you're still less fucking qualified than me to even open your mouth
On the topic of incident investigations I'm far more qualified than you.
as I've actually built the goddamned things
Yep and that makes you incredibly dangerous to comment on them without detailed knowledge of the exact chain of events.
Go piss off a bridge.
Gladly. It's also something I can do since people like me pull the brakes on people like you to ensure that people in general find out the *true* cause of failure and prevent them from re-occuring. We then share that information with people like you to prevent people in general from suing you.
You are very welcome.
It's exactly assholes like you that fuck up everything because you claim some authority
The irony... no not irony... idiocy of that sentence is palpable.
PS the main chemical you put in swimming pools is bleach.
No shit Sherlock. And the wonderful concentrations in which you mix them (parts per million) is what prevents chlorine disassociating into chlorine gas. Point that you so conveniently skirt is that you can make a metric fuckton of highly volatile chemicals from things you buy from the store. And no, you can't turn chlorine gas back into chlorine by adding water, for that you'd want to ventilate the air, or are you supposing the FBI go back in time to a point before he did what he did and add water?
A large portion of toxic chemicals break down when heated. Disposing of chemical weapons is often done using fire... though usually in a more controlled manner the point is the same.
many available at your local hardware store or Walmart. They aren't sensitive or all that dangerous until they are combined and processed to make an explosive
You should try mixing bleach and pool acid in a bucket in an enclosed room. If your lungs are still functioning afterwards, come back and tell us how safe it is to mix off the shelf chemicals and how complicated it was to "process" them into something used as a chemical weapon in World War I: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
So I do not expect the article to be accurate and informative and I rather prefer to head directly to the comments section. People, who comment there, are quick to point out flaws in the article,
So you're saying that people who don't read articles are the best to point out flaws in the articles they haven't read?
And yet they corrected that problem anyway. You don't get emails from the Taxation Office anymore. Or rather they moved it. The only correspondence you should get now are via messages posted to you online through the my.gov portal.
Btw, I don't have rage against companies. I have rage against products, policies, and individual shit some people do. Leave the rage against companies to the fanbois.
Anubis's comment makes sense for a company that produces prides itself presenting the users information with as little latency as possible. If this is the case here it both deviates from the past UI developments coming out of Apple, and is also completely at odds with creating some shitty animation in the first place.
But whatever, believe what you want to believe. Doesn't change the fact that "ugly" animations is either a bug or a major deviation of past examples of Apple developments.
Trust is not a universal term that can be applied to everything. I qualified it by saying "with my data", the data being the subject in question. But then "trust" is nothing more than a belief in an outcome. I find google very "trustworthy" even in the case you apply it. I'm certain that they will continue to exhibit the behaviour of trying to shiftily ex-filtrate my data as much as possible.
That's the thing about trust. You can "trust" bad behaviours as well as good behaviours. I trust the bad behaviour of Google will continue to collect my data as per normal based on past actions. I trust the good behaviour of Google to protect my data (it's their equivalent of the coca-cola recipe) and not sell it directly to third parties because it is their way of making money through services.
I can't say the same thing about Microsoft. I can't trust them with my data. I have no idea what they will do with it. I have no faith they won't sell it unobfuscated to 3rd parties. Managing my data is not their core business.
Actually in my "lazy" world I'm an incident investigator (though not for civil structures). You on the other hand are the source of most of my problems, people who *think* they know what happened because they have just enough knowledge to be dangerous and absolutely nothing to do with the project.
Mind you in my lazy world I do get great job satisfaction from presenting people like you with final reports. The smug expression on the face of an "expert" shatters faster than a bridge which was incorrectly tensioned.
were you sit behind a keyboard all day
That's quite ironic given you're behind your keyboard, have nothing to do with the project, don't have access to anything beyond what the news has told you and now you're telling me that a bunch of engineers directly part of this project who discussed the cracks in the meeting were wrong and you were right.
No I didn't. Go check, I'll wait. I said keep around ICE for those relatively limited cases where pure EV isn't suitable.
Yes you did, you just admitted it. You didn't mention hybrids, you mentioned ICE. ICE are a waste of time, Hybrids are precisely what the edge cases are for.
and then identify where the bridge broke, it's a pretty fucking safe bet that the cracks are direct evidence
Now if only engineers could identify where the bridge "broke" (past tense) in advance, then cracks would be direct evidence of a problem. That in itself doesn't mean anything. There's cracks in bridges all the time. Most of them are benign. (I'm a lyrical poet).
Making a copy of my password photo is not the same as taking another picture of me.
Not making a copy, they have that already. But rather logging in or out. There's really no reason they need another picture of you on file, they have that already and it was part of your passport application.
Hybrids are a waste of time at this point. Pure electric is the way forward
That's like saying SUVs are a waste of time at this point, and hatchbacks are the way forward. You completely ignore a whole lot of use cases that will always depend on a combustion engine backup.
Yes electric is the way forward. But you're brain is not functional if it comes up with the idea that it will cover every use case.
so in this disaster let's focus on the design itself, rather than rushing to judgement
That is the most ironic statement I've seen in a while here.
How about we don't pass judgement at all, and focus on the incident and all parts of it. A large majority of infrastructure failures have nothing to do with their design.
Obviously it wasn't strong enough to span the distance without them
That isn't obvious at all. That's why we do incident investigations. Just because it's final design was to have cables doesn't mean that during construction this wasn't taken into account. There is a lot of reasons why this incident could have happened.
That isn't even remotely true. The vast majority of engineering disasters happen without identification and without warning. An even larger number of infrastructure disasters have nothing to do with engineering as well.
somebody found the problem, and failed to communicate its severity
Nope. Somebody found *a* problem and didn't know of the severity. Cracks don't mean much at all. It may or may not have had anything to do with the collapse.
There's no substitute for risk assessments by fully qualified engineers, of course
You're right. But you fail to realise that this takes time.
I know right! Last time the power went out at my work costing many millions of dollars per day of outage my first reaction too was that I need to go and get a photography permit filled out, get the plant manager to sign it and take a photo!/facetous.
Slashdot Mirror
you're still less fucking qualified than me to even open your mouth
On the topic of incident investigations I'm far more qualified than you.
as I've actually built the goddamned things
Yep and that makes you incredibly dangerous to comment on them without detailed knowledge of the exact chain of events.
Go piss off a bridge.
Gladly. It's also something I can do since people like me pull the brakes on people like you to ensure that people in general find out the *true* cause of failure and prevent them from re-occuring. We then share that information with people like you to prevent people in general from suing you.
You are very welcome.
It's exactly assholes like you that fuck up everything because you claim some authority
The irony... no not irony... idiocy of that sentence is palpable.
I invite you to click on the link and see what they call themselves.
I also invite you to go to www.my.gov and realise why you won't get an email from that site either.
I repeat: The GP is in Australia.
... and you're repeating yourself why? : http://my.gov.au/
Nice sentence but not long enough for a Slashdot headline.
Because putting together a readable summary rather than a list of tweets is too frigging hard.
Hacked? Wtf are you talking about? My.gov is the official communications portal for government services including tax.
PS the main chemical you put in swimming pools is bleach.
No shit Sherlock. And the wonderful concentrations in which you mix them (parts per million) is what prevents chlorine disassociating into chlorine gas. Point that you so conveniently skirt is that you can make a metric fuckton of highly volatile chemicals from things you buy from the store.
And no, you can't turn chlorine gas back into chlorine by adding water, for that you'd want to ventilate the air, or are you supposing the FBI go back in time to a point before he did what he did and add water?
I got buzzword bingo everyone. Seriously was the article written by an AI fed only buzzwords?
Won't that send dangerous chemicals into the air?
A large portion of toxic chemicals break down when heated. Disposing of chemical weapons is often done using fire... though usually in a more controlled manner the point is the same.
many available at your local hardware store or Walmart. They aren't sensitive or all that dangerous until they are combined and processed to make an explosive
You should try mixing bleach and pool acid in a bucket in an enclosed room. If your lungs are still functioning afterwards, come back and tell us how safe it is to mix off the shelf chemicals and how complicated it was to "process" them into something used as a chemical weapon in World War I: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
So I do not expect the article to be accurate and informative and I rather prefer to head directly to the comments section. People, who comment there, are quick to point out flaws in the article,
So you're saying that people who don't read articles are the best to point out flaws in the articles they haven't read?
they didn't seem to care.
And yet they corrected that problem anyway. You don't get emails from the Taxation Office anymore. Or rather they moved it. The only correspondence you should get now are via messages posted to you online through the my.gov portal.
Btw, I don't have rage against companies. I have rage against products, policies, and individual shit some people do. Leave the rage against companies to the fanbois.
Anubis's comment makes sense for a company that produces prides itself presenting the users information with as little latency as possible. If this is the case here it both deviates from the past UI developments coming out of Apple, and is also completely at odds with creating some shitty animation in the first place.
But whatever, believe what you want to believe. Doesn't change the fact that "ugly" animations is either a bug or a major deviation of past examples of Apple developments.
Trust is not a universal term that can be applied to everything. I qualified it by saying "with my data", the data being the subject in question. But then "trust" is nothing more than a belief in an outcome. I find google very "trustworthy" even in the case you apply it. I'm certain that they will continue to exhibit the behaviour of trying to shiftily ex-filtrate my data as much as possible.
That's the thing about trust. You can "trust" bad behaviours as well as good behaviours. I trust the bad behaviour of Google will continue to collect my data as per normal based on past actions. I trust the good behaviour of Google to protect my data (it's their equivalent of the coca-cola recipe) and not sell it directly to third parties because it is their way of making money through services.
I can't say the same thing about Microsoft. I can't trust them with my data. I have no idea what they will do with it. I have no faith they won't sell it unobfuscated to 3rd parties. Managing my data is not their core business.
Meanwhile, in your lazy world
Actually in my "lazy" world I'm an incident investigator (though not for civil structures). You on the other hand are the source of most of my problems, people who *think* they know what happened because they have just enough knowledge to be dangerous and absolutely nothing to do with the project.
Mind you in my lazy world I do get great job satisfaction from presenting people like you with final reports. The smug expression on the face of an "expert" shatters faster than a bridge which was incorrectly tensioned.
were you sit behind a keyboard all day
That's quite ironic given you're behind your keyboard, have nothing to do with the project, don't have access to anything beyond what the news has told you and now you're telling me that a bunch of engineers directly part of this project who discussed the cracks in the meeting were wrong and you were right.
Good work doubling down on your absurdity.
If you read the transcript of the engineer's call, and then identify where the bridge broke, it's a pretty fucking safe bet
Cool bet bro, I'll leave it to people who actually reviewed the engineering design along with the cracks: https://news.fiu.edu/2018/03/f...
No I didn't. Go check, I'll wait. I said keep around ICE for those relatively limited cases where pure EV isn't suitable.
Yes you did, you just admitted it. You didn't mention hybrids, you mentioned ICE. ICE are a waste of time, Hybrids are precisely what the edge cases are for.
and then identify where the bridge broke, it's a pretty fucking safe bet that the cracks are direct evidence
Now if only engineers could identify where the bridge "broke" (past tense) in advance, then cracks would be direct evidence of a problem. That in itself doesn't mean anything. There's cracks in bridges all the time. Most of them are benign. (I'm a lyrical poet).
Making a copy of my password photo is not the same as taking another picture of me.
Not making a copy, they have that already. But rather logging in or out. There's really no reason they need another picture of you on file, they have that already and it was part of your passport application.
Hybrids are a waste of time at this point. Pure electric is the way forward
That's like saying SUVs are a waste of time at this point, and hatchbacks are the way forward. You completely ignore a whole lot of use cases that will always depend on a combustion engine backup.
Yes electric is the way forward. But you're brain is not functional if it comes up with the idea that it will cover every use case.
so in this disaster let's focus on the design itself, rather than rushing to judgement
That is the most ironic statement I've seen in a while here.
How about we don't pass judgement at all, and focus on the incident and all parts of it. A large majority of infrastructure failures have nothing to do with their design.
Obviously it wasn't strong enough to span the distance without them
That isn't obvious at all. That's why we do incident investigations. Just because it's final design was to have cables doesn't mean that during construction this wasn't taken into account. There is a lot of reasons why this incident could have happened.
Like every engineering disaster
That isn't even remotely true. The vast majority of engineering disasters happen without identification and without warning. An even larger number of infrastructure disasters have nothing to do with engineering as well.
somebody found the problem, and failed to communicate its severity
Nope. Somebody found *a* problem and didn't know of the severity. Cracks don't mean much at all. It may or may not have had anything to do with the collapse.
There's no substitute for risk assessments by fully qualified engineers, of course
You're right. But you fail to realise that this takes time.
I'm actually more impressed that the power went out. What happened with all those recalled batteries? That would have made quite an incredible UPS.
No video or pictures that 'event' either.
I know right! Last time the power went out at my work costing many millions of dollars per day of outage my first reaction too was that I need to go and get a photography permit filled out, get the plant manager to sign it and take a photo! /facetous.