5 ms·

This is a huge indictment of the IT industry. We need to kick the shiny rock mentality, and actually engineer systems that are safe and secure. Just look at h

This is a huge indictment of the IT industry. We need to kick the shiny rock mentality, and actually engineer systems that are safe and secure. Just look at how some companies interview and select people. They do so on the basis of cleverness, not carefulness and attention to detail.

booleandilemma 7y ago
The attitude in the industry towards developers is pretty much: You know Java? Cool. My kid is learning that in high school.
- boogiewoogie 7y ago
  You set the bar high. Some are more like, "Talk to this guy, he's a computer geek."
jacquesm 7y ago
> Just look at how some companies interview and select people. They do so on the basis of cleverness, not carefulness and attention to detail. That's a direct reflection of how we develop software. New and shiny trumps reliable and boring any day of the week. That, coupled with an industry that does not even recognize the concepts of liability and defective product is a surefire recipe for a very large disaster at some point in the future. And after that it will get a lot easier to get budget for security, testing and all those other things that companies see as unnecessary cost.
CobrastanJorji 7y ago
Even if software were perfect, this makes sense as a defense-oriented decision. It's harder to hack a physical switch. Air gaps can be bridged. There are also plenty of reasons to automate things. It allows for for faster reactions to problems and interesting new ways to reroute power. Both approaches have pros and cons, and there are good reasons for backing either approach. Russia attacked Ukraine in a new way, and we responded by trying to become more well-defended against that new attack. Much as I agree that coding interviews are problematic, I fail to see how your point follows.
- throwawayjava 7y ago
  It is possible to write safe and secure software. It's expensive, but it's possible. Digitizing the grid has enormous upside, to the tune of billions in savings and improved resiliency/response to weather related outages. It we could do it safely and securely it'd be a no-brainer. We're just trading a devil we know for a (preventable) devil we don't. BTW: digitized grids aren't even necessarily more vulnerable. In a complex system, the increased latency and miscommunication opportunities introduced by human operators are also a potential attack vector...
  - rrix2 7y ago
    Digitizing the grid also opens up efficiency gains which we sorely need. Smart water heaters which run when we have daytime solar surplus, etc.
    - gamedori 7y ago
      Why not send a price signal separate from the grid, or use AC frequency deviation as a price signal?
      - cogman10 7y ago
        The neat thing is that already basically exists in the form of voltage. If you've ever watched your voltage, you'd noticed that it isn't a perfect 110 or 220. It is often higher or lower. When it is higher, there is a local surplus, when it is lower, there is a high load. We could do this today. We might not have current pricing, but we do have load vs production information.
        cesarb 7y ago
        > When it is higher, there is a local surplus, when it is lower, there is a high load. Or perhaps the voltage got too low, and an on-load tap changer in one of the transformers increased the output voltage. Voltage does not necessarily follow the load. AFAIK, the thing generators themselves use as the main feedback signal is not voltage, but frequency; but it's not a useful signal for consumers, given that generators are much stronger at keeping the frequency at its nominal value.
aswanson 7y ago
Even old-school industries aren't immune. I had an embedded hiring manager ask me the burning stick, 45 minute timing question along with how many interrupts there were on a processor i used five years ago. A lot of engineers are doltish in general when assessing others.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
jlarocco 7y ago
On the other hand, maybe the problem with our industry is that we try to solve every problem with computers and software when simpler and more secure physical solutions can do a better job in some cases.
exabrial 7y ago
I will probably quote this comment. It does take both kinds of kinds... creative thinking for hard problems, but attention to detail towards the path of correctness. I completely agree the "cleverness" is massively over-emphasized during the interviews for most companies

booleandilemma 7y ago

The attitude in the industry towards developers is pretty much: You know Java? Cool. My kid is learning that in high school.

boogiewoogie 7y ago
You set the bar high. Some are more like, "Talk to this guy, he's a computer geek."

jacquesm 7y ago

> Just look at how some companies interview and select people. They do so on the basis of cleverness, not carefulness and attention to detail. That's a direct reflection of how we develop software. New and shiny trumps reliable and boring any day of the week. That, coupled with an industry that does not even recognize the concepts of liability and defective product is a surefire recipe for a very large disaster at some point in the future. And after that it will get a lot easier to get budget for security, testing and all those other things that companies see as unnecessary cost.

CobrastanJorji 7y ago

Even if software were perfect, this makes sense as a defense-oriented decision. It's harder to hack a physical switch. Air gaps can be bridged. There are also plenty of reasons to automate things. It allows for for faster reactions to problems and interesting new ways to reroute power. Both approaches have pros and cons, and there are good reasons for backing either approach. Russia attacked Ukraine in a new way, and we responded by trying to become more well-defended against that new attack. Much as I agree that coding interviews are problematic, I fail to see how your point follows.

throwawayjava 7y ago
It is possible to write safe and secure software. It's expensive, but it's possible. Digitizing the grid has enormous upside, to the tune of billions in savings and improved resiliency/response to weather related outages. It we could do it safely and securely it'd be a no-brainer. We're just trading a devil we know for a (preventable) devil we don't. BTW: digitized grids aren't even necessarily more vulnerable. In a complex system, the increased latency and miscommunication opportunities introduced by human operators are also a potential attack vector...
- rrix2 7y ago
  Digitizing the grid also opens up efficiency gains which we sorely need. Smart water heaters which run when we have daytime solar surplus, etc.
  - gamedori 7y ago
    Why not send a price signal separate from the grid, or use AC frequency deviation as a price signal?
    - cogman10 7y ago
      The neat thing is that already basically exists in the form of voltage. If you've ever watched your voltage, you'd noticed that it isn't a perfect 110 or 220. It is often higher or lower. When it is higher, there is a local surplus, when it is lower, there is a high load. We could do this today. We might not have current pricing, but we do have load vs production information.
      - cesarb 7y ago
        > When it is higher, there is a local surplus, when it is lower, there is a high load. Or perhaps the voltage got too low, and an on-load tap changer in one of the transformers increased the output voltage. Voltage does not necessarily follow the load. AFAIK, the thing generators themselves use as the main feedback signal is not voltage, but frequency; but it's not a useful signal for consumers, given that generators are much stronger at keeping the frequency at its nominal value.

aswanson 7y ago

Even old-school industries aren't immune. I had an embedded hiring manager ask me the burning stick, 45 minute timing question along with how many interrupts there were on a processor i used five years ago. A lot of engineers are doltish in general when assessing others.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

jlarocco 7y ago

On the other hand, maybe the problem with our industry is that we try to solve every problem with computers and software when simpler and more secure physical solutions can do a better job in some cases.

exabrial 7y ago

I will probably quote this comment. It does take both kinds of kinds... creative thinking for hard problems, but attention to detail towards the path of correctness. I completely agree the "cleverness" is massively over-emphasized during the interviews for most companies