The wikipedia article has a few more photos: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_New_York_City_steam_explo...

The aftermath photo gives you a good sense of it: https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna20184563

...on the evening of Dec 28, 1978, they experienced a landing gear abnormality. The captain decided to enter a holding pattern so they could troubleshoot the problem. The captain focused on the landing gear problem for an hour, ignoring repeated hints from the first officer and the flight engineer about their dwindling fuel supply, and only realized the situation when the engines began flaming out. The aircraft crash-landed in a suburb of Portland, Oregon, over six miles (10 km) short of the runway

It has been applied to other fields:

Elements of CRM have been applied in US healthcare since the late 1990s, specifically in infection prevention. For example, the "central line bundle" of best practices recommends using a checklist when inserting a central venous catheter. The observer checking off the checklist is usually lower-ranking than the person inserting the catheter. The observer is encouraged to communicate when elements of the bundle are not executed; for example if a breach in sterility has occurred

Maybe not this system exactly, but a new way of doing science needs to be found.

Journals, scientists, funding sources, universities and research institutions are locked in a game that encourages data hiding, publish or perish incentives, and non-reproducible results.

However it doesn't work all the time for the same reasons that markets don't work all the time - the tendency for people to choose to create cosy cartels to avoid that harsh competition.

In academia this is created around grants either directly ( are you inside the circle? ) or indirectly - the idea obviously won't work as the 'true' cause is X.

Not sure you can fully avoid this - but I'm sure their might be ways to improve it around the edges.

Does not happen in practice. Unless you're driven by spite, fanaticism towards rigorousness, or just hate their guts there is zero incentive to call out someone's work. Note that very little of what is published is obvious nonsense. But a lot has issues like "these energy measurements are ten times lower than what I can get, how on earth did they get that?" Maybe they couldn't or maybe you misunderstood and need to be more careful when replicating? Are you going to spend months verifying that some measurements in a five-year-old paper are implausible or do you have better things to do?

Much more common is another paper is published which has a different conclusion in the particular area of science which may or may not reference the original paper - ie the wrong stuff get's buried over time by the weight of other's findings.

You could say that part of the problem is correction is often incremental.

In the end the manipulation by Masliah et al came out - science tends to be incremental, rather than all big break-throughs and I'd say any system will struggle to deal with bad faith actors.

In terms of bad faith actors - you have two approaches - look at better ways to detect, and looking at the properties of the system that perhaps creates perverse incentives - but I always think it's a bad idea to focus too much on the bad actors - you risk creating more work for those who operate in good faith.

Friends in big labs tell me they often find issues with competitor lab papers, not necessarily nefarious but like “ah no they missed thing x here so their conclusion is incorrect”.. but the effect of that is just they discard the paper in question.

In other words: the labs I’m aware of filter papers themselves on the “inbound” path in journal clubs, creating a vetted stream of papers they trust or find interesting for themselves.. but that doesn’t provide any immediate signal to anyone else about the quality of the papers

No. I meant somebody else publishes the opposite.

One of the things you learn if you are a world expert in a tiny area ( PhD student ) is that half the papers published in your area are wrong/misleading in someway ( not necessarily knowingly - just they might not know some niche problem with the experimental technique they used ).

I agree peer review is far from perfect, and there is problem in that a paper being wrong is still a paper in your publication stats, but in the end you'd hope the truth will out.

People got all excited about cold fusion - then cold reality set in - I don't think the initial excitement about it was a bad thing - sometimes it takes other people to help you understand how you've fooled yourself.

You (as a mortal, human being) are not going to be able to extract any knowledge whatsoever from an academic article. They are _only_ of value for (a) the authors, (b) people/entities who have the means to reproduce/validate/disprove the results.

The system fails when people who can't really verify use the results presented. Which happens frequently... (e.g. the news)

The number one issue in my mind is competitors labs don't call you out. It's extremely unusual for people to say, publicly, "that research was bad". Only in the event of the most extreme misconduct to people get called out, rather than just shody work.

The tricky bit is that in research, and this a bit like the act of programming, you often discover import stuff in the process of doing - and the more innovative the area - the more likely this is to happen.

Big labs deal with this by having enough money to self-fund prospective work, or support things for extra time - the real problem is that new researchers - who often have the new ideas, are the most constrained.

If you work at a large company, it could consider 1,000's of different new major features or new products. But it only has the budget to pay for 50 per year.

So obviously there's a whole process of presentations, approvals, refinement, prototypes, and whatnot to ensure that only the best ideas actually make it to the stage where a programmer is working on it.

Same thing with a startup, but it's the founders spending months and months trying to convince VC's to invest more, using data and presentations and whatnot.

It's not a problem -- it's the foundation of any organization that spends money and wants to try new things.

the impression I get from anecdotes and remarks is that pre-1990s, university departments used to be the major scientific social institution, providing organization where the science was done, with feedback cycle measured in careers. Faculty members would socialize and collaborate or compete with other members. Most of the scientific norms were social, possible because the stakes were low (measured in citations, influence and prestige only).

It is quite unlike current system centered on research groups formed around PIs and their research groups, an machine optimized for gathering temporary funding for non-tenured staff so that they can produce publications and 'network', using all that to gather more funding before the previous runs out. No wonder the social norms like "don't falsify evidence; publish when you have true and correct results; write and publish your true opinions; don't participate in citation laundering circles" can't last. Possibility of failure is much frequent (every grant cycle), environment is highly competitive in a way that you get only few shots at scientific career or you are out.

For example -- my wife is an architect, so I'm aware of specific examples here -- there are many architecture firms that have partners whose role consists of bringing in big clients and managing relationships with them. They are never called "sales executives" or "client relationship management specialists." If you meet one at a party, they'll tell you they're an architect.

Apparently it's the same thing with scientific research. When a lab gets big enough, people start to specialize, but they don't get different titles. If you work at an arts nonprofit writing grant applications, they will call you a grant writer, but a scientist is always a scientist or a "researcher" even if all they do is write grant applications.

The daily I'm not taking part anymore at work started today at 9:30 as always, and has currently (11:50) people excusing themselves because they have other meetings...

We need a revolution on exposing bad managers and making sure they lose their jobs. For every kind of manager. But that situation isn't very far from normal.

Yes, CRM procedures are very good in some cases and I would definitely apply it in healthcare in stuff like procedures, or the issues mentioned, etc.

My colleague has working on an MCP server that runs Python code in a sandbox (through https://forevervm.com, shameless plug). I’ve been using Goose a lot since it was announced last week for testing and it’s rough in some spots but the results have been good.

As opposed to the device unexpectedly shutting down due to a degraded battery not being able to push enough energy to support the CPU? They didn't remove expected performance, they prevented crashes which are by definition 0 performance. All Li-ion batteries degrade over time. That's not removing a feature...

This whole thing was totally overblown.

Previously you could directly upload the 360 videos do youtube, now you need to download the film locally on the phone, then host a converted version and only after those loops you are permitted to upload.

Or you can now buy a monthly subscription and get back the feature that was already there before. Quite disappointed with this kind of behavior.

the problem is that user got no choice. Some might prefer degraded performance, others might prefer to charge their devices more often.

Also seller should have no business touching anything that they've already sold - they do might offer support, but it should be up to user to accept it or not.

Source: had two 6S's in the family. In the cold it could just suddenly shut down mid-call from 60% battery.

The root problem was not the throttling, it was the phone's inability to run at expected speed after a couple years.

USER should chose that. not apple.

not all of them shut down, someone might get a battery replacement.

What apple should've do is to introduce a toggle, give a warning in notification. and in case of crash, display it again.

After the massive hissy fit the Internet threw (along with lawsuits), they added a switch. Now you can choose to have your phone suddenly die.

But the legend lives on that "Appple slowed down phones permanently!!" - even though the fix for that is a 40€ battery swap that takes 30 minutes in any mall phone repair shop.

Maybe i want to use the device in a way that's 100% connected to the charger and repurpose it.

It's not apple's business what I'm doing with it

I like a toggle for features like this, but it was a pretty standard user experience / reliability choice imho.

what if you replace battery AFTER the fix was applied? you can't rollback.

again, it's about user's choice. it's not apple's device, but whoever bought it. they shouldn't be even allowed to DECIDE which option is better. user should be able to pick whichever they want to go with.

I get it, but if you’re going to accept binary blob updates from a manufacturer at all, this one wasn’t bad.

If there was a toggle, Would you really run your phone in “reckless disregard for battery condition” mode?

Because that is what this fixed, a flaw in the firmware where the power management subsystem made incorrect assumptions about the battery condition. All new phones come with this baked in and working properly, so your phone doesn’t randomly die in the middle of calls when your battery gets old.

People pitchforked over this update without understanding what it was designed to do. If your phone has a good battery, it does not throttle the cpu. It just adjusts the power management profiles to reflect battery aging.

But the way they did it was far from malicious. It only affected users who were actually in danger of an emergency shutdown, during times when the shutdown was imminent. While I don’t want anybody diddling my firmware without giving me a choice, this particular issue was really a nothing burger in the end.

It was discovered when it became apparent that replacing a defective battery made the phone faster. Seems like a standard reliability / user experience fix to me. Not Many people would choose the “don’t adjust system power consumption to prevent unplanned shutdowns when the battery is about to fail” toggle.

  1) open phone
  2) remove battery
  3) replace battery
  4) close phone

People don't go telling that Ford "refuses users to let their change their oil".

It's all perfectly doable, but you do need the tools and an ability to follow a step by step guide with pictures.

Yet there are always people justifying these type of awful practices as better for users. These aren't, the measures are only good for business.

Many cars enter limp mode for when the ECU senses a possibly damaging condition. This limits the performance and capabilities until someone with a diagnostic computer can plug it in. Many times these diagnostic computers are entirely proprietary.

I'm not saying it is justified, but to pretend that other businesses don't do this is silly.

And even for that case there would be a warning on the console and a mechanic would be able to inform what is happening. On this iphone case, there was no warning at all on the device nor there was any disclosure that they would be doing this to the phones.

You know this. In either case, thank you for the ECU info.

It reduces your speed by much more than that. Varies depending on the model, but limp mode often won't get you go past 2nd gear.

It does actually. It limits your top speed, and your engines rev range to approximately half of redline or less. Typically you end up limited to under 45. Also, accessories and other options, like A/C are disabled. The only indication that you will get is the reduced performance and the check engine/service light (sort of how you might get a 'service battery' warning and reduced performance on a phone).

Again, not defending it, but pointing out that Apple hardly invented artificially limiting performance behind opaque warnings to prevent unwanted outcomes. Cars have had limp mode since before the iPhone was invented.

Not even that hard.

For me, the firmware fix helped me limp through the 2 months before I finally got around to replacing the battery.

It made my phone that was flaky and unreliable below 40percent battery into a phone that worked slightly slower once the battery got low, but didn’t just randomly shut off during calls anymore.

I’d have preferred a toggle, but to be honest I doubt I’d have ever used “reckless disregard for remaining battery capacity” mode.

They are SO LOUD if you don't service them at regular intervals. They're even doing fancy tricks to make sure you're not faking the service.

Regular service is indeed a bother. You know what I hate the most? In my oldish Mercedes it isn't even possible to change/update the hour without using a proprietary tool only available at official Mercedes mechanics. Since I refuse to pay premium cost for attending their mechanics, the clock on my car is always with wrong time.

And let's not even get into new business models like charging you a subscription to unlock the car to move faster or to unblock the heated seats. Indeed they also have quite "creative" ways to squeeze money and force to get new models.

In terms of perception, I'm not sure there's much of a relationship to a human conversation. To make things equal, the string players would need to take turns soloing while the others wait more or less silently to respond, each with their own solo response. You'd be bored out of your gourd if string quartets were written that way.

But more to the point, the vast majority of time in a string quartet is devoted to two or more of the players producing phrases of music in parallel, and that is musically coherent and pleasing to the players and audience. Most humans cannot track two humans speaking in parallel at all. That alone tells us that music cognition is a very different phenomenon than speech cognition.

In short, I'm not sure why a string quartet would be considered the optimal genre for humans to produce music together. And even if it is, the reasons why are even less likely to do with the protocols around human speech cognition, and certainly not with some bizarre equivalent of the "theory of mind" associated with the musical phrase produced by one of the instruments[1].

1: Small digression-- In Elliott Carter's 2nd String Quartet he actually started with a concept that each instrument was a kind of "character" in a play among the quartet. In this case, the problem with OP's metaphor becomes obvious even in the introduction-- the homogenous timbre of a string quartet makes it difficult to hear the differences among the characters. (IIRC I think even Carter admitted this.)

On the other hand the second and more famous dining (and conversation) club founded by Dr Johnson had originally 9 members, and gradually grew from that to dozens. Although many including Johnson may have not been entirely happy with the expansion.

For those who do not know counterpoint, you have only three motions a voice (a horizontal line of music, traditionally sung) can make relative to another voice (move closer, apart, or to hold steady) combined with limited voice ranges (say, a doubling of frequency, or so) and limited interval choices (seven, or so) within an octave or frequency doubling, and the voices are very close to one another but only rarely cross one another, on top of all that various rules systems that forbid or frown on such things as the tritone, parallel fifths, and so on into the weeds such that with more than a few voices you quickly run out of valid options for all the voices to move independently.

Interestingly, I like the 5-piece versions of all 3 of these: add a keyboardist to the rock band, a piano or harpsichord to the classical string or woodwind quartet, a female vocalist to the acapella group. Having two leads lets you do much more intricate countermelodies and harmonies.

A "classical" rock band consists of 4 utterly different instruments from a tonal perspective, and is thus nothing like 4 humans talking. Same thing for jazz - and its why you can have multiple instruments performing simultaneously and in ways that are not obviously connected to each other.

I have not seen a good band with more than 4 people on stage simultaneously.

Any vaguely disco-adjacent band will have more than 4 people on stage because there will be at least keyboards and horns in addition to drums, bass, guitar and vocals. Even a band that simply adds an additional person player percussion to a typical 4 piece exceeds your limit yet can wonderfully enhance the music.

If you haven't seen any of those bands, then that's your loss, but provides no reason to try to generalize about the right size for a live band.

You pick really popular names but in most regular bands when there is more people there is worse link between them...

Glenn Branca Orchestra.

> I have not met a religious programmer

> Donald Knuth

There are good bands like that but not most.

I've seen bigger bands but they suck in comparison.

However your link looks about jazz.

A common rock band is rarely good with more than 4 members because people lose unity and it's just technically harder and people are rarely professionally trained.

But what happens when everyone can put their message in front of a lot of people? When the playing field is level? When everyone has a printing press, the ones with the best ideas are the ones people listen to. Influence can no longer be owned. It must be earned

Man, Zuckerberg would be rolling over in his grave if he saw what happened in the following years and our current engagement/algorithmically-driven media ecosystem.

I find this book to be a bit sad. I do believe they were trying to do all of this stuff but it definitely went off the rails.

Even if you yourself try to resist, you'll be beat down by market forces until eventually you either give it all up and let someone else do the evil, or discard the idealism and say "That's just the way it is!" and look back on your idealism with shame and grief.

Makes me sad too

Yes, that was the joke that apparently wasn't obvious enough. :-)

The banks are never going to embrace much more than CSV or excel files... the various data aggregation platforms (yodlee, plaid, etc...) are not open source or hobbyist friendly.

Back in ancient times there was a company called Wesabe (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesabe) that wrote software that did bank syncing on your desktop. Mint.com basically put them out of business but I still think about that approach. I think it could work for open source.

Has anyone else?

Every damn time I reconcile transactions I end up fighting their system that I can't see the workings of or fix myself. It's getting to the point where the juice isn't worth the squeeze. I'd sooner deal with the CSV myself given a half-way decent set of tools to do so.

[0] https://hledger.org/1.40/hledger.html#csv

[1] No, they weren't willing to refund me any money; this is "typical", in their words.

I find it best to have a separate journal for each downloaded account. I just include them into a master journal (along with a manual entry journal) and generate reports from that.

I also use git so I can roll back the latest import, if something goes wrong - but that hasn’t happened yet.

Charts are not generic enough for my taste so I'm exporting data elsewhere, but for data entry it is great.

I like Paisa's ledger file editor, though other parts not working in my country, I'm fetching prices with a python script.

I wish its editor seperated into a library to be included in personal projects.

However, I'm not really looking for a layer on top of ledger as much as I'm looking for a configurable web-scraping system (using the local password manager) that can be run to get the csv/pdf/etc.. files needed to create the ledger.

https://www.openbanking.org.uk/

I had plan to process these data and add to an accounting system, but didn't get a chance, and then my mobile crashed and I lost the Tasker action. Now I'm not getting any motivation to implement it again

...

... Pavel Durov, Telegram’s founder, called on Russian authorities on June 4 to lift the ban. He cited ongoing Telegram efforts to significantly improve the removal of extremist propaganda from the platform in ways that don’t violate privacy, such as setting a precedent of handing encryption keys to the FSB.

https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/whats-...

In the US case, there was a phone where data was encrypted at rest. Though Apple was capable of creating and signing a firmware update that would have made it easier for the FBI to brute force the password, Apple refused to do so.

In the Russian case, the FSB must have already had access to the suspect's phone because if it did not then Telegram would not be in any position to help at all.

So, the FSB must have already had access. And therefore, by having access to the phone they also had complete access to the suspect's chats in plaintext, regardless of whether or not the suspect used Telegram's private chat. There would have been no keys to ask Telegram for copies of.

Alternatively, the FSB might have had access to some other user's chats with the suspect, and wanted Telegram to turn over the suspect's full data. Telegram is 100% able to do that if they want to.

As the specific part of the article you have quoted is definitely bullshit, I suspect the rest of it is bullshit too and that despite what Roskomnadzor states in public, the real fight with Durov was over censorship.