Not hypothetical. A dear friend of mine lives next to a Metro station and just recently complained that jackhammering was still going on at 11:30 PM for several nights in a row.
683 karma · joined May 8, 2019
Not as a point of argument, just additional information: R's support for keras and TF is a wrapper around the Python interface to those libraries.
To make what I think your point is more explicit, people build their own things in R because R must maintain compatibility with S. So by and large, changes happen in packages and not the base language. This does lead to a proliferation of solutions for the same kinds of problems.
Unless your GPS receiver is hosting its own model of what the GPS constellation SHOULD be based on your location and the current time, and can beamsteer its antenna elements to null out the spoofing, you're wide open to having someone just spoof GPS with a low power transmitter. This is old, old, old news.
The pen didn't work.
And re-doing all the avionics would be a probably decade-plus effort costing billions of dollars. Cheaper to hire some old VAX guys as consultants, pay them exorbitant rates, and have them train up a new generation of VAX people.
Within a well run DoD program. Most of the larger programs are not well run, in my personal experience. And DoD did this silly thing where it let contractors keep the rights to their engineering data until relatively recently, meaning that US taxpayer dollars are funding the purchase of hardware the government by definition can't understand, because the government isn't allowed to know about or look at much of the engineering data. So there's a HUGE amount of tribal knowledge in some of these programs because there's nothing else to reference.
"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
This was the precursor to layoffs -- LM hoped to avoid layoffs by offering buyouts to these engineers. The wisdom of all of this... I don't see it.
Their goal was to reduce total amount spent on salaries.
This came at the time that the F-35 flight test program began its long wind-down. Other companies were hiring in large numbers because they had just begun big test programs (NGC had just won the B-21 contract and was testing its Triton UAVs), the net effect was that a HUGE amount of engineering knowledge and talent went out the door within a year. I can only speak for what it did to the F-35 test forces -- basically made them start over in terms of learning how to execute their jobs.
But LM is actively trying to reduce its number of Level 5, 6, and 7 engineers (the highest paybands on the technical career track). You would typically find a Level 5 engineer serving as an engineering technical team lead, a Level 6 as a site deputy chief engineer, and a Level 7 as a site chief engineer. A few years ago, LM Aeronautics offered all Level 5 and above engineers an early buyout/retirement and got over 1000 engineers to leave the company that way. Those engineers were largely not replaced, either in skills (hard to replace that level of expertise), billets (those jobs were not re-filled), or promotions (the sudden vacuum at the top end of the technical career pyramid was not filled by promoting large numbers of level 4 engineers to level 5, etc).
Never mind the fact that many areas of the standard don't matter because the manufacturers of equipment that use those areas made up their own way of doing things that isn't 6016 compliant. So you can comply to the standard, or you can actually work with platforms in the real world, but you can't do both.
If you want to be a better moderator of any internet community you'd do well to study how it's done here.