Remote: Open to remote or hybrid/in-office in SF Bay Area
Willing to relocate: Open to west coast
Technologies: Full stack web dev for 15+ years in many forms. In recent years I've been focused on game development projects using Babylon/WebGL and working with C++ & Go server-side (MMO servers). Many years of project and product management as well.
I have some cool projects! See my personal site for email and some of those projects:
My largest project is https://www.eternalsagas.com/, which is a near-full reverse engineering and work towards a re-implementation of the 2007 MMORPG "Vanguard". The current browser-based client is very far behind my Godot based client, which I'll be releasing in a couple weeks.
Coolest more-released one is probably https://www.idlequest.net/, which is an idle-game web-based version of classic EverQuest, complete with its original 3D graphics in-browser and a real-time MMO server! Had up to 70 players online at the same time a month or two ago.
Looking largely for product engineering positions for organizations that are on the vibe-coding bandwagon, or project/product management style work. Have done both and enjoy both a lot. Open to contracting or full-time.
Were any of them actually failures? My understanding is they push limits and create intentional weak points to see where it fails, and something failing isn't a mission failure but rather part of the research process.
The goals of the V2 flights were to test the improved heat shield and to test satellite deployment. The first three V2 flights did not make it far enough to test either of those goals. It wasn't until Flight 10 that they could actually test that, and that was 9 months later.
Effectively, SpaceX lost 9 months due to problems with V2.
Sure, one could argue that it's still research (no customer was affected), and there was no way to know V2 would fail until it was tested.
But watching the stream, it was clear that the SpaceX team was very disappointed with the outcome. I remember watching Flight 1, which nearly destroyed the launch pad and didn't make it to SECO, but still SpaceX was ecstatic with the results.
2025 was supposed to be the year SpaceX tested in-space refueling. The V2 failures delayed that, and whether or not a different company could have done better (my guess is no), SpaceX still felt like they failed.
Your standards of success are unrealistic and don't reflect the history of spaceflight. Designing and building rockets is incredibly difficult and has always been marred by a high failure rate. The early years of the US space program had an abysmal mission failure rate. Vanguard (1957-1959) was a disaster with 9 failures out of 12 attempts. A 25% success rate. Ranger (1961–1965) had 6 failures in a row out of 9 missions. By Apollo the US cleaned up its act, but had multiple high-profile failures (Apollo 1, 6, and 13).
The Soviets were not better, the Luna program failed 11 missions in a row out of 12 missions. The N1 rocket went 0 for 4 and its failure ended the Soviet lunar program.
SpaceX Falcon 1 failed three of its first five launches, which nearly bankrupt the company. The rocket's successor, the Falcon 9, ended up becoming the most reliable rocket ever produced.
The fact that Starship even functions with so few test flights is an engineering marvel.
Absolutely--space is hard, and Starship is the most ambitious rocket ever, and SpaceX is, pretty obviously, the most talented and capable space company today (and maybe ever). I'm not arguing anything different.
I'm just saying that SpaceX themselves expected V2 to work better than it did. I don't think they would disagree that the first three launches of V2 were failures relative to their expectations.
But none of that contradicts your point that, even with failures, Starship is an engineering marvel. I do agree with you on that.
Remote: Open to remote or hybrid/in-office in SF Bay Area
Willing to relocate: Open to west coast
Technologies: Full stack web dev for 15+ years in many forms. In recent years I've been focused on game development projects using Babylon/WebGL and working with C++ & Go server-side (MMO servers). Many years of project and product management as well.
I have some cool projects! See my personal site for email and some of those projects:
Coolest released one is probably https://www.idlequest.net/, which is an idle-game web-based version of classic EverQuest, complete with its original 3D graphics in-browser and a real-time MMO server! Had up to 70 players online at the same time a month or two ago.
About to release my biggest project, which is a full reverse engineering and re-implementation of the 2007 MMORPG "Vanguard".
Looking largely for product engineering positions, or project/product management style work. Have done both and enjoy both a lot. Open to contracting or full-time.
ICANN's main process for handling trademark-based complaints is the UDRP (Uniform Domain-Name Dispute Resolution Policy). This policy is used for instances where someone claims you registered a domain in bad faith that matches their trademark, and they have a panel that looks at whether you have "rights or legitimate interests" in the name. Bad faith evaluations by this policy often involves intent to sell the domain to the trademark owner, disrupt their business, or attract users by confusion.
So the spirit of ICANN's philosophy around this is clear: we don't want people buying domains with the intent of withholding them and later profiting by selling them to trademark holders. I would argue that preemptively buying domains with the speculation that people will eventually want them and pay for them is basically a violation against the spirit of their policy, you're just operating in bad faith preemptively against any possible future owner rather than a current specific one.
Disputes around this are notoriously unsuccessful. I say all this context to get to the point that I think the current system would work fine if there were policies that included this style of preemptive squatting, and more of an ability to successfully dispute bad faith actors. Including by looking at: how many other domains does this person own and not meaningfully use, how much is the site a legitimate use versus asking ChatGPT to write 50 articles, and whether the effort or investment put into the site is proportional to a ballpark of the value of a domain name. With exceptions, perhaps, for situations like domains that are also your name.
I'm even fine with the idea that domains go to the highest bidder on fixed terms, like 5-10 years. Or that it will at least require good-faith evaluation after a fixed term. But it's a problem when that money goes to squatters instead of towards something useful, like funding infrastructure. Maybe we can have a non-profit version of Cloudflare.
My observations have been that image generation is especially challenged when asked to do things that are unusual. The fewer instances of something happening it has to train on, the worse it tends to be. Watch repair done in water fits that well - is there a single image on the internet of someone repairing a watch that is partially submerged in water? It also tends to be bad at reflections and consistency of two objects that should be the same.
I'm currently testing 4.7 with some reverse engineering stuff/Ghidra scripting and it hasn't refused anything so far, but I'm also doing it on a 20 year old video game, so maybe it doesn't think that's problematic.
I watched a starship launch live, in-person, and had the experience of driving up to the launch complex the night before and car camping right outside of it and looking out my car window in the middle of the night and seeing a massive rocket lit up with spotlights. It was the most "I live in the future" experience of my entire life. I can't wait to go back and see a chopsticks catch live.
If the physics were accurate enough, I don't think it'd be easy - you'd get constant elliptical orbits in most cases, right? making the timing much harder going forward
Location: San Francisco Bay Area, California
Remote: Open to remote or hybrid/in-office in SF Bay Area
Willing to relocate: Open to west coast
Technologies: Full stack web dev for 15+ years in many forms. In recent years I've been focused on game development projects using Babylon/WebGL and working with C++ & Go server-side (MMO servers). Many years of project and product management as well.
I have some cool projects! See my personal site for email and some of those projects:
https://brynnbateman.com/
My largest project is https://www.eternalsagas.com/, which is a near-full reverse engineering and work towards a re-implementation of the 2007 MMORPG "Vanguard". The current browser-based client is very far behind my Godot based client, which I'll be releasing in a couple weeks.
Coolest more-released one is probably https://www.idlequest.net/, which is an idle-game web-based version of classic EverQuest, complete with its original 3D graphics in-browser and a real-time MMO server! Had up to 70 players online at the same time a month or two ago.
Looking largely for product engineering positions for organizations that are on the vibe-coding bandwagon, or project/product management style work. Have done both and enjoy both a lot. Open to contracting or full-time.
Email/LinkedIn/GitHub is on my website!
reply