AWS ranks features based on potential income from customers. Normally there’s a fairly big customer PFR needed to get a service team to implement a new feature.
I always found it strange that AWS seems to have 2-3x as many products or services as Azure, but it has these bizarre feature gaps where as an Azure user I think: "Really? Now? In this year you're finally getting this?"
(Conversely, Azure's low-level performance is woeful in comparison to AWS and they're still slow-walking the rollout of their vaguely equivalent networking and storage called Azure Boost.)
I've only used azure a little bit, and mostly liked it - but I'd love to know what kinds of things you're referring to here (mostly on AWS only, so probably I don't even know what I'm missing out on).
What Azure has that from what I've seen AWS does not:
Resource Groups that actually act like folders, not just as special tags.
Resources with human-readable names instead of gibberish identifiers.
Cross-region and cross-subscription (equiv. to AWS account) views of all resources as the default, not as a special feature.
Single pane-of-glass across all products instead of separate URLs and consoles for each thing. E.g.: a VM writing to an S3 bucket dedicated to it are "far apart" from each other in AWS consoles, but the equivalent resources are directly adjacent to each other in an Azure Resource Group when viewed in its Portal.
Azure Application Insights is a genuinely good APM, and the Log Analytics workspace it uses under the hood is the consistent log collection platform across everything in Azure and even Entra ID and parts of Microsoft 365. It's not as featureful as Splunk, but the query language is up there in capability.
Azure App Service has its flaws, but it's by far the most featureful serverless web app hosting platform.
Don’t forget, you don’t pay for a stopped vm in azure! You only pay while it is running. This makes things like dev environments much more affordable, since you won’t be paying for nights/weekends.
Looks good! I like the idea of not taking based on a timeline like this. Something to consider in the future is the context of the notes. It would be great to automatically have photos and locations added to a note. Tags and hashtags for people and themes would also be great.
RedactiveGPT, is a custom GPT that brings real-time, permissioned data access to ChatGPT, seamlessly integrating platforms like Jira, Confluence, and Slack. It indexes your information and respects the permissions associated with that information without requiring complex setup. The GPT utilises Redactive's RAG technology to ensure live data interaction while maintaining strict data security through user-defined permissions. You can login now with a business domain and start asking question to your own data. It also integrates with existing workflows to allow people to build custom agents. We are keen to see what people are able to do with this!
That's not true. Here's a video from a few years ago [showing a superconductor flux pinning](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSojjjvRCR0). You can see from the video it's moving around. Also if it didn't move when you applied a force to it that would be quite the immovable object.
Because adding more technology doesn’t always makes things work better. I like this idea but the problem is you’ve just added another point of failure.
Sure it may avoid this situation, but how many aircraft lifted off and landed at airports in the same day? In America I’d hazard a guess at aground the tens of thousands. Any new system has to reduce the complexity or risks of flying and that’s very hard to do.
I’m not an aviation expert either but it’s assume that some form of system exists for this also in a more manual form.
Hand-waving about "people" == "simpler" == "better" aside, read about TCAS.
Humans in the loop are a SPoF if they're there:
1. Solely to read information over a lossy, slow medium like analog radio. Digital data between ground and air systems should be the primary means of comms with voice radio as a backup channel for clarification and stating intent.
2. To flawlessly plan and avoid collisions between dozens of objects moving at high speed in 4 dimensions. Never going to happen. These should be done and verified mechanically, continuously.
Humans should be guiding and assisting mechanical, reliable automation of decision-making rather than playing telephone or doing long division on paper when calculators exist.
They likely mean { X, Y, Z, T } three spatial dimensions and time which are four orthogonal dimensions.
That said, it makes the "moving in" redundant and is shy a few dimensions if you want to go full descriptive phase space diagraming given velocity and acceleration in each spatial dimension are missing.
I suggest you take your objections up with the authors of, say,
A Four-Dimensional Space-Time Automatic Obstacle Avoidance Trajectory Planning Method for Multi-UAV Cooperative Formation Flight
or any number of other similar papers.
Many prefer to think of an objects path as a trajectory in space-time (four dmensions) and for two ojects to "collide" their paths must coincide within that 4-D space within an Epsilon for some value of WTF.
But as ... you yourself ... note above, the planes aren't moving in four dimensions. If time is one of the dimensions, all the planes are doing is existing.
The path of the plane is a static curve in 4-dimensional space, yes.
But the plane is not located at any point in the 4-dimensional space, and the position in 4-dimensional space that it doesn't have is not changing over time. Both of those things are required before you can describe the plane as "moving" within the space.
There is no secret backup time that will allow you to track the plane's hypothetical motion along an explicit time dimension. That's not a thing.
I confess. I literally had no idea what you were intending to convey with those two sentences so I restated alternatively what I intended to convey in the hope it might make clear my position (if that was an issue for you) or that I might learn more from your response.
> Where do you think you're contradicting me?
That's not a thought that I thunk.
Therefore I have no response.
> But the plane is not located at any point in the 4-dimensional space
Every point along the 4D path trajectory of the plane in {X,Y,Z,T} is a literal {X,Y,Z} location of that plane at time T.
> Both of those things are required before you can describe the plane as "moving" within the space.
I certainly did not describe the plane as "moving" within R^4.
> There is no secret backup time that will allow you to track the plane's hypothetical motion along an explicit time dimension.
I utterly fail to understand what you intend to convey here.
Although I note that the actual (not hypothetical) velocity of the plane projected onto the time axis is very likely to be on the order of approximately one second per second.
Hard disagree with the notion this adds a degree of failure.
From a layman's perspective, it replaces one primary degree (pilot-control coordination) with another (a technological solution) and delegates the staffers to supervisory roles. That is a risk reduction due to the increase of confirmations and the independence between the staff decision and the software's decision.
Expecting mechanical accuracy from humans is a fool's errand.
ATC should be wearing VR goggles, visualizing approach and takeoff routing as it maps to flown with machines spotting the dangers similarly but differently from TCAS.
I interned at a VR lab at NASA Ames in the late 1990s. This very idea (ATC operations in low-vis conditions using VR or AR) was what fed their grant proposals. It has always been 20 years away; some of the things I learned:
1) VR itself can lead to spatial disorientation and will introduce its own control issues.
2) A significant percentage of people (~1 in 4) cannot use VR without motion sickness. This is independent of #1. Modern VR (Oculus etc.) at first claimed to be better, but guess what, plenty of people still get sick. Sinus congestion can cause this even in the tolerant.
3) Position reporting of planes today is nowhere near accurate, reliable, or real-time enough to present a whole picture of runway ops. This is fixable with enough $$$...but who pays?
4) I suspect "VR ops" procedures from the FAA would take years to be developed and approved, without some kind of urgent mandate.
My gut feeling is that we'll have automatic ground traffic control at major airports by the time the necessary systems are in place, and skip the goggled humans entirely.
And the VR goggles help them read the minds of pilots about the speed in which they move their planes around on the ground, and when?
Move fast and break things has no place in aerospace nor aviation, just rolling whatever fancy new tech is there is not done for reasons. And this behavior made aviation as safe as it is today.
There is nothing wrong with a layman’s perspective in any industry, and aerospace is not certainly not the sole domain of safety critical systems. An aerospace layman might still bring insight from other areas, which was the case here IMO.
You have been repeatedly dismissing people in this thread, but HN is about being curious. “Leave it to the professionals” is neither satisfying nor interesting.
Curiosity is about learning, isn't it? Nothing wrong with asking questions, or following discussions and learn something new about an industry or domain you don't know a lot about.
Throwing ideas out to improve things, without properly thinking about the the root causes for incidents, not waiting for official investigations to be run, and all of that based on some audio recordings and headlines, or news coverage at best, is neither curious nor allows people to learn something. So yes, at a certain point, leave it to the professionals (whom else would one leave it to anyways?) is exactly the right thing to do. And maybe listen to people with more knowledge on a subject (probably not me in that case so).
Insisting on pre-formed "layman" opinions about something as peculiar as aviation, or aerospace, is the opposite of curiosity.
How are we supposed to learn if you just tell everyone to “leave it to the professionals”?
If you don’t agree with something someone posts, contribute to the discussion by explaining the issues. Why shouldn’t the ATC be sacked? Safety culture. Why shouldn’t they install ground radar? Complexity. Etc.
Appeals to authority are the worst kind of arguments because they don’t help us to understand what to expect from them.
I've iterated on this design for a few years now, mixing in different technologies to get it where it is now. It's build on next.js and tailwind, I'm really happy with it. Personal websites are such a great way to be creative.
