Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | milgrim's comments login

Unfortunately no tab support yet in the quick terminal, and it does not work on top of fullscreen applications. Would be great if these things would work at some point.

Currently I am using Wezterm and iTerm2 for the quake style terminal, but using two different terminals is quite annoying. I really miss Visor and TotalTerminal.


About tab support, you mean pressing the tab key to, for example, autocomplete a command?

That seems to work for me (macOS 15.2 here)


GP means creating a new tab with CMD+T, which works in the normal ghostty terminal. iTerm2 does support tabs in its hotkey windows (~= ghostty's quick terminal).

Aaaaaah! Ok, what a confusion :D

The satellite here was using the same Boeing bus: https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/04/new-video-of-intelsa...

So something similar might have happened here.


Waiting for a leak of emails where engineers expressed concerns on the design/elements and management approved anyways.


Wow, these companies really are replicating NASA management


For some context:

The same Boeing satellite bus already experienced a major issue some years ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19658800


I was not familiar with the term satellite bus. I kind of guessed what it is but not really. Here's the link to the Wikipedia page. There might be a link to the Boeing bus in there.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_bus


I know the Boeing connection is the most "sexy" cause, so people are probably going to run with it anyway, but I also have to wonder about a space debris collision. GEO is already quite polluted, and the "graveyard orbits" commonly used have been shown to be inadequate.[1]

Can anyone tell whether (at 60 degrees East and at 4:30 UTC October 19) the satellite was passing through the intersection with the main plane of lunar perturbed debris? This would hint at a possible debris strike.

Sadly I can't seem to find a 3D satellite visualization that lets you go back in time. :-(

[1] https://www.esa.int/ESA_Multimedia/Images/2008/03/Spacecraft...


Maybe. But it's probably just Boeing :) This was a fairly young satellite, launched in 2016, and beset with propulsion problems from the start. It was also the second of a new series, and the first one has already failed as well.


The more interesting part for me is that a satellite just exploded, that it's made by Boeing is just the cherry on top.


Cherry on top that propulsion issues are now problematic for Boeing satellites AND capsules. I wonder if there's a crossover in personnel in either engineering or management.


The complete collapse of Boeing needs to be studied.


They should teach it in every MBA program in the country /s.


You joke, but it absolutely should. Boeing is a great example of "when all you have is a hammer, everything is a nail". When MBAs are left in charge with no guardrails, this is what can happen. That's a great thing to teach to new MBAs. Every field has this potential pitfall. When you hyperfocus, bad things can happen. Know when to say when.


> Know when to say when.

People warned about exactly what happened already back in the time when the merger happened that introduced beancounter culture to Boeing.

The problem was, as always, no one listens to the warners and the whiners when there is money to be made.


The only counter to the money argument is tough regulation that results in jail time. If the whiners can point to an example of white collar criminal enforcement their complaints suddenly have teeth.


> The only counter to the money argument is tough regulation that results in jail time

Okay, so it's functionally impossible with the current and likely next incoming US administration.


>> When you hyperfocus, bad things can happen.

Highly optimized systems are fragile. They work well so long as everything stays the same. Optimizing for cost will compromise other things. Quality is not a varnish to be applied after you make something, it's designed into the product and production process from the beginning - by people who understand such things.


If you get your MBA at Emory University, you learn about the New Coke fiasco. In a building named after Roberto C. Goizueta. The Coke executive responsible for New Coke. I suspect the irony is often lost on the latest cadre of MBA grads.


They had actually better sales after the whole thing.


Sure, after. That wasn't the plan, tho.


But is the moral of the story that the guys that made the bad decisions got their bonuses and moved on, and aren’t affected by the aftermath? That’s what I fear the MBA’s will learn - don’t stick around.


It's not just MBAs that don't stick around. Even in the tech world, it's common for people to bounce around. Usually what ever the vesting period is.


Yeah I didn't really know how to articulate nuance of the sarcasm in my comment, I fully agree it should.

But it's such a massive clusterfuck for Boeing that it seems like MBA programs should be reformed from the ground up.


>They should teach it in every MBA program in the country /s.

As if it wasn't the result of what has been taught for decades, now coming of age more bigly than ever ;)

>MBA programs should be reformed from the ground up.

Who would do the reforming though?

Academic leaders? That could be like having the inmates running the asylum :)

From the ground up?

If you're not careful they could end up building an insane new institution at a massive scale in an image grandiose enough that it could crush GE or something ;)


Yeah this is exactly why I added the /s

I don't know the answer but hopefully "the powers that be" take a really close look at this situation.

Every company in the US should do some serious introspection.


If you gave a company over to only engineers, it would also fail, just in a different way. Same with only HR, or any other field. MBAs are not the problem. Shitty MBAs and shitty leadership are the problem. MBAs aren't there to screw people over; they're there to sustainably run a company. Sure, the bad ones screw people over in the name of nickel-and-diming. But still.

And no, I'm not an MBA . . .


No doubt about it, the widespread problem is having non-leaders in leadership positions.

The underlying defect is a system which allows absolutely poor performers to advance based on an overwhelming focus on greed and ambition for power.

When it has become more popularly acceptable to allow it to become so.

The most unsuitable candidates for leading people are what the mainstream finds acceptable or even desirable once the culture shift swings this far.

With either a reduced number of key positions that can afford to be occupied by a dud (or worse), or an increased number of limited-ability competitors prevailing on the basis of their dedication to leveraging greed and even treachery, the kind of leader that's really needed is less likely to advance from entry-level at all.

What would really help would be a culture that inhibits those unsuitable individuals from arising toward those limited number of key positions to begin with.


> If you gave a company over to only engineers, it would also fail, just in a different way

Do you have an idea of what would be the failure mode(s)?


If engineers run the restaurant the food is excellent but the menu is confusing and there are no customers because nobody knows the restaurant exists.

If sales/marketing runs the restaurant it's full but there is no food. The menu is beautiful and shows all kinds of dishes nobody knows how to make.

If MBAs run the restaurant it's full of people paid to be there long enough to be counted and reported up to the investors and the food is purchased from the McDonalds next door and relabeled and resold at 3X the price. Nobody will ever come back but it doesn't matter. The metrics from this exercise are used to raise money to open three more restaurants across the street from convenient sources of cheap fast food. This novel model of running restaurants is written up in Harvard Business Review as an excellent example of an arbitrage business model.

If artists run the restaurant they make and eat the food themselves and then leave.


Engineer would first try to build a cooking machine.


This is a nice summation. If LLMs ever produce this kind of output, I'll buy into the tech is good.


I think this makes a pretty good stereotype based on reality.

This is something of a dichotomy between engineering-based structures and sales-centric, with MBA's and designers as collateral players.

Everybody needs sales of some kind, but most businesses do not actually need "engineering", so there are not usually any engineers expected to in the chain-of-command. Even in an engineering company itself there may be only token members in the most critical decision-making positions.

A sales hierarchy sells from a select source of technology.

An engineering hierarchy selects a technology to be a source of.

They each have huge pallettes to choose from, but they are different.

I think many lifelong business operators are aware that it really takes far more years to truly learn their business than it would to enroll as a freshman and end up earning an MBA.

And that's not even engineering companies.

These are the kind of organizations that may have no worthwhile use for even the most talented decision-maker of any kind regardless of degree, until after their employment has been lengthy enough to have achieved the working acumen that is really necessary. In many cases taking far more years on active duty than in academic preparation, but it's worth it.

But even if you can do without MBA's forever, you still have to have Production, Sales, accountants, HR, Admin, security, IT, etc. You can only go so far with "engineers" only.

However, in one way to approach an ideal "engineering company" the entire chain-of-command consists of true technical leaders-by-consensus top-to-bottom in a Maslow-like way where by nature less consensus is needed toward the top where the individual vision finally becomes most powerful.

All the other departments report to this engineering backbone in one way or another so the buck always stops with somebody who can handle the engineering calculus and who always puts that kind of thing foremost from day one, without undue reliance on business calculus, which are two different pursuits to an extent.

Then if a gifted MBA or two have something to offer, they can do so while reporting to the appropriate engineers, never the other way around.

You need to get back to a more technically talented chain-of-command where they instinctively can make way more money through technology than any bean-counters would ever be able to save even if they laid everyone off.

No doubt you can accomplish a lot by having a completely non-technical chain-of-command, with engineering off to the side like other essentials such as accounting or HR. People do it all the time. But you can't really accomplish quite the same things after all.

Still it sounds like any customers who stumbled in to the "Engineering Restaurant" end up with the best as far as the food itself, although there is some "Artisan Dining" where the experience can be unforgettable too.

Sometimes you don't get much on your plate though, I wondered if they were in the back eating most of it themselves ;)


Intel under Andy Grove, Theranos and Elizabeth Holmes, Boeing under Muilenburg, and Nokia under Kallasvuo had various business issues under an engineer CEO.


Like the CEOs of Caterpillar, AMD, Nvidia, Google, Microsoft and Apple?


. . . who all still have CFOs, MBAs, and others reporting to them on the financial viability of the business.


At least collision avoidance manoeuvres are not that common in GEO as far as I know, so things like this are more the exception: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/flaviomurolo_meteosat-mtg-sat...

Well, there's also the Russians sneaking around: https://sattrackcam.blogspot.com/2024/07/the-russian-sigint-...


Indeed.


And Space-Track (https://www.space-track.org) says the following:

U.S. Space Forces-Space (S4S) has confirmed the breakup of Intelsat 33E (#41748, 2016-053B) in GEO on October 19, 2024, at approximately 0430 UTC. Currently tracking around 20 associated pieces - analysis ongoing. S4S has observed no immediate threats and is continuing to conduct routine conjunction assessments to support the safety and sustainability of the space domain.

This is the same Boeing 702MP satellite bus as the one used for Intelsat 29e, which had this anomaly: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19658800


What happened to it? Any ideas?

Hit by something, or an internal problem?


After what happened to Intelsat 29e (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19658800) it's probably an issue with the satellite bus.


"Late on 7 April, the Intelsat 29e propulsion system experienced damage that caused a leak of the propellant on board the satellite resulting in a service disruption to customers on the satellite." [0]

Intelsat 29e, way back in 2019, but that's interesting. Some kind of onboard issue?

[0] https://www.intelsat.com/newsroom/intelsat-29e-service-outag...


Boeing would be very unlucky to lose two satellites with the same bus to external causes.


At least they should not accuse the user.

“You broke Reddit”

Come on, I don’t think so!


That is not an accusation, it is a bragging right.


There’s only one person that broke reddit, and it was Kimmy K.


Honestly I always loved this, never failed to bring a smile to my face.


Kagi is awesome, can’t recommend it enough. I have been waiting for years for a viable paid Google alternative and couldn’t be happier now.


What a strange comment. Don’t buy if you don’t want it. Develop a free alternative if you are passionate about it. But just complaining like this? Is it considered dirty to sell something now? At least it’s not a subscription.


I am not complaining about this specific developer, I said the state of software development.

In an ideal world, this app should be programmable in the same time it takes to read the website and buy it.

Not questioning the reasons why such app need to be paid seems even stranger to me.


I did not try it, but at first glance it does not seem to be especially low effort to me.

It’s a niche thing and if it’s well implemented the price seems reasonable to me.


I am not saying that this is low effort either, the website itself probably took some time. I am saying that a lot of this effort is pointless.

To be clear, not because the developer is bad (I did not try it outside of the website demo), but because of the state of software development imposing pointless complexity.

How hard do you believe it should be to play a sound on keystroke?


The devil is in the details. So I am a bit careful making a statement here without trying to implement it myself first. Could be super simple, but maybe not.


They aren't saying it is simple they are saying it's crazy it's still so hard.


Indeed. Thanks for pointing that out.


It’s not the core that’s leaking, it’s the underfloor heating…


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: