), particularly when you have the benefit of probability as an acceptable sort of proximate a priori standard. Other sciences do not have that luxury because they work at least one level of abstraction beyond physics.

    Special KElvenshaeFiendishrabbitRingo
  • jothkijothki Registered User regular
    klemming wrote: »
    jothki wrote: »
    Being a programmer has only served to convince me that getting things correct on the first try is really, really hard.
    Being a programmer has taught me that it's okay to put out a broken product as you can fix it later and probably charge extra for the privilege.

    I'm honestly surprised more programmers don't go into politics.

    Isn't that how science works as well?

  • PhyphorPhyphor Building Planet Busters Tasting FruitRegistered User regular
    klemming wrote: »
    jothki wrote: »
    Being a programmer has only served to convince me that getting things correct on the first try is really, really hard.
    Being a programmer has taught me that it's okay to put out a broken product as you can fix it later and probably charge extra for the privilege.

    I'm honestly surprised more programmers don't go into politics.

    Politics involves talking to other people and public speaking, eww

    KraintSteel AngelNitsuaCalicaSmrtnikMr FuzzbuttEchoRingoCommunistCowvalhalla130Mr Ray
  • TynnanTynnan seldom correct, never unsure Registered User regular
    jothki wrote: »
    klemming wrote: »
    jothki wrote: »
    Being a programmer has only served to convince me that getting things correct on the first try is really, really hard.
    Being a programmer has taught me that it's okay to put out a broken product as you can fix it later and probably charge extra for the privilege.

    I'm honestly surprised more programmers don't go into politics.

    Isn't that how science works as well?

    n.... no. Research at public institutions operates on modular fixed budgets. You either get your grant funded or you don't, and you don't get to "charge extra for the privilege" later.

    SkeithSpecial KshrykeMvrckTamerBill
  • jothkijothki Registered User regular
    Tynnan wrote: »
    jothki wrote: »
    klemming wrote: »
    jothki wrote: »
    Being a programmer has only served to convince me that getting things correct on the first try is really, really hard.
    Being a programmer has taught me that it's okay to put out a broken product as you can fix it later and probably charge extra for the privilege.

    I'm honestly surprised more programmers don't go into politics.

    Isn't that how science works as well?

    n.... no. Research at public institutions operates on modular fixed budgets. You either get your grant funded or you don't, and you don't get to "charge extra for the privilege" later.

    Scientists don't put out one paper and then retire, they get repeatedly given grants to improve their own or others' flawed or incomplete work.

  • TynnanTynnan seldom correct, never unsure Registered User regular
    jothki wrote: »
    Tynnan wrote: »
    jothki wrote: »
    klemming wrote: »
    jothki wrote: »
    Being a programmer has only served to convince me that getting things correct on the first try is really, really hard.
    Being a programmer has taught me that it's okay to put out a broken product as you can fix it later and probably charge extra for the privilege.

    I'm honestly surprised more programmers don't go into politics.

    Isn't that how science works as well?

    n.... no. Research at public institutions operates on modular fixed budgets. You either get your grant funded or you don't, and you don't get to "charge extra for the privilege" later.

    Scientists don't put out one paper and then retire, they get repeatedly given grants to improve their own or others' flawed or incomplete work.

    Developing a hypothesis, testing it, revising it, and at some point in that loop telling people what you did and how you did it is pretty different from "put out a broken product as you can fix it later." But maybe you're more of a nihilist than I am.

    tynicMoridin889klemming
  • Captain InertiaCaptain Inertia Registered User regular
    Tynnan wrote: »
    jothki wrote: »
    Tynnan wrote: »
    jothki wrote: »
    klemming wrote: »
    jothki wrote: »
    Being a programmer has only served to convince me that getting things correct on the first try is really, really hard.
    Being a programmer has taught me that it's okay to put out a broken product as you can fix it later and probably charge extra for the privilege.

    I'm honestly surprised more programmers don't go into politics.

    Isn't that how science works as well?

    n.... no. Research at public institutions operates on modular fixed budgets. You either get your grant funded or you don't, and you don't get to "charge extra for the privilege" later.

    Scientists don't put out one paper and then retire, they get repeatedly given grants to improve their own or others' flawed or incomplete work.

    Developing a hypothesis, testing it, revising it, and at some point in that loop telling people what you did and how you did it is pretty different from "put out a broken product as you can fix it later." But maybe you're more of a nihilist than I am.

    That’s basically a verbatim description of lean software development

    BlackDragon480CommunistCow
  • Ninja Snarl PNinja Snarl P My helmet is my burden. Ninja Snarl: Gone, but not forgotten.Registered User regular
    Science tries to explain how things work, the explanation doesn't make those things work in and of themselves. The entire basis of science is to understand the rules of a given circumstances in order to try and control or understand the outcome. The explanation for how planes fly isn't what makes planes fly, but science does let us build better planes without pure brute-force trial-and-error. The more we understand and in finer detail, the more amazing things we can do.

    Programming is building something to work and, when the made-up rules aren't right, that something fails. If a program is released and breaks under circumstances it should be able to handle, it's just bad programming. But because of the modern business world, companies are generally pretty comfortable just releasing half-assed things and hoping not the many people hit the ass part.

    This is just quibbling, there's no way ongoing scientific research is equivalent to program development in the modern business world.

    TynnanGnome-InterruptusGiantGeek2020Nyysjan
  • CalicaCalica Registered User regular
    Phyphor wrote: »
    klemming wrote: »
    jothki wrote: »
    Being a programmer has only served to convince me that getting things correct on the first try is really, really hard.
    Being a programmer has taught me that it's okay to put out a broken product as you can fix it later and probably charge extra for the privilege.

    I'm honestly surprised more programmers don't go into politics.

    Politics involves talking to other people and public speaking, eww

    People are maddeningly buggy.

    Jedoc wrote: »
    The GOP cares about babies until they're born, soldiers until they're in need of care, and families until they interfere with stockholder dividends.
    NobeardSorceTofystedethCommunistCowMr Ray
  • Special KSpecial K Registered User regular
    That’s basically a verbatim description of lean software development

    I think this risks obscuring that software assumes an outcome in advance, and science never should.

    Although, software development that does not actually have a designed, preordained result in mind would explain a few things about the modern world I suppose ...

    ElvenshaeTynnanTofystedeth
  • Captain InertiaCaptain Inertia Registered User regular
    edited April 2020
    I am not trying to equate the two, I just wanted to point out what was a funny coincidence to me that Tynnan basically quoted Eric Ries, the author of “Lean Startup”

    Or rather Ries stole his lexicon from science

    Captain Inertia on
    Elvenshae
  • Special KSpecial K Registered User regular
    I am not trying to equate the two, I just wanted to point out what was a funny coincidence to me that Tynnan basically quoted Eric Ries, the author of “Lean Startup”

    Oh, I agree that there are pronounced similarities in approach - I'm not disagreeing with you!

    I just wanted to emphasize that science and engineering can actually different in some important ways; while at the research level there's so much overlap that "engineer" and "scientist" aren't all that useful as differentiators, people often confuse science and engineering in everyday contexts.

    Captain InertiaTynnan
  • CalicaCalica Registered User regular
    Special K wrote: »
    That’s basically a verbatim description of lean software development

    I think this risks obscuring that software assumes an outcome in advance, and science never should.

    Although, software development that does not actually have a designed, preordained result in mind would explain a few things about the modern world I suppose ...

    Not if you think of management/business as the ones running the experiment :razz:

    Jedoc wrote: »
    The GOP cares about babies until they're born, soldiers until they're in need of care, and families until they interfere with stockholder dividends.
    Special KElvenshaeTynnanSteel AngelCaptain InertiaTofystedethCommunistCowIncenjucar
  • Captain InertiaCaptain Inertia Registered User regular
    Ilu all

    TynnanCalicaRingo
This discussion has been closed.