Hacker Newsnew | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit | amix's comments login

Doist - http://doist.io/ - REMOTE

We have 5 development positions open (Front-end (JavaScript), Backend (Python), iOS, Android and DevOps).

At Doist, we specialize in productivity software. We create tools that simplify and organize the day. Our main mission is to help people become more organized and productive. We have made Todoist, one of the most popular task management apps.

Check out http://doist.io/jobs/ if you are interested.

-----


Doist - http://doist.io/ - REMOTE

We have 5 development positions open (Front-end (JavaScript), Backend (Python), iOS, Android and DevOps).

At Doist, we specialize in productivity software. We create tools that simplify and organize the day. Our main mission is to help people become more organized and productive. We have made Todoist, one of the most popular task management apps.

Check out http://doist.io/jobs/ if you are interested.

-----


My thoughts go out to the SpaceX team. Must be devastating to see your hard work blow up :-(

-----


It's part of the job. I was working on a mission scheduled to be launched on Columbia when it blew up. Loss of life aside, that our vehicle blew up wasn't the end of the world. We just used another (which required some adjustment- orbiters weren't all the same).

-----


Interesting - what were the differences between the orbiters that you had to account for?

-----


The cargo bays are laid out a little differently - If I recall correctly, it was mostly due to different styles of airlock between different orbiters. And since the loading on the cargo is highly dependent on where it sits in the bay, you can't just move stuff around willy nilly.

There are probably other minor differences (I want to say there were some electrical interface issues), but that was the part that impacted my work.

-----


Let me guess, your mission went up on Atlantis instead? Being the newest in the fleet I'd expect it to have a different layout from Columbia. Also from your other comments in the thread, sounds like you worked on a Hubble servicing mission, which only Atlantis did after the Columbia accident.

-----


Well, it is rocket science, and even though SpaceX has a higher reliability target, accidents do happen

-----


Space is certainly hard, even for those that people might assume are good at it (NASA, Roscosmos, etc.). This failure is a likely setback for man-rating the falcon in the future.

-----


Doubt it. If anything this is a PERFECT illustration of how well SpaceX is preparing. They know things like this can happen. Notice there was an extended period (multiple seconds) of the rocket smoking before it exploded. Everyone, automated systems included, KNEW something was wrong at that point, before it exploded. At which point dragon would have used its abort system to blast away from the first stage, and made a safe landing.

There is almost no question that had there been people aboard this particular launch, and they were using the newer Dragon that has that capability, no loss of life would have occurred. Unless (of course) there were OTHER malfunctions, too. Never know. Space is indeed hard.

-----


From watching the video, it looks like the engine is running until breakup, which is very sudden. This suggests to me, based on no evidence whatsoever, that:

1. Something went wrong.

2. The onboard automation tried to compensate and kept going in the hope that it wasn't a fatal problem.

3. As soon as it realised it was a fatal problem and the vehicle was lost, it triggered range safety (aka the self destruct system).

If the vehicle had started to topple and broken up due to being pushed sideways through the atmosphere at hypersonic speeds, then I would expect to see much bigger pieces and a slower breakup. As it is it turns from a single vehicle that's obviously in trouble to a cloud of shrapnel very, very quickly. This suggests deliberate destruction (which is the right thing to do).

Although it does seem to take a long time before this happens, and you can see a piece fall off about six or seven seconds before the engines stop. This strikes me as being a lot. Maybe it's not as automated as I thought.

I hope the postmortem is made public once it's done. It'd be fascinating reading.

Edit: I hear a rumour that the bit which fell off was, in fact, the Dragon capsule being ejected. I wonder if it made it down all right? Probably not or we'd have heard about it by now...

Edit edit: According to the press briefing they had Dragon telemetry for 'some period' after the event. So chances are it worked fine until it hit the water. I bet they have boats out looking right now in the hope it survived.

-----


The large object seen leaving the cloud before the final breakup has a distinctly Dragon-looking shape (https://youtu.be/2K030HRTutU?t=2m36s), so it appears to have survived whatever happened basically intact. (This isn't super-surprising, Dragon is a pretty compact structure with a pressure hull, compared to a long and skinny rocket.)

Gwynne stated in the press conference that, to her knowledge, the range safety system had not been activated.

-----


Can Dragon abort and separate at Max Q? If I recall correctly the Space Shuttle had several flight periods at which it wouldn't have been able to separate from the boosters and / or tank.

-----


Yes. Later this year they're doing an in-flight abort test not-quite-at-max-Q, but close enough. Source: http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/01/spacex-ready-crewed-d...

-----


It's worth noting that that's Dragon V2.

-----


To my knowledge, Dragon V2 can abort throughout the launch.

-----


The major problem is that some of the best Europeans leave to US to start or join startup companies (e.g. Stripe). And if you look at the best US companies you will typically see a large amounts of Europeans in them. So Europeans are very capable of starting and joining startups - they just don't do it in Europe.

What Europe needs is a better way to keep the talent at home.

-----


We know how to keep the talent at home. The simple solution is to pay them more money (which people tend to crave). But because most European countries have more social security cushion, we tend to pay more taxes. This makes it difficult to compete for companies in say France, Germany, Sweden, etc.

So, at the risk of being extremely antagonistic with this, the solution is for us as societies to start caring less about the less fortunate and give more to the "job creators" like it's done in the USA.

Then we'll be able to compete on a level ground.

-----


What's the point of being competitive if you throw your quality of life away to obtain it?

-----


Exactly my point. It's all about the kind of society you want for yourselves and others. The number of homeless people in North American cities is always a dire reminder that there is a societal cost to deregulation and making life easier for the business bootstrappers. Every other choice you can make for your people as a politician is always a double-edged sword anyway, I'm not knocking the pro-business approach here, it's just that I would choose more taxes every time because I've seen the benefits first hand.

-----


Doist - http://doist.io/ - REMOTE - Senior Android Developer

We’re looking for a passionate Android developer to join our awesome team. You will be joining our 4-person team of developers, collaborating with them as well as working independently on various Android development projects. Most projects will be related to the mobile development for Todoist for Android (ranked last year by Google as one of the 40 best apps in the Play Store).

Required qualifications include: 2+ years of professional Android development or an impressive portfolio, experience with Android Studio, deep awareness of the Material design guidelines, familiar with Git, passion for what you do, and responsiveness and good communication (in English). It’s a bonus if you have experience in JUnit / Espresso and/or the Gradle build system, and if you’ve contributed to open-source projects. We look forward to hearing from you!

Contact me directly at amix@doist.io if you are interested.

If you refer a developer and we hire this person we'll gift you the new MacBook (worth about $1299).

-----


Doist - http://doist.io/ - REMOTE - Senior Android Developer

We’re looking for a passionate Android developer to join our awesome team. You will be joining our 4-person team of developers, collaborating with them as well as working independently on various Android development projects. Most projects will be related to the mobile development for Todoist for Android (ranked last year by Google as one of the best apps in the Play Store!)

Required qualifications include: 2+ years of professional Android development or an impressive portfolio, experience with Android Studio, deep awareness of the Material design guidelines, familiar with Git, passion for what you do, and responsiveness and good communication (in English).

It’s a bonus if you have experience in JUnit / Espresso and/or the Gradle build system, and if you’ve contributed to open-source projects. We look forward to hearing from you!

Contact me directly at amix@doist.io if you are interested.

If you refer a developer and we hire this person we'll gift you the new MacBook (worth about $1299) - - or $1000 in cash. You are welcome to refer yourself.

-----


I think this could be prevented by removing humans from the cockpit and let computers take over. Computers are already controlling most of the things inside an airplane. If this isn't possible, then the flight software should at least have protection against malicious pilots (this would protect against the mentally ill and also against terrorism (e.g. 9/11)). Basically, the planes could have failsafes to prevent malicious pilots from crashing them down or crashing them into things.

-----


I think this could be prevented by removing humans from the cockpit and let computers take over.

I think we are not there yet:

http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/lufthansa-airbus-computerpann...

tl;dr: frozen sensors put the plane on a crash course. Plane is saved by pilots completely shutting down the computer system.

-----


The question is at what point flight software can be demonstrated to have a small fraction of the failure rate that humans have.

We could certainly have software flying a plane tomorrow if we wanted to, at the cost of failure rates several orders of magnitude higher. Humans have the capacity look around, intuit what's going on and what doesn't make sense, and work around it. Software that can detect and understand what to do when 3 things that each occur only one in 1,000 flights, happen simultaneously while 3 out of 10 of the sensor networks are down for maintenance and rare weather patterns are occurring on the route.

We have 100,000 flights per day to cover. Right now, we have lethal accidents roughly monthly, but we have contingency conditions that might plausibly cause a lethal accident a thousand times more often, conditions that are caught, troubleshooted, and successfully mitigated by a human.

-----


Unfortunately we're about 40-50 years out before an automated flight control system can reproduce the critical activities of a well-trained human team of pilots.

But yes, we'll reach a point where the liability of having human beings fly planes vs the sophistication/reliability of an automated system will reach the point where the answer is a foregone conclusion. It's just a half-century away.

-----


we're about 40-50 years out

More like 10-15 years.

Airliners already spend most of their life on autopilot today. Many (including the Airbus that crashed here) have auto-landing systems[1], too.

Fully autonomous passenger aircraft are being tested[2] in shared airspace since 2012.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autoland

[2] http://www.baesystems.com/magazine/BAES_051920/look-no-hands

-----


The utility of autopilot to a pilot is comparable to that of cruise control to a driver, it takes away some of the drudgery. It is not robust enough to be unmonitored by a human. It can not make the many decisions that arise every day in aviation, such as if and how to avoid a thunderstorm.

Autoland needs ground equipment that is expensive to install and has stringent requirements on the surrounding topography that means many airports can not install it. It also takes 2 people's full attention to make the autoland happen in a consistently safe manner, it's not a case of pressing the LAND button and sitting back sipping tea. This video shows a bit of that https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMydKAcqKCg

-----


It is not robust enough to be unmonitored by a human.

I'm no aviation expert, but isn't that only because the systems in civilian aircraft are decades old?

The state of the art in military drones seems to be autonomous landings on aircraft carriers[1]. The safety requirements for an Airliner are of course much higher than for an UAV, but the underlying technologies seem to be rather mature already.

[1] http://www.theverge.com/2013/7/10/4511476/autonomous-drone-f...

-----


Landing is (as you've already noticed) the least significant reason as to why we have a human piloting team in an airplane.

If I could afford it, I would love to make a $10,000 long bet as to when we will see a major airline routinely (1/day) fly a route with > 200 passengers.

I'm saying it won't be later than 2065, but also won't be sooner than 2050.

-----


I would take you up on that bet, and go for around 2025. Technology is progressing pretty fast in this area.

-----


100% agree that the tactical technologies are racing forward, and it's apparent to everyone that things like self driving cars on freeways will be available within the next two-three years, and that sensor and response technologies will make a lot of the typical flying events a lot safer - takeoffs and landings are just two of them.

Where I don't think the technology is moving is on the executive level, which is where having a highly trained and knowledgeable flight crew in the plane is invaluable.

I'm guessing that any trained and qualified pilot of a large commercial airliner (which I am not), can immediately come up with 100 different scenarios for which there is no technology apparent in the next 15 years.

Put another way, in 10 years, 99.99%+ of the time, automated systems will be doing all of the actual takeoffs/flying/landing, but that 0.01% of the time is why we'll keep a flight crew in the cockpit.

-----


Even the amount of automation we have today leads to the very real danger of pilot boredom: what do they do to keep busy when the flight is on auto for most of the trip and they are stuck in the cockpit just monitoring things? At least if they could fly the plane, they would have something to do! Imagine if your job was just to monitor the computer program itself, you'd get paid (yeh!), but not having anything to do would take a toll!

Check out:

http://www.newyorker.com/science/maria-konnikova/hazards-aut...

If we automate even more, the problem just becomes worse. We could pull back on automation to keep the pilots alert, but we are increasingly relying on it to optimize resources (air space, fuel, airport take off and landing slots, and ya safety).

And...that's just it. Computers don't get bored. I suffer from some depression also (who doesn't!), but I find that my job keeps me busy enough that I can keep it in check. Imagine being a bit depressed and sitting in a cockpit doing nothing for a few hours at a time.

-----


A comple of months ago I experienced the auto-landing system (as a passenger of course). The captain made the announcement before landing as meteorological conditions weren't that good (fog). I must admit I felt a little uneasy...and I am an engineer (maybe that's the reason :))

-----


Ya Get rid of the persons involved...i.e. Self flying planes. It will happen eventually, it is a much easier problem than self driving cars, and there are already planes that can take off and land themselves in certain conditions.

But this isn't really a huge frequent problem, just one that gets a lot of press.

-----


Why stop there? The best way to get rid of persons involved is not flying the passengers.

Until then, having the human pilot capable of overriding the computer is actually a good thing, see danieldk's comment. That the computers should help the humans as much as possible is indisputable, but it's a gradual and hard process to bring the real improvements.

-----


In the long term it's ineveitable, juist like self ddiving cars are. Computers are actually very suitable for this.

Today, ya, maybe not yet, but we are definitely close. Flying is a hard job on humans, the hours suck, the job can be very monontomous. The problem isn't that the pilots are evil/bad, just that humans are unsuited to these kinds of tasks. Like driving.

-----


This is very easy to imagine but needs quite a bit of testing. Human sensors are taken care of 16/7 approximately, not so with mechanical ones. A pilot can always say "I feel sick." A frozen sensor cannot.

-----


Elite accountants usually get promoted into CFO positions, where they are very important and get a huge paycheck. There is a huge difference between a good and an amazing CFO.

I think 10X people exist in any area, including accounting and programming. E.g. John Carmack, Linus Torvalds, Poul-Henning Kamp. Some top accountants can be found by looking at CFO positions of huge companies.

These people are very rare tho' and most of us have probably not worked with a 10X person. Just like most of us have not played football with a "Ronaldo-level" player.

-----


There are probably also 100X people - and they're mostly unemployable in any conventional sense. (Maybe Wolfram and Kurzweil?)

I think the bar for top talent is higher than is obvious, and it's lower than it used to be.

It's not at the level of 'smart and gets a lot of stuff done' - it's at the level of good as McCarthy and K&R and the guys (and occasionally the women) who invented coding in the 60s and 70s.

Most of them have been forgotten, but many of them had phenomenal skills - the kind of people who would work for a couple of months on a project, type in all the code on a single day, and have it work perfectly first time.

Or who would sketch out a fully functional timesharing OS for a new hardware architecture over a weekend and have it finished and working a couple of months later.

Or the small team at Xerox PARC led by Charles Thacker who decided to clone an entire DEC PDP-10 mainframe as a side project, because management wouldn't let them buy one and they wanted something nicer to code on.

-----


The list of speakers looks fantastic! This said, I think the list lacks diversity. I think it would be great to have someone outside of SV in it (e.g. Jason Fried, Jeff Bezos etc.) One of the better Startup School talks I seen was from DHH (that presented another way of building a successful company).

-----


But then they'd have to cover stuff like focusing on sales from the start of a business, developing a business model, and making money (from customers) ASAP.

(In case of confusion, I have my tongue in cheek ;-) These topics will surely be covered in the content somewhere if it's about building a business.)

-----


There is a better way to do this by using bitmaps (especially bitmaps in Redis). I recommend looking at https://github.com/Doist/bitmapist

-----


Technically HyperLogLog works on bitmaps, this library leverages this fact and uses Redis bitmaps instead of an in-memory implementation.

Although we are fans of Redis, if you implement it natively you can avoid network latency. Implementing it natively is not a problem because of the commutative nature of HyperLogLog

Further, If one is planning to use Redis it will be better to use built-in HyperLogLog datastructure provided by Redis 2.8.9 as documented here http://antirez.com/news/75

-----

More

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: