Randomising decisions, running Linux on hard mode, and killing astronauts
We learn a little about how to run Linux complicatedly in a VM with Windows as a hypervisor, we use randomness to decide better (or at least faster, which often translates to better), and we look at the risk of space programmes.
I hope your week is going well!
New articles
Enhanced Session with Fedora 40 in Hyper-V
"I'm glad you're keeping things simple" my manager said when I described how I'm trying to run Linux on my new machine. Another commenter said "Who could have forseen trouble with running Linux as a VM on Windows with an Apple keyboard mapped to Colemak?"
As it stands, though, it is worth it. We'll see if that changes.
Full article (5–12 minute read): Enhanced Session with Fedora 40 in Hyper-V
Announcing Engineering Enigmas
Tarot reading for software development (or any creative pursuit) comes with a few benefits. We can
- get past a decision point where multiple decisions look promising (this is good because it gets us feedback on our decisions, which improves future decisions);
- introduce randomness into adversarial situations, making our strategies harder to exploit; and
- jiggle a system loose when it's stuck in a creative rut.
But learning Tarot looks daunting! Engineering Enigmas is a simplified UI that just gives you loosely Tarot-based advice. Try it!
Full article (4–10 minute read): Announcing Engineering Enigmas
Flashcard of the week
NASA has received a lot of critique regarding the upcoming crewed Artemis missions for selecting mission profiles that increase the risk to the crew, as well as not achieving sufficient safety standards within their organisation. In relation to this discussion, someone brought up numbers regarding the space shuttle programme.
The projected and accepted risk level of the space shuttle programme was one crew loss for every 90 launches. We might be curious whether they lived up to this.
What was the space shuttle's actual frequency of loss of crew during its operating years?
As we might guess – given a couple of high-profile disasters – they didn't quite get to one loss per 90 launches. Rather the frequency of loss ended up being
1 in 67
For reference, a safety audit of the Artemis project suggests that current plans are heading toward a 1 in 75 risk of crew loss. We should be careful even with this number, since we (apparently – see above) tend to underestimate this risk.
Your opinions
As always, I cannot improve without feedback. Reply to this email to share your thoughts on any of the topics above, or anything else!