I have an Irish name, such as O’Donnell, and even in 2023 it’s not unusual for a web site to say “Invalid last name” when entered. Like it’s 1996 and I’m doing a SQL injection attack.
More code is being written every day than is being retired. With an ever-growing code base, comes the requirement for more resources to maintain it. Demand for developers is outpacing supply.
> Huawei/Skycom was allegedly selling US products to Iran
Huawei stole a Canadian company's technology [1], markets products in America [2], has issued dollar-denominated debt [3] and then went and violated sanctions in dollar-denominated transactions. This is a far cry from extraterritorial enforcement for either the U.S. or Canada.
> Huawei stole a Canadian company's technology [1]
I can believe that. But how is this related?
> markets products in America
> has issued dollar-denominated debt
> and then went and violated sanctions in dollar-denominated transactions.
I don't believe any of this is true for Huawei incorporated in China. US subsidiaries of Huawei most likely follow the US law or otherwise their execs would get arrested.
> I don't believe any of this is true for Huawei incorporated in China. US subsidiaries of Huawei most likely follow the US law or otherwise their execs would get arrested.
American criminal law, like most criminal law, pierces corporate veils. Sanctions law, in particular, is an absolute responsibility law that traces liability to decision makers.
The analogy would be an American company violating Chinese laws while selling products in China and borrowing in renminbi and then getting pissed off when their executive is arrested by a neighbouring country. "The other entity broke the law" would be as silly a defense in that case as it is here.
And if we don't want to use American sanctions laws as a baseline, the alleged violations all happened while U.N. sanctions were in effect.
> And if we don't want to use American sanctions laws as a baseline, the alleged violations all happened while U.N. sanctions were in effect.
UN sanctions cover mostly military and nuclear equipment - I don't believe that either ZTE or Huawei participated in arms sales to Iran. US accuses both of integrating and reselling modem chipsets made by companies like Broadcom.
This looks to me like trade war where law is used instrumentally and public opinion is shaped to make it look differently to what it actually is.
"blow it up" was an example of a thing that "could not make sense" for rocket science as a quote. I also did not know (and currently do not know) of significant rocket explosions or failures that didn't result in the loss of human life, sadly.
Looking at the list here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_spaceflight-related_ac... I'm guessing Soyuz 33, STS-1 and a few others would have worked, but any of those would have brought back similar images, whether the space shuttle image was of a complete one or from the challenger explosion, a failure in rocket science reminds you of any of those you have seen; car crashes and airplane crashes are likely the same.
Then again, it's possible the whole slide is in bad taste. I wanted to convey what the 'let it crash' stuff felt to me the first time I heard it, and Challenger's disaster felt both higher profile and more distant in our collective memory than any random disasters I could have used.
I could probably have avoided discussing the topic entirely, but I hoped that the context around it where I think it would obviously be a bad idea to have 'blow it up' as a rocket science motto would save it. It possibly failed.
> I wanted to convey what the 'let it crash' stuff felt to me the first time I heard it, and Challenger's disaster felt both higher profile and more distant in our collective memory than any random disasters I could have used.
This was a good choice.
> ...I hoped that the context around it where I think it would obviously be a bad idea to have 'blow it up' as a rocket science motto would save it.
Given enough people, someone will inevitably take offense to anything you write. If someone is insufficiently capable of considering the context in which a reminder of a thirty-year-old high-profile disaster [0] is presented, they're gonna be unreasonably kerfluffled.
[0] A disaster that was caused by a serious failure to remember and stay within the safety margins of a very complex and hazardous system... which makes the choice of this particular disaster even more apt.
I'm glad that you're signalling that you didn't carefully read the prose. From TFA, right below the offending photo:
"In some ways it would be as funny to use 'Let it Crash' for Erlang as it would be to use 'Blow it up' for rocket science. 'Blow it up' is probably the last thing you want in rocket science — the Challenger disaster is a stark reminder of that. Then again, if you look at it differently, rockets and their whole propulsion mechanism is about handling dangerous combustibles that can and will explode (and that's the risky bit), but doing it in such a controlled manner that they can be used to power space travel, or to send payloads in orbit.
The point here is really about control; you can try and see rocket science as a way to properly harness explosions — or at least their force — to do what we want with them. Let it crash can therefore be seen under the same light: it's all about fault tolerance. The idea is not to have uncontrolled failures everywhere, it's to instead transform failures, exceptions, and crashes into tools we can use."
Thanks. ended up going with Cygnus CRS Orb-3, which was a rocket failure, unmanned, and also has high res reusable photos. Text is unchanged, which I believe is fine in this context.
Sure, but people died in forest fires, from bee stings, mountain climbing/cross country skiing, in aircraft. It's just you're not personally sensitive to those images.
The Challenger explosion was a heavily publicized event. Many people in my age group watched the launch and the explosion in class as primary school students. Trying to dismiss something like that as simply a personal sensitivity is a rather personal insensitivity.
You can write the software, but where are you going to get the data? There are only a few companies that own it and they're not going to give it away. The data is very costly to collect. That's a lot of the cost of any financial software is data licensing fees.
Agreed. You don't just get sleepy one day and go quietly. The side effects require treatment, even with no possible cure. It's a horrible, drawn out, not to mention expensive, way to go.
