CorvusCrypto

A post about some progress on making a rust-based ARINC 424 reader library

This is a neat tool, and while this is maybe a bit too local for hackernews, I can say that using the current ebike rental system in Stockholm is pretty problematic atm. Currently the perspective is like you go to find a bike in the official app, but there are none there in reality. Or it doesn't unlock or the battery is at like 3 percent (shown in the app when unlocked). The system is great however when it does work because ebikes are nice.

To be honest, with how open data is becoming I would bet we see more solutions from independent parties to solve problems with official solutions. Was an interesting case to see here. And ofc I am benefitting from it by being able to actually ride ebikes so that's nice. Some problems with the app I notice ofc (doesnt show your location well imo), but the official app is so horrible I overlook this.

Here was the original reddit thread posted on this where I saw it: https://www.reddit.com/r/stockholm/comments/wc6yot/stockholm...

I think in many ways it does because - and this is not meant to be a criticism but a statement of experience - I have really only heard complaints from those that are used to a culture of being able to drive somewhere, get their items of choice and bring them back. Maybe it is more of a Stockholm thing to plan days around this sort of thing, but when you say you only change once from Thorildsplan that is to me initially thinking an amazing setup. But I can see where if you come from a place where you just hop into the car and drive 5 minutes you get to your destination why it would be annoying. And yeah ofc it's just expected that for somethings you need to plan 3rd party services around things. For the garbage collection prime example, TipTapp is our goto since it works wonders for us (but ofc can't technically do "garbage" with it but great for sofas and such), we accept that without a car and trailer this is what we must do. That or plan around a neighbor's trip. As for not renting, I mean it's stockholm, parking will be expensive and not everyone likes the idea of paying 1100kr per month for parking I get it. Sometimes we rent a car but that's more for longer trips (read: to Romme Alpin or the like). I guess it's part of living in the city. You make a lot of tradeoffs. I do remember hearing how frustrating it was though for some expat colleagues that everything had to be planned for summer by like April/May and they liked to be more spontaneous. It makes me wonder that maybe it is just expected of people to plan too much here :P. If you try to just be spontaneous it doesn't work out well for many

The thing that will be interesting to see as well is how they approach a market where delivery has been increasingly important over bulk availability. Thinking about prices of services like MatHem and picsmart etc and if they can shake it up

I am curious if your perspective comes from someone that is swedish or not. The general consensus locally is the opposite sentiment ime and ofc you can easily rent cars for the day or a small trailer for very cheap. That coupled with the fact to for example Kungens Kurva it is somewhere you can get to within an hour from within even the city center is quite nice and the bus stop is literally next to the IKEA (ofc you go to Barkarby if more north and again the station for the bus is right next to center). The delivery is interesting that you note considering we have always been able to get things delivered to our apartment though maybe it depends where you live...

That plus people are incorrectly assuming that it's bad that the charity gets leftovers. That money is still a net positive which they wouldn't have made otherwise as well as an increase in sponsors via the event. The amount of cynicism here is daft.

Mostly inexperience/doing this with first timers played the major role

The number of regular jumps by experienced enthusiasts done during this period is estimated at 50,000, giving an incidence of injury for regular parachutists of 0.02% – reflecting better expertise and training

depends on the goal. I've parachuted for a charity event before. It's more about the awareness than anything as well. You tend to use an event that attracts people because of some interest factor and it in turn generates more awareness to that charity as well as more sponsors. It's not just about the skydiving after all. Think of it as a form of marketing but for [marketing to] people interested in people doing something stupid.

Edit: I should say I did this as an A-license holder

Americans on the whole don't trust their government quite a lot. If the government just said "you owe X in tax this year", nearly everyone's knee jerk reaction would be that the government is overestimating and cheating them.

That's why most governments that do self-declaration services make it so you can review what tax rules they based amounts off of. It's not like tax law is super easy elsewhere and without complications. I should never have to pay a fee just to declare taxes to reconcile things for the IRS. That is a basic governmental responsibility to give me that service for free.

how would that affect ease of tax generation? You would still need to have the proper congressional authorities vote on the matter, no? And sure, when I am in sweden I get taxed more because of VAT and such, but having a national standard where I can just declare my taxes for the year by pushing a single button for free through the government tax app is a benefit to outweigh any worry that you will get shafted by new taxes. In the US it just seems backwards and no excuse can justify this. Horrible system.

Infinite scroll is not for user experience. It's to increase session times. If you increase the time spent in an app or on a page you increase the chance of getting revenue in ads for social or media sites or purchases in marketplaces. In other words screw UX because this is about increasing engagement to increase monetization. Stressed or not, users do increase session time on infinite scroll pages than when using regular paginated views

Could be wrong but I believe s lot of coroutine implementations use this as well since the call preserves the frame info in the result.

Does the US government get royalties from product sales on an invention that came solely du to its funding sources?

If the answer is no then I'm with the other commenter, all the rest of the points are a sidetrack. You're saying everything about pushing inventions into market faster. Great. However the argument was around "why aren't we getting the money back from direct profit from these inventions?" The taxpayers are the ones that front the money. The taxpayers can be likened to the investors. However it is, in every case, that the tax payers don't get anything out of this. Benefit to society, you might argue. But I'm not feeling as the beneficiary when I pay a shit ton for medicine or a specific item because it's patented, even though NSF or NIH funded the research.

And the other side effect you mention, of protection from competition, I'd argue that is a negative. You already get the headstart on research and the money to do it in the first place. Why do you get so much time to have your product untouchable after the fact? I wouldn't doubt it if this protection is why we see abuse of the medical or automobile industry's prices for things.

If you are a private inventor, using your own money, sure. Give the protections. If you use government grants, I'd say that the government owes it to us to document any invention from it and give it open competition access or get royalties from its sales.

And yes, I'd rather the government handle IP rather than DuPonts research team. Every single time.

I'm fine with this, but it is a bit annoying to see a developer not deal with 64-bit builds. I wonder if it's only because Windows allows them to be lazy while it generates more money for them?

Either way I think valve's Linux team should rethink this. They depend on 32-bit libs, but Surely they can find alternatives for the 64-bit build and who knows it might even make the experience on Linux even better.

So taking a devil's advocate approach on this... What would you think about text if you instead organized your code into logically partitioned submodules and followed a very easy to understand organization?

In my opinion, when working with a codebase that is well organized, it feels like reading a blueprint just by the folder and file structures. So the question from the devil's advocate, are we really in need of visual methods for programming? or do we just need to get better at organizing code?

Edit: Assume that good organization lends to easy copying/generation of submodules for use elsewhere

This is tired logic. The fact remains that if I go out and look up in the sky and see moving lights, I'm going to be annoyed. Airplane, satellite, whatever, it's not a good experience and it is absolutely a problem still regardless of the comparison to other problems. However someone said it would be rare. As long as I don't look up and see non-natural moving lights in the sky I'm cool with it.

That doesn't make it better imo, though someone commented under my other response to this that in reality it wouldn't be so noticeable which is good. The moment it makes a noticeable and lingering change in the sky picture, however, I would hope people accept that it would be time to reduce the clutter

Hmm no. That does put me at more ease.

And yeah I included that last part in the estimate for seeing up to 50, otherwise the projection would be of course up to half of all of them.

That's good then. And no I don't think it's uglier. You're right that many of the billboards and such are ugly but I still believe this to be ugly as well and I don't thing something being uglier invalidates it

Someone else commented something that puts me at more ease but it is worrying at first glance.

Hmmm well I hope it's not noticeable because starlink is planning 24 orbital planes with 60 satellites per. With that it's safe to say you could see up to 50 or so of them in a night due to the constellation pattern. That's a lot of flickering and moving light in the sky when coupled with AWS' initiative also. I'm hoping your right but at first glance it doesn't seem great.

Okay that's interesting but I have to say it's also quite ugly. Is this a new trend to cluster satellites like this? If so what advantage does it bring and is it worth that ugly streak appearing in the night?

I get this comment is very subjective but surely I'm not the only one thinking it's a bit of an eyesore

Yes that she was an agent at the time. But no that she had access to those materials. There are various levels of government access. Even if documents are marked "secret" and you have secret clearance if you don't have the passwords you don't have access. And actually in government sometimes you do have the passwords and still don't have granted access. Any tampering with a computer to gain access you didn't have approval for from your supervisors is considered hacking. Yes it's an internal IT violation, but at a government office which makes it a government offense. I hope that makes sense. It's not like a normal company where you get repercussion from that entity alone at these sorts of government orgs.

At face value it doesn't seem so crazy to charge him for this. I mean it is committing a crime by proxy as opposed to passively obtaining information from a source (the latter of which journalists should be protected for).

If I give tools and a robbery checklist to someone and tell them to rob a bank, surely I'm still able to be charged and probably for a higher crime right? At least that's how these charges seem to me. I guess I don't see how it's invalid.

I do however see how this could set a dangerous precedent should the courts allow loose interpretation of the outcome to mean "reporting leaked information is illegal"

I was definitely one who thought it should be so simple to follow a standard stab trim runaway and made several comments to it too. But the more it drags on the more I'm learning from the data that the procedure to correct is just bullshit.

Boeing is now in unsaveable waters for this situation and all doubt is being removed. I still am upset that any airline was able to in good faith say "nah we don't want all the safety options not worth it" but here it doesn't seem it would have helped much the more data comes out.

The rule is clearly stated in the swedish article that during these drives a person must be present with one hand on the controls just I'm case. Same saftey net, really, remote or not imo makes no difference

My whole take on this:

Commands can go through message busses and be managed easily or it could just be a sequence of async requests, but regardless of what drives commands and events at that point you should have a very solid CQRS architecture in mind. What should be acknowledged to the client is that the command was published and that's it. The problem is of course eventual consistency but it's a trade-off for being able to handle a huge amount of load by scaling separately both COMMAND handlers which perform data modification, and EVENT handlers that allow the side effects that must occur.

In a typical web app setup I would define a request ID at time of client request. The request creates a COMMAND which carries with it a request ID as well as a command ID. This results in an action and then the EVENT is published with the request ID, command ID, and event ID.

To monitor you collect the data and then look at the timestamp differences to monitor lag and dropped messages. With the events, you get all the data necessary to audit what request, and subsequent command, created a system change. To audit the full data change however, and not just which request caused what change, you need to have a very well-structured event model designed for what you want to audit.

You can't guarantee when a command or subsequent event will be processed, but that's fine. That's the whole point around eventual consistency. It's a bit uncomfortable at first, but use the lag monitoring and traceability as a debug tool when needed and really it's no problem. Also just shift the client over to reading from your read-specific projections on refresh or periodically and data will eventually appear for the user. It's the reason sometimes a new order might not appear right away on your order history for instance on Amazon, and in reality it's fine 99% of the time. Never have your client wait on a result. Instead think: how can I design my application to not need to block on anything? It's doable though it is quite hard and if you've only designed synchronous systems it will feel so uncomfortable.

And remember some things should not have CQRS design, backed by a message bus or not. These will be bottlenecks but they might be necessary. The whole system you design doesn't have to stick to a single paradigm. Need transaction IDs to be strictly consistent for a checkout flow to be secure and safe? Use good old synchronous methods to do it.

Core in all of this is data design. If you design your entities, commands, or events poorly, you will suffer the consequences. You will often hear the word "idempotency" a lot in CQRS design. It's because idempotent commands are super important in preventing unintended side effects. Same with idempotent events, if possible. If you get duplicate events from a message bus, idempotency will save your arse if it's a critical part of the system. If it's something mild like an extra "addToCart" command or something, no big deal really, but imagine a duplicated "payOrder" command ;).

To summarize, I correlate output to commands and requests by ensuring there are no unknown side-effects, critical synchronous components remain synchronous, designing architecture that compliments the data (not the other way around), and ensuring that the client is designed in such a way that eventual consistency doesn't matter from the user perspective when it comes into play.

Okay. Calm down for 1. Also the prelim data is there to review. The graph shows clearly there's a large plunge and there absolutely was a negative g report in the prelim showing that at the final few moments the trim settings from the FCC gave another correction. As for the cutoff, the report annotations tell you when they toggled the cutout switch. I went back and yeah actually you're right it was only once to cutoff and back to normal sorry for that mistake. However the overspeed is still supported from the data and yes the data shows vertical g forces and at the end there was a lurch of -2 Gs before total loss. It's on page 27.

As for less speed causing more nose down moment, yeah but at the same time they weren't in a descent for that portion either, nor were they nose down (this from page 26). The data shows they were oscillating though climbing slightly while they were overspeeding. In this case it could have helped to reduce the forces at play. I think it was more that they were just busy and left thrust settings where they were from takeoff.

I get it. I understand everyone's frustration. In similar fashion I understand how unlikely it is a crew would have the mental capacity to deal with stick shakers, GPWS callouts, and still fix the problem and that is the tragedy here. However the report said they followed proper procedure but look at the data. 95% N1, turning auto trim on and off a few times, the last time causing the huge -2G bump. There also is not enough data to us yet to determine they did regain control of the plane before enabling electric trim again. I don't think in the case of runaway trim you are supposed to keep switching the cutoff and leave your plane above Vmo. Something doesn't add up according to the data imo.

Yes I agree. And I'm pleading that everyone also recognise the other aspects of these.incidents such as improper basic procedure. It's all of the above.

Edit: And remember at the end of the day, these airlines and pilots agreed to fly the plane. Even in the wake of the LionAir incident. At the end of the day, the pilots choose to fly and can say no if they aren't comfortable. And if the answer to this is that there is pressure from airlines to keep flying? We just found another major issue and danger in aviation

Edit2: should clarify actually that I agree it's a bad design. Not about the procedures being "unintuitive". If the pilots think the corrective procedures are unintuitive they shouldn't fly any 737 since stab trim systems exist on all 737s and require the same corrective procedure in runaway stab trim.

Yeah I clarified in the reply that I don't think it's one or the other but all of the above. I'm trying to supplement the author's write-up, not override it. I hat that it's become a case of a single fault. It's not. It usually never is. And people are arguing only one side or the other. In every incident we need to look at the whole picture.