The curse as a power user is that you want to know how it works. I let that feeling go with emacs. I've been happily using it since. My first gateway and killer use case was magit. Life with git will never be the same.
> They are expensive, but that is partly because rail workers are well paid
This is in fact an interesting by-product of privatisation: train drivers became rarer due to shareholder reluctance to train and recruit them. They consequently became more expensive. A somewhat fun side effect of the free market, especially given the prevailing assumption that moving public sector employees into the private sector would drive down their pay and conditions.
The idea is usually to de-skill workers and also to try to make their contractual terms worse.
In one very small way I actually sympathise on the railways, let me be specific, this is a long story:
The person driving the train clearly needs to learn how to drive that particular model of train, I think that's likely true basically everywhere. The UK's railway systems are however also reliant on drivers knowing the route. A driver must be familiar with exactly the rails their train will pass over to get from A to B, knowing what to expect ahead for some distance at all times. So it's possible that Jim, who is sat in a coffee room right now can drive a 450, but he doesn't know the Waterloo to Portsmouth via Southampton crazy bypass that's in place due to track work, so he is not able to drive the Portsmouth train that's right there, full of passengers and will now instead be cancelled because the scheduled driver did not arrive. In many of the world's railway systems route knowledge is not crucial (it might be good but it's not required).
However, because of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ding-ding,_and_away the modern rulebook also requires that the Guard have route knowledge. In contrast to the driver this is much less valuable, but it means that now your Portsmouth train maybe has to be cancelled because although the driver intended was available or the standby could do your route, the only available Guard knows the ordinary Portsmouth route, not the weird one.
I think this is a situation where we should fix systems instead rather than hoping that route knowledge for guards makes it work. But this means the guard is arguably de-skilled and less valuable than before.
Most European railways require a driver to have done some route familiarization for most routes, which tends to work fairly well. What does not work very well is that the UK has very patchy and antiquated train safety systems (AWS / TPWS are somewhat rudimentary and deployed - by far - not everywhere) and signaling. Even speed restrictions in the UK are placed very, very tightly and you better know them by heart because they didn't get placed with the idea that the driver must have sufficient time to reduce speed / react between where they get a warning signal and where the restriction comes into effect.
I suspect the move from public to private ownership did adversely affect the upgrades of those, as well as electrification on several key routes.
If I remember correctly they do not even have something as basic as an electronic coursebook - which became mandatory in Germany in the 90s already. And at least in NL if you have a set of routes in a certain direction / route set - drivers would get route familiarization both for the main routes and for the bypasses.
It's pretty much global fwiw. I wrote route qualification software for places outside of Europe.
It should also be made clear that you don't need to get an actual qualification from a bureaucratic org. You basically just need to document the last time the driver drove the route with another qualified driver and then document that they've kept the qualification up to date. It's a documentation process and just not that onerous. Also absolutely required for any railway since trains don't stop or accelerate quickly. You need the drivers to know what's coming ahead and no amount of signage or signalling can beat knowing the route.
The only concern i have is the guard qualification. That does seem overboard but... i don't know the UK and chances are there's nuance to this. So i'd have concern with anyone reading GPs post and thinking this is the cause of UKs railway inefficiency.
> AWS / TPWS are somewhat rudimentary and deployed - by far - not everywhere
I don't think that's quite true. AWS is rudimentary, true (only forces acknowledgement of warning signals, but otherwise no speed supervision, braking curves or trainstop functionality), but AFAIK deployed almost everywhere, the only major exception I'm aware of being some complex but slow-speed station layouts.
And TPWS… while it doesn't do everything that a truly modern train protection system could do, together with the British practice of long enough overlaps (i.e. an additional safety distance beyond a stop signal that needs to be kept clear, too, in case of an overrun) it's still quite reasonably effective at preventing dangerous overruns. And its deployment has been indeed more gappy, but AFAIK junctions and major speed restrictions, where the biggest risks are, are still quite comprehensively fitted. The biggest gap are automatic signals on the plain line, but then again there haven't been many accidents at those.
> If I remember correctly they do not even have something as basic as an electronic coursebook - which became mandatory in Germany in the 90s already.
Part of that goes a long way back. One of the most fundamental differences is that the UK still does route signalling, whereas Germany completely switched to speed signalling at the beginning of the 1930s.
Route signalling means that the signals indicate the route the train will take, but not the exact speed, so if you want trains to operate safely but without excessive dawdling, route knowledge is a must.
Whereas with speed signalling, the signals directly indicate the safe speed for proceeding, so route knowledge, while still useful and necessary for other purposes, is no longer quite as crucially relevant. Consequently, in the UK ad-hoc diversions without route knowledge are quite taboo, whereas in Germany, emergency diversions due to short-notice incidents are mostly (except for some specific lines with more complex requirements) allowed, albeit with a speed restriction of 100 km/h.
Assuming it’s similar to every other country; Route qualifications simply require first driving the route with another qualified driver. Once that is done you need to drive the route once every 6 months (this is in Australia ut i assume it’s the same) to keep that qualification up to date.
It’s not particularly onerous and understandably helpful for vehicles that take a long time to adjust speed.
The guard requirement does seem unnecessary though and is not a universal practice globally.
What makes knowing this route any more difficult than knowing the route you are driving on a road? Copenhagen has an automated metro system, so this doesn't seem like a particularly difficult problem.
So e.g. the UK does not have speed signalling. One yellow lamp illuminated means "Prepare to find the next signal at danger". OK, so, how fast can I go? Well, it depends, your route knowledge might tell you that the "next signal" is up a steep rise, you can go pretty fast, even if it is at danger that rise will scrub off all the speed and normal braking is enough. Or, you might know that there's a sharp bend soon and so even moderate speed is excessive because you'll de-rail on that bend.
In daylight there are speed signs but, trains accelerate and brake much more slowly than your car, so while they're a useful reminder you cannot correctly drive the train based on observing these signs. At night you may not see them at all.
Then does your route diverge? In some cases the intent to diverge is signalled, unlike speed, Flashing double yellow for example means "Prepare to find the next signal at: Prepare to find the next signal at danger" plus "Your route will diverge". However you really need to prepare some distance in advance of this information anyway in some cases, so you need to know, long before the signals and certainly long before being able to actually see it, that you will make a turn.
The UK also has unsignalled stations - places where a passenger train will ordinarily stop, and must obey signals, but there are no starting signals, so you need to remember whether you were under a cautionary signal say five minutes ago, which still applies now, even though meanwhile a dog escaped, some idiot threw yoghurt at people and then two hundred soccer fans boarded your train.
The "Driver's Reminder Appliance" is meant to help with this last part, it's basically just a button you can push, to remind you that you pushed the button and restore your mental state...
> In daylight there are speed signs but, trains accelerate and brake much more slowly than your car, so while they're a useful reminder you cannot correctly drive the train based on observing these signs.
Did the time it takes trains to accelerate and brake change recently? The time it takes to accelerate and brake should have been considered when placing the signs in the first place.
That ding, ding and away issue seems straightforwardly solvable with a small amount of technology (the train could refuse to go without the signal saying it’s okay) or something like the Japanese pointing and calling system, or even both.
Frankly, something like positive train control or the European Train Control System should be table stakes at this point. It should be difficult or impossible for a driver unfamiliar with a route to cause a crash.
> It should be difficult or impossible for a driver unfamiliar with a route to cause a crash.
This is a question that's occurred to me in a different context. In Shanghai, there are subway stations where the passenger area is separated from the tracks by a floor-to-ceiling wall, making it impossible to drop something onto the tracks, fall onto the tracks, or get pushed onto the tracks.
There are also stations where there's no wall, and anyone can just shove you onto the tracks at any time.
The presence of a wall is highly predictable: newer stations have them, and older stations don't.
Should the older stations be renovated? That would be an increase in safety. It would also be a pretty substantial expense to address a mostly nonexistent problem. The wall is a good idea and it makes sense to include it when you're constructing a new station. But that doesn't mean it makes sense to add it to an existing station.
Is that true? My understanding is they command very high wages because their unions are strong and they have a lot of leverage: by striking they can impose extremely high costs on the wider economy (not to mention bad press for politicians).
Yes. This was literally a case study for my Sociology degree in the '90s.
(I would also mindfully say that there is a lot of subtle political propaganda in the UK around this issue- the powers that be want the public to blame train drivers for the failures of privatisation)
That doesn't convince me. Companies commonly handle situations like this just fine. I know because I have seen it. I think you are the one who fell for the propaganda here.
Companies may or may not handle strikes properly. If it were that easy, industrial interests (and their emissaries, like Reagan and Thatcher) would not have spent more than a century trying to break unions.
But you haven't made an argument, so you're in no position to criticize. You asserted that "train drivers became rarer due to shareholder reluctance to train and recruit them" and then didn't back this strange claim up, just said "I'm right" in different words. A sociology degree isn't convincing btw.
Our ports in the US, which affects the cost of endless goods, are still running with 1950's level tech because the unions are so strong (and have heavy mob ties).
> You try it, you get a visit. Same way it's always been.
In that case, there's no obstacle. This is exactly what happened with containerization, and guess what? The ports that did containerize, including some ports constructed from scratch specifically because existing unionized ports blocked containerization, replaced the ports that didn't.
My understanding is that the mob extracted large payments in order for containerization to be permitted. Some half of the time they just live on container royalties which are exactly the mechanism the mob used for extraction.
So sure, there's no big deal, just pay the mob. People do argue for that.
Any evidence mob lives off container royalties? And what are container royalties to begin with???? (I had no idea when I borrowed a container for moving I was paying royalties.)
My problem with people asking for evidence is that they often are expecting me to do a lot of work to give them a better world model, when they nonetheless have no intention of accepting any evidence.
So I have a guideline of good faith: you can hire me and I don’t mind doing it for you; or you can go read up on the subject, reach some understanding of what these things are, and we can discuss; or you can go do some research of equivalent value to me and bring that to me as a barter[0].
Otherwise, it’s really not a big deal to me if you don’t believe something that’s true.
0: for the moment, I’m willing to trade for the DNA height model that some people claim exists. If you can find it for me, I’ll find you some sources for container royalties.
I'm arguing that if you are someone who tries to bring change to the ports, like the developer contracted by the government to do an assessment, you will get a visit, most likely at your home.
They won't kill you or rough you up, but they will tell you what your assessment will find. And reiterate that they are at your house, where your family lives.
I want someone who cares to be driving the train I'm on. They also require in person participation which make outsourcing hard. I'm fine with self driving when the line is designed for it. It will be a very long time before existing lines are self driving, and its not because on unions.
Not really sure why people like moaning about train drivers. Are they jealous a train driver is making more than them? While in the case of tech workers they sit quietly and watch their £65k jobs go to India.
Definitely an interesting wrinkle. I wonder, though, if it's still cheaper to have extremely overworked but well paid staff, and few of them, versus adequate staff and normal pay.
I’m sure many people will also tell you that methamphetamines make them more productive at work, but that’s not a good reason to allow unregulated public distribution of them.
You can read about the predatory nature of Replika to see where this all ends up.
you could build an emacs frontend for this model! the thing i am trying to describe is “getting out of the box”. imagine a terminal session that is shared between emacs, iTerm, and a mobile phone ssh’d in over the network, that’s my vision.
Microsoft does have a reputation for ungodly levels of backwards compatibility. You can still run the oldest Windows 95 programs today, still open the oldest Word documents, etc.
The issue with “quality” is that it's really subjective. As someone remembering the switch from Windows 98 (DOS-based) to Windows 2000 (NT-based), the boost in subjective quality was immense. But to someone who's already been on Linux for years, it would have looked like playing catch-up.
That's how computers and software work by default. It's an entirely different business philosophy. We can gain more market share but having a just works software environment for as many people as possible VS we can resell people the same software over and over again.
You're impressed that they managed to fill their diaper for so long without any leaks? Linux can read the oldest unix file, compile and run the oldest programs. Their "backwards compatability" is entirely a self created problem, they realized they can capture more value, in the short term, if users only see a binary so they have to implement a technically flawed solution.
Everything’s a trade off. Take something from 30 year ago written in a less popular language with a compiler that no one is maintaining, or that you might not even be able to find a copy of.
You can’t compile the source for modern systems, but the windows binary still runs.
Distributing the source also doesn’t solve the backwards compatibility problem even if it does ameliorate it. A compiler can’t paper over every compatibility problem.
Linux definitely has others to catch up. The only reason I switched to a Linux box is not how great it is for users, but 1) it is a dev box for system programming studies, 2) MSFT willingly trash Windows
Last I checked, the only way to run a 16 bit game from my childhood is on Linux. Very easy. Odd to congratulate Microsoft on backwards compatibility when they are not doing better than Linux.
> You can still run the oldest Windows 95 programs today, still open the oldest Word documents, etc.
No. You can't. Games requiring old DirectX versions will crash in subtle ways. A lot of programs are badly rendered on Windows 10 (for some reason Windows scales some UI elements but other not).
NT kernel is pretty solid and thr earlier NT kernel OS such as Win 2000 and XP are solid too. They definitely did not have the security features modern OSes have but security always evolves.
I mean NT is still way more advanced and modern than Linux will ever be, per definition. NT implements a lot of modern security architectures right into the kernel, while Linux inherently just lacks a lot of them.
But apart from NT I can't think of a lot more solid products that came out of Microsoft.
I think MS SQL Server is fine? Office is good if you ignore anything after 2013...VS debugger is good, but VS itself is bloated.
Meh, not many indeed. Anyway they adopted the beta to user and improve on the way mindset long time ago. Windows terminal was not very good back then but now it is OK.
I think there’s a difference between a product having problems and needing a restart once in a while and the product actively behaving in an undesirable way.
> I called the app Residency and you can get it here. No subscriptions, costs less than an airport martini, and you'll likely regret it less a few hours later.
The article is content marketing, so I wouldn't be surprised if the pain points are being talked up somewhat (but who knows?)
Anecdotal evidence: timezone-aware precision might be only necessary for those pushing it to very edge of the allowances, but travel log spreadsheet was very very real for me, and everyone else in my own immigrant bubble. I still have it somewhere.
UK officials seem to operate on vibes though, not obsessive precision - I witnessed missed presence days being successfully propped up with a good sob story, but I can imagine it still being useful if you need to appeal a case where vibe turned against you.
Then was a short rest between making oath and Brexit, and here we are at that shit again - spreadsheet is back, and there's a script for Schengen rolling days.
“Vibes” sometimes work against you. This is a great app for documenting that you met the rules if you need to.
Back in 2000, entry to Canada was based on vibes. I had no idea what I was doing but looking back I don’t think they’d let someone in who forgets their DL, passport, and is on a “management consultant visa”.
I’ve always struggled with this concept too. Respect yourself. Be kind to yourself. But _loving_ youself sounds kind of narcissistic to me (but yes, I get that this is probably a question of semantics and/or my working class catholic upbringing)
Maybe it is a British cultural difference, however, 'loving oneself' and the language of 'self love' definitely makes me cringe.
Hence, I prefer to think of 'not hating oneself' as the area to improve on. From time to time I do hate myself. This can be from letting someone down or from an accidental misunderstanding. This is when I truly loathe myself and only the passage of time will help me move on from 'shameful behaviour', but that self-hate will never fully go away.
In these situations, any talk of 'self love' really won't help. What does help is to have friends to confide in, and sometimes they provide some perspective that is helpful. Maybe they have also upset the same person and can reassure me that I meant no harm.
reply