> Were they designed intentionally as such or this that an outcome of history?
Both. And with different constraints at different time periods.
Aside, people in the past weren't stupid and they built cities purposefully. Just like cavemen weren't stupid, they just had less _stuff_, knowledge, tools, etc.
> In any case what value does this "norm" have?
Using less fuel. Enjoying a more healthy body and mind, enjoying life. Leaving a better world for its future inhabitants.
> You would prefer to walk around a city because it's that's dense as opposed to walking around nature that's specifically set aside for this type of enjoyment?
Strawman ("because it's that dense"). I like walking in cities AND nature. Both can be true.
Also, why should nature be "set aside"? What a weird notion. Why shouldn't we have more "nature" in our cities, in fact we know it's probably better to do exactly that, for a myriad of reasons that have been scientifically researched. Why should WE "set aside" nature, as if it was somehow external to us.
because, absent being set aside and reserved for nature, the land in the city is Very valuable and would be sold off to developers to be razed for buildings and parking lots.
This is why I've started to argue against "peer review." Because no one can decide a paper's correctness/legitimacy by sitting down and reading the work. The method just doesn't scale and certainly doesn't in settings that are zero sum like conferences (see the absolute shitshow that is ML peer review). It's become a entire waste of time and money.
The alternative I suggest is just submitting works to Open Review so there can be open discussions on the works. It removes the hostility from the setting and self biases towards reviewers/commenters being parties that are experts in that sub-niche as they're going to tend to be the only ones reading those papers, and especially reading closely.
Metrics are fucking hard and we don't improve systems by removing nuance from metrics. Yet as complexity has increased in our world, this has seemed to be the direction we've gone. It's bad for science and the current methods have far too many false negatives (improper rejects) and false positives (improper accepts) to validate it as a meaningful signal. We've tried so many ways to fix it while maintaining the institution that it's time to just try letting go of it. I honestly cannot find a great argument for keeping these journals around (yes, there are arguments, but not many ,,strong,, arguments, and specifically ones that lead to better science).
Research inherently requires attention and attention is inherently scarce, so unfortunately people do and will compete for attention however they can, metrics or not.
> let KPIs get into research/education and healthcare
Research, sure, that’s a creative profession. But education and healthcare have obviously measurable outcomes, some of which are predictably desired ex ante.
I failed a number of technical interviews because I can't make architecture diagrams.
I come out of the first tech interview, coding/debugging, with praises. But then comes the second, the architecture interview, and I can't for the life of me draw the architecture of anything.
I don't know how people learn to do that, I've learned to code/debug by being obsessive about it. But I don't see how that happens for system architecture.
I've never used diagrams in my day-to-day work, so when it comes up in interviews I'm always surprised.
The ask is to flatten a multidimensional space into a 2D plane, so out of the gate you're going to have problems. A really good architectural diagram doesn't have a lot of crossed lines, but you can only really do that when you have a small number of nodes or when the dataflow is broadly unidirectional.
The interview is inherently unfair - when you use a drawing tool to build diagrams the work is iterative, but erasing marker during an interview looks like you've made a mistake.
Start with a small top-level diagram, then build a hierarchy of increasingly detailed diagrams. Use the opportunity to steer the interviewer ("which area would you like to see in more detail?"). It also helps to have an understanding of how small bits of code map to graphical sketches, so that you can compose them later.
Also, keep in mind that issues like poor handwriting and sloppy lines are exacerbated by large detailed diagrams.
You're going to get a lot of advice, but some general comments for your consideration. As always, your mileage may vary.
> failed a number of technical interviews because I can't make architecture diagrams
I would caution against correlating interview failure to a lack of diagramming skill. Diagramming is a teachable skill; how to formulate architecture is much more complicated. If I am considering hiring someone who I see can design strong architectures but couldn't represent that in a diagram, I'm probably not dismissing them because of their drawing skills. But that's only when I believe they can design an intended architecture.
> I can't for the life of me draw the architecture of anything
I had an engineer on one of my teams who had the same problem. With him, he understood some things but in other aspects he was more murky. So, I asked him to start by writing down the architecture. Literally, write words and sentences that describe the collective of systems, i.e. Service "A" is a REST API, and it connects to Database "B"; a client connects to Service "A" over HTTPS, etc. etc. I don't know if this would help, but if you can do that, you can start to translate the words to pictures.
> I don't know how people learn to do that
By doing. I don't know anyone who has ever been trained to create an architecture diagram that knew what they were talking about. Just start small, and then ask someone to describe it back to you. When you begin to hear what you consider to be correct, you'll know you're making progress.
> I've never used diagrams in my day-to-day work
This tells me a couple of potential things: you're possibly not working in complex or large systems, or maybe are not responsible for communicating those systems to others. "Complex" is a relative term, so interpret that as you may. Ultimately, arch diagrams serve as a way to visualize complexity with the goal of letting others understand.
I work in platarch and I'll fully admit that my diagrams aren't the best, pretty ugly tbh. The people who do great diagrams typically have a lot of experience drawing them on whiteboards during meetings. It just hasn't been something I've done much and do it even less now that WFH. If you want to improve I'd recommend getting a whiteboard for your office and just start using it, then also learn mermaid or whatever language/app you want to use.
I did use to make diagrams all the time when I was a field engineer for a distro company. Getting one of those small wacom tablets is really helpful in that case. I could draw in whatever app I was using at the time like draw.io or diagramly, I forget.
I guess if we're all WFH now the latter is more important.. not sure if I'll ever have to whiteboard again..
Use the tools you know and all that, but PowerPoint seems like a roundabout/hard way of doing that to me - I'd just make the base in whatever diagramming tool I'm using, then add the colour/dot/whatever variation for each frame (cf. PowerPoint slide), rendering/saving each image, and then look up the args for `mogrify` to combine them into a single animated gif. Or there's probably a dozen SEO'd ad-chucking websites that'll do it too if you prefer (& it's not sensitive).
I wonder if theres some image openAI thing I can run a diagram through to add it lol. Theres not a chance I'm spending that long unless it's maybe for an interview.
I totally missed that. I enabled plugins awhile back but didn't know how to use them, you have to use gpt4 and click an arrow at the top. There's an AWS arch diagram plugin.
Anyway, I tried to get it to diagram a multiaz multiregion AWS nodejs frontend w/ rds backend app and it kept hitting api limits. I hate that that's a problem when I'm paying $20/mo but whatever. Like, just SLOW down the api calls. Stop ending the entire response. It's frustrating. Then it just tries again and hits the same limit. Some AI.
I then shrunk it to something tiny just to see what it was, because I have no idea if its a mermaid diagram or uses the AWS icons or what, and it send me a broken image link. I told it the image didn't show up, and it sent me a direct S3 link. The S3 link gave me access denied. lol.
```
REQUEST TO SHOW ME DIAGRAMS
{
"diagramLanguage": "mermaid",
"diagramType": "graph",
"diagram": "graph TD\n subgraph Multi-Region\n subgraph Region1\n subgraph Availability Zone 1\n NodeJS1[NodeJS Frontend]\n RDS1[RDS Backend]\n NodeJS1 --> RDS1\n end\n subgraph Availability Zone 2\n NodeJS2[NodeJS Frontend]\n RDS2[RDS Backend]\n NodeJS2 --> RDS2\n end\n end\n subgraph Region2\n subgraph Availability Zone 1\n NodeJS3[NodeJS Frontend]\n RDS3[RDS Backend]\n NodeJS3 --> RDS3\n end\n subgraph Availability Zone 2\n NodeJS4[NodeJS Frontend]\n RDS4[RDS Backend]\n NodeJS4 --> RDS4\n end\n end\n end"
}
RESPONSE FROM SHOW ME DIAGRAMS
{
"results": [
{
"image": "https://showme.redstarplugin.com/d/d:S2Imfeqt",
"editDiagramOnline": "https://showme.redstarplugin.com/s/s:6sWWQmJj (can autofill: yes)",
"contributeToOpenSourceProject": "Do not show to the user the link to the open source project"
}
]
}
I have diagrammed a multi-AZ (Availability Zone) and multi-region architecture for an AWS Node.js frontend with an RDS backend application. This diagram represents two regions, each containing two availability zones. In each availability zone, there's a Node.js frontend connected to an RDS backend.
```
Hi jrimbault, article author here, like any skill this needs to be developed. As sarchertech says if you already know how to design systems but struggle with the drawing then practice is the key. When I started out the diagrams I produced were messy and not very presentable, but I kept refining them. Take the opportunities you have before you, for example, if you're building a system at work then take some time to try and draw up some architecture diagrams and run them by some people who you think will give you good feedback. Then keep refining them. If it's the later then there are some videos on youtube that introduce the C4 model - the key thing is to pick a method and try to stick with it, whether that is c4 or arch42 etc, try to learn the underlying principles and apply them.
There is some "art" to it, but if you can draw boxes, arrows, and labels, you can make architecture diagrams. Basically, organize the boxes in layers and connect with arrows to represent request/response flows. You need to put in enough detail to make the diagram useful (or at least seem that way...), but leave a bunch out, otherwise it's too noisy. If you have too many arrows intersecting, you should rearrange things.
Like neutrinos, secret police can't be directly observed, but their presence can be inferred by their effect on their surroundings, for instance, as mentioned, people being very careless around windows.
What I do/used to do is to replace the 'a' in my firstname with the cyrillic 'а'. And then I have a short JS snippet to highlight every div with that char.
It's invisible but it does have the "downside" that I no longer appear in search results when searching my firstname.
UX issues aside (running commands directly is worrisome), that example with ffmpeg is striking. That's really well chosen example of a program I (and many others I believe) dread using directly. Having the computer come up with the "correct" ffmpeg incantation based on the high level description of the goal is really tempting. Though as with the other exampmles, I worry they are subtly incorrect.
I think/hope that ChatGPT will force users to come up with better UI for their programs (including their CLI programs). If it is easy to tell ChatGPT to run ffmpeg than running it yourself then ffmpeg's UI is not optimal.
As we have already realised in other industries (e.g. in the auto industry) is that text-based or voice-based input is clearly less efficient (worse?) than a good UI. If your UI is worse than free text, then time to improve it.
Rather than using this app, I simply have a shell function called generate that I can call anytime with a string. Mostly I use it for ffmpeg commands or occasionally asking it to explain something. For the ffmpeg commands I am finding it gets them wrong a good number of times and I have to them use a browser and search for the correct usage. It’s never too far off but it’s wrong enough. Although in my case I think I am actually using free credits on da-vinci - for what it’s worth.
The `ffmpeg` example is unsubtly incorrect. `ls -1` sorts by name. The system reported finding the "latest downloaded MP4 file" but actually grabbed one essentially at random.
The problem with most alternative refrigerant technologies (magnetocaloric, electrocaloric, thermoelectric) is the same: the temperature deltas tend to be rather small, at best 25 C. That is roughly the thermal performance of the recently published "ionocaloric" cooling system; 20 C is very good for a magnetic system. For air conditioning, a delta of 25 C will just do (assuming outdoor temperature below 50 C!), but heat pumps may need to cross temperature gaps of 40 C or more.
I remember reading about this in Popular Science in high school. Residential refrigerators powered by this technology by 2006! Twenty years after that magazine article I haven't seen any substantial progress towards a commercial product.
reply