Every industry is full of technical hills that people plant their flag on. What is yours?

  • EarWorm@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    7 hours ago

    Don’t cost-optimize people’s homes. Just don’t.

    The amount of times I’ve gone to a maintenance job with a description “people are cold”, only to see a plaque on the wall stating that this building has been optimized by Company X is actually infuriating.

    And the worst thing is that they inject their proprietary, remote control system on top of the original automation. This means that I can’t change anything without literally reprogramming the entire site.

    So I’m standing there, trying to figure out how to tell an 80yo lady “you’re cold because the building managers want to save some money” without going on an anti-capitalist rant. This has had a success rate of around 30%.

  • HighlandCow@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    8 hours ago

    I do ameuter music production, one hill I will die on is there is no right way to mix a track of music it is entirely subjective and mixing a track of music is way more creative of a practice then some faceious salesman make it out online

  • hawgietonight@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    11 hours ago

    Ebikes are motorbikes, not bycicles.

    Not saying they aren’t fun or useful at times, but they shouldn’t be treated as a bicycles.

    I don’t care if the motor engages using a button, twist grip, your feet or twitching your nose, it is a motor and exceeds your natural body power.

  • Randelung@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    13 hours ago

    Modern PLCs are indistinguishable from IPCs with an RTOS and there’s no reason I shouldn’t be able to use a proper language for them - with a stdlib and external library support. But manufacturers defined the term and have the industry hostage so you have to buy semi functional libraries and can’t use git, unit testing or other automation.

  • ornery_chemist@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    14 hours ago

    Do not power law fit your process data for predictive models. No. Stop. Put the keyboard down. Your model will almost certainly fail to extrapolate beyond the training range. Instead, think for at least two seconds about the chemistry and the process, maybe review your kinetics textbook, and only then may you fit to a physics-based model for which you will determine proper statistical significance. Poor fit? Too bad, revise your assumptions or reconsider whether your “data” are really just noise.

    Always run qNMR with an internal standard if you are using it to determine purity. And, as a corollary, do not ignore unidentified peaks. Yes, even if it “has always been that way”.

    DOE models almost certainly tell you less than you think they do, especially when cross-terms are involved, or when the effects are categorical, or when running a fractional factorial design…

  • greedytacothief@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    18 hours ago

    Maybe not technical, but teaching is weird.

    If people aren’t having fun/engaged they’re not learning much. People don’t care how much you know until they know how much you care. It’s so frustrating to come across someone who writes the standards you’re supposed to follow and they are the most boring and fake teacher you’ve experienced.

  • Captain Aggravated@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    21 hours ago

    There is no goddamn reason to continue to use magneto ignition in aircraft engines. I’ve been a Rotax authorized service technician for 13 years, I have never seen the digital CDI installed on a Rotax 900 series engine fail in any way, and you’ve still got two. Honestly I believe a CDI module is more reliable and less prone to failure than a mechanical magneto. The only reason why we’re still using pre-WWII technology in modern production aircraft engines is societal rot.

  • Horsey@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    23 hours ago

    Transparency + blur + drop shadow is peak UI design and should remain so for the foreseeable future. It provides depth, which adds visual context. Elements onscreen should not appear flat; our human predator brains are hardwired and physiologically evolved to parse depth information.

  • early_riser@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    edit-2
    23 hours ago

    A plain text physical password notebook is actually more secure than most people think. It’s also boomer-compatible. My folks understand that things like their social security cards need to be kept secure and out of public view. The same can be applied to a physical password notebook. I also think a notebook can be superior to the other ways of generating and storing passwords, at least in some cases.

    1. use the same password for everything: obviously insecure.
    2. Use complex unique passwords for everything: You’ll never remember them. If complex passwords are imposed as a technical control, even worse if you have to change them often, you’ll just end up with passwords on post-its.
    3. use a password manager: You’re putting all your eggs in one basket. If the manager gets breached there goes everything.
    • SSTF@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      20 hours ago

      I understand, somewhat, this being discouraged at work but I agree that doing it for personal passwords with the notebook at home is fine. I’ve met people opposed to ever writing down passwords and I think it’s just a rote reaction based on work training.

      If you have a notebook at home with all your passwords then somebody needs to break into your house to get them, which is pretty good security.

    • petersr@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      23 hours ago

      But will you be diligent enough to make a new password for every single website using this method?

  • PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    1 day ago

    Dynamic typing sucks.

    Type corrosion is fine, structural typing is fine, but the compiler should be able to tell if types are compatible at compile time.

    • Nibodhika@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      23 hours ago

      This is one of those things like a trick picture where you can’t see it until you do, and then you can’t unsee it.

      I started with C/C++ so typing was static, and I never thought about it too much. Then when I started with Python I loved the dynamic typing, until it started to cause problems and typing hints weren’t a thing back then. Now it’s one of my largest annoyances with Python.

      A similar one is None type, seems like a great idea, until it’s not, Rust solution is much, much better. Similar for error handling, although I feel less strongly about this one.

      • hawgietonight@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 hours ago

        I usually take these holiday weeks off to learn a new language or framework, and started to take a peek into Python, I had it on the back burner way too long. Got to the dynamic variable types and my heart sunk… I couldn’t continue.

        Maybe I should take a third attempt at Rust.

        • Nibodhika@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          9 hours ago

          Honestly modern python is not that bad because of the typing hints and checks you can run on them nowadays. Also it’s worth noting that python has very strong types, so it’s not illy willy magical types, and while it is possible to use it like that it’s normally not encouraged (unlike other languages).

          That being said, if you haven’t learnt Rust I strongly encourage you to read the book and go through the rustling exercises. Honestly while still a new and relatively nieche language, it fixes so many of the issues that exist in other languages that I think it will slowly take over everything. Sure. It’s slower to write, but you avoid so much hassle on maintenance afterwards.

          • Gagootron@feddit.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            8 hours ago

            i hadn’t heard of the rustlings before. looks neat, might be what i need to finally learn rust properly

    • RouxBru@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      23 hours ago

      Coming from a background where all the datatypes are fixed and static (C, PLCs) it took me so very long to get used to python’s willy nilly variables where everything just kinda goes, until it doesn’t. Then it breaks, but would’ve been fine if we just damn knew what these variables where

      Now my brain just goes “it’s all just strings”

    • ristoril_zip@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      18 hours ago

      I don’t let it wrote code per se but I’ve found it useful for writing regex for me to paste into notepad++ find/replace commands.

  • Treczoks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    1 day ago

    There are a load of things in IT where using a processor is the wrong choice, and using an FPGA instead would have made a lot of problems a non-issue.

    • JigglySackles@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 hours ago

      I wish FPGAs and other more purpose built and purpose suited options were available in my IT equipment. They can do amazing shit, better and more efficiently. Just wasn’t ever available to use for me at least.

    • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      Is that controversial? I’ve always assumed people avoid FPGAs just because they’re unfamiliar with them.

  • Diva (she/her)@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    1 day ago

    if you’re using modern fabrication techniques, a couple 10uf mlcc capacitors in small packages are just as good as traditional decade capacitors (10uf,1uf,0.1uf) for decoupling in pretty much every situation, and you need to worry about less varieties on your bill of materials

    • hawgietonight@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      11 hours ago

      Usually it was a tradeoff with the voltage, but just checked and MLCC caps have quite high V limit! Long time I haven’t done any analog design but got a chuckle seeing that micro is still typed as lowercase “u” :)

      • Diva (she/her)@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        8 hours ago

        mlccs can also be run right up to their voltage limits without needing a huge derating

        for high frequency response the main determining factor is actually the package size!

        I still call pf ‘puffs’

  • fruitycoder@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    1 day ago

    If you don’t understand that development, security, and operations are all one job you will constantly make crap and probably point at some other team to make excuses about it, but it will be actually be your fault.

    Programs have to run. They have to be able to change to meet needs. Implementing working security measures is one of those needs.

    The amount of times I’ve had to slap devs hands that wanted to just disable security or remind security that just shutting it down is denial of service is crazy. If it can’t deploy or is constantly down or uses stupid amount of resources it’s also worthless no matter what it looked like for split second you ran on on the dev machine.

    The next patch isn’t going to fucking fix it if no one that writes patches knows about the damn issue. Work arounds are hidden technical debt and you have to assume that they will fucking break on some update later. If you are not updating because it breaks your unreported workarounds you will get ignored by the devs at some point, and they are right in doing so.

    If you depend on something communicate with the team that works on it. We can send a fucking petabyte of info around the world and to the moon and back before some people write a fucking Ticket, email, or even a IM. Look dumb and asking the stupid question rather than being an actual idiot and leaving something broken for the next decade. We’re all dumb, it’s why we built computers, get over it and just talk to people. If you really struggle with, don’t just communicate, try to over communicate, say an obvious thing now and again just to keep the dialogue open and test that you really on the same page.

    That’s my rant/hill borne from ulcers supporting crappy IT orgs and having to overcome my own shortcomings to actually say something in channels where things can actually change and not just griping in private about it.

    • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 day ago

      We’re all dumb, it’s why we built computers,

      I love that.

      I don’t know if the basic idea that it’s okay to look dumb will ever catch on, though. There’s a lot of self interest and direct ego motive going against it.

      • fruitycoder@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        24 hours ago

        And it’s a balance too that self interest and ego gets alot done too. It’s just getting over protective of ego or too self interested (very hard in an economy where a lot employers are straight up conmen) that leads to these pain points.

        I do find in the rooms I’ve had the pleasure of being with the smartest people in a field were always full of reasonably humble people.