[HN Gopher] Helsing at Eurorust and the Oxidation of Defense
___________________________________________________________________
Helsing at Eurorust and the Oxidation of Defense
Author : mansard
Score : 49 points
Date : 2024-12-02 23:39 UTC (4 days ago)
(HTM) web link (cafkafk.dev)
(TXT) w3m dump (cafkafk.dev)
| WhatsName wrote:
| > To me, this sounds partially like an anachronistic appeal to
| big data, an unsurprising marketing spin for an industry still
| far behind the bleeding edge of software engineering.
|
| Let's leave the politics aside for a moment, but is there any
| benefit to even be on the "bleeding edge of software
| engineering"? I would assume these engineers are measured by
| reliability of their product instead of a techstack that looks
| good on a resumee?
| gostsamo wrote:
| When the edge is less bugs in code bases which have much less
| contributers and which might need fast iteration due to
| adverserial environment, the ability to deploy with confidence
| might be a real advantage.
| klooney wrote:
| I mean, I feel like we've made a lot of progress on "how to do
| a good job" that's valuable- we've learned a lot about the
| value of automated tests, how to write fast ones, how to manage
| changes, how to design languages and systems that prevent
| errors.
|
| You go look at older companies shipping product.zip.3 files
| around from someone's desktop and then it all comes in to
| focus.
| DyslexicAtheist wrote:
| attracting capable engineers building a reliable product would
| require that the employer ensures they get to work with an
| interesting & modern tech stack (e.g. regardless what one
| thinks of Rust or Nix).
|
| Whether Rust is mandatory to create defense Tech, that decision
| might have been influenced by many factors that apply also to
| any other start-up (time to market, access to talent, maturity
| of the ecosystem, skill distribution in founding team, etc)
| ytpete wrote:
| I wouldn't say it _requires_ that though. That is one way to
| attract solid engineers, but you can also do it with better
| pay, better benefits, better work-life balance, or sometimes
| even by just having a really compelling mission or project
| that people feel excited to work on.
| Filligree wrote:
| For Europe, in 2024, working on defence is indeed such a
| compelling mission for many engineers. I suspect that's an
| aspect of the situation a lot of Americans aren't
| realising.
| trallnag wrote:
| Defence includes border protection and illegal
| immigration. Problems that both unions face
| tialaramex wrote:
| Suppose that you're a bridge engineer. Ten years ago, when you
| learned your craft it was usual to build larger, sturdy,
| bridges from cast iron, however recently (say five years ago)
| high quality bulk steel I-beams became available at a very
| affordable price.
|
| The bleeding edge of your discipline is use of these I-beams,
| they enable you to build a comparatively elegant bridge which
| is far stronger and yet is less easily damaged by the elements
| than the iron bridges.
|
| A "traditional" bridge engineer can point to examples of their
| preferred materials which have lasted fifty, a hundred years,
| and say look - we know cast iron works. You don't have that,
| and so there may be people who say "I don't want your new steel
| bridge", but on the other hand, clients may be swayed by the
| affordable yet better looking and more capable product.
|
| In fifty years it's no contest, your steel bridges make sense,
| iron bridges made by your competitors are seen as old-fashioned
| and unnecessarily conservative. "Didn't they have steel?" "They
| didn't trust it". "Huh".
|
| Now, of course it's not always so clear whether whatever you
| consider "Bleeding edge" is use of steel beams in bridges, or
| use of flammable aluminium cassette "weather cladding" on high
| rise buildings (a choice now seen as unacceptably dangerous).
| But just because it's how things were done by your grandfather
| doesn't mean it's a good choice today.
| kjkjadksj wrote:
| A more like comparison with tech is more that there are now
| steel ibeams but no one at all knows how to design a bridge
| with an ibeam to maximize its benefit. You get certain alpha
| build bridges that will be totally unsafe despite using the
| new technology of the new material. The designs haven't had a
| chance to hit their bugs and be iterated out and new bugs are
| expected to emerge very often.
|
| In your example your bridge builder presumably has a mature
| and stable software build equivalent of a steel ibeam bridge
| design that is basically going to be the same going forward.
| That's more like when people still use cobol for decades
| because it works than when people are testing out the
| bleeding edge of software.
| 3eb7988a1663 wrote:
| Physical infrastructure has expected lifetimes measured in
| years/decades. The half-life for a line of code could be as
| little as a year. I think being conservative in adopting new
| technology for something concrete is a sensible choice.
| flumpcakes wrote:
| "bleeding edge" may also be unproven and more importantly it is
| not standardised. This is why people would muse that they trust
| a civil engineer over a software engineer - sectors that
| include physical engineering have rigorous standards. Software
| projects that interface with this (say, a flight computer of a
| new jet) also have strict standards. Ones that do not
| (currently) cover the "bleeding edge" in software development.
| 1oooqooq wrote:
| First, this was way longer than anyone not involved in those
| events organization would read. I'm on the board of open source
| projects and had a hard time keeping interested even though this
| is a topic very close to heart.
|
| But the little i got out of it is that defense is a good patron
| and nothing else matters. That Nix is a bunch of either
| conscientious humans or sensitive liberals (depending on who you
| ask, i'm on the first group if you care), and that rust was
| always about the missiles anyway. Did I get it better than an AI?
| jauer wrote:
| I'm curious how well this article resonates with people outside a
| particular bubble (vs. being puzzling if you are inside a
| different bubble.)
|
| The statement that Anduril sponsoring a NixOS conference was
| inherently damaging as opposed to the reaction causing the
| damage, "When did defense work stop being taboo" etc.
|
| I've worked in the US Midwest->SFBay->US West and defense work
| never seemed particularly taboo in my circles, moreso that the
| work was boring and constricting.
|
| Traditionally cautious sectors adopting a particular technology
| seems like a sign that a technology is viewed as having a
| particular level of dependability. That's a good thing.
| Barrin92 wrote:
| I think the fact that Anduril in particular is involved is
| relevant because Palmer Luckey and the whole Thiel company
| orbit around it are extremely divisive and there's a military /
| civil divide along political axis in the US. Here in Europe
| that's usually not the case and Helsing being a European
| company in particular now with the security situation on the
| continent just isn't going to cause much furor.
| dralley wrote:
| The irony is that Luckey and Musk, despite their personal
| issues and divisiveness, are some of the better defense
| contractors in terms of actually providing good value for
| dollar and getting things done on time. Compare against, say,
| Boeing.
|
| I suggest that the Europeans should get over their moral
| reservations about military industries quickly because the
| upcoming US administration is not likely to be as helpful as
| previous ones in the event that Russia decides to test the
| integrity of NATO.
| davedx wrote:
| > I suggest that the Europeans should get over their moral
| reservations about military industries quickly
|
| Which of us Europeans are you referring to exactly?
|
| Sweden joined NATO and many countries in the bloc have
| increased spending. In the Netherlands we sent fighter jets
| to Ukraine to try and help in the war against Ukraine.
|
| This comment is just downright ignorant and condescending.
| I guess this is how Trump voters view Europe though?
| dralley wrote:
| We're commenting on a long essay about making tech
| conferences hostile to any kind of defense contractor
| presence, that prefaced itself with a "content warning"
| simply because a handful of defense contractors were
| mentioned. That kind.
|
| That obviously doesn't represent most Europeans, and of
| course there are many Americans that hold similar views.
| But I do also think it's true that Europe still hasn't
| really "woken up" to the scale of the problem on their
| hands.
|
| On spending, most nations that don't directly border
| Russia are only barely meeting the goals they set forth a
| decade ago and they're doing so at the last possible
| moment, to say nothing of the complete inadequacy of that
| goal given the largest war since WWII is now happening at
| their doorstep.
| flumpcakes wrote:
| I agree - and what's funny is that according to this blog
| it was the US community that rejected US MIC companies,
| and the EU community didn't reject the EU MIC company.
| XorNot wrote:
| This is one of those "the internet isn't reality, and it is
| self selecting" issues.
|
| Depending on the day and topic, a lot of things look all one
| way depending on who's commenting on them.
| demarq wrote:
| deleted
| jauer wrote:
| I've never worked in defense. Why do you equate working in
| those regions with working in defense?
| demarq wrote:
| I clearly got it wrong.
| CamperBob2 wrote:
| _" When did defense work stop being taboo" etc._
|
| There's a good quote in the Economist story on autonomous
| drones that's also linked from the front page [1]. The idea
| that you can ethically shun defense work is itself a privilege
| and a luxury that many people throughout the world don't enjoy.
|
| "It's the best feeling to see your drone enter a tiny opening
| in an enemy trench," says Denys, an engineer at The Fourth Law,
| the Ukrainian firm which makes these autonomous drones. "I used
| to be a pacifist, but Russia's war has stripped me of that
| privilege."
|
| As long as there are countries like Russia, there will have to
| be a strong defense industry. The leaders of such countries
| understand nothing but violence, so unfortunately, violence it
| is.
|
| 1: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42352871
| blueflow wrote:
| This is the same handful of people who care so deeply about
| social justice, that they are willing to burn down everything
| including their own community if their demands aren't met.
|
| Other communities aren't even discussing their ties to defense
| contractors.
| myst1c wrote:
| Note that a pathological kind of "social justice" that
| alienates a bunch of people who the ingroup considers
| irredeemable is simply known as sociopathy.
| cgeier wrote:
| German Eurofighters do not carry nuclear bombs. That's Tornados
| (and soon F35s).
| 1oooqooq wrote:
| You are mixing up nuclear bombs with american nuclear bombs.
| But regardless, i think eurofighters are getting U.S. B61
| certification soon.
| RandomLensman wrote:
| What other nuclear weapons would German Eurofighters carry?
| Also with Germany buying F-35s, not sure any certification
| for German Eurofighters is going ahead (the public
| discussions there seem to predates the F-35 purchase
| decision, I think).
| listic wrote:
| Today I learned that there is a EuroRust converence. I have about
| that level of involvement with the mentioned technologies.
|
| Whom are these kinds of tech conferences actually _for_ in 2024,
| I wonder? For what kind of person and in which circumstances is
| it a good idea to go?
| trallnag wrote:
| Some people like to read books. Some of them join a book club.
| porkbrain wrote:
| While I did not visit to the conference, I did attend the
| workshop the blogpost author mentioned.
|
| It was an excuse for a train trip to beautiful Vienna. Also, I
| met Jon Gjengset for whom I hold a lot of respect, especially
| his ability to think and talk and explain.
| bitbasher wrote:
| All I got out of this was more companies are using Rust so maybe
| it's worth investing in.
| ryukoposting wrote:
| > For instance, I asked if there was any mental health counseling
| provided for the employees, in case they had to interact with
| something as part of their work that disturbed them.
|
| There are a few misconceptions layered inside this statement.
|
| First of all, there is a <0.1% chance you'll ever see anyone
| actually using your company's products in their intended
| environment. You might see some training drills played out
| entirely on friendly turf. As far as I can tell, that's as close
| as you'll ever get. So, the idea that some dev somewhere is going
| to get exposed to the traumas of a battlefield is very far-
| fetched.
|
| Second, every defense contractor will ask you to talk about your
| feelings on their product (and their customer) in your interview.
| They flat out tell you "we make war machines" (in marginally more
| flowery language) and you have to grapple with that in front of
| them before you even get an offer sheet.
|
| In other words, they probably aren't worried about providing
| counseling, because they intentionally weed out people who would
| need it before they're ever hired.
|
| I'm not endorsing this approach, nor am I suggesting it's the
| wrong approach either. Just my own observations.
| flumpcakes wrote:
| I can't take this author seriously. They seem to live in some
| perfect world divorced from reality. I'm sorry, but these defence
| companies are the reason that you can enjoy a liberal democracy
| that protects your LGBQT+ rights. There's no end to the
| authoritarian governments (or 'regimes') that oppress their
| citizens, and would like to oppress others through imperial
| ambitions. I would rather than a strong defence sector and have
| safety for myself, my family, and my fellow citizens than virtue
| signal to others that I am somehow above silly things such as
| 'war'.
| 1oooqooq wrote:
| you seem to imply you are personally benefiting from wars
| abroad and that they somehow protect you.
| flumpcakes wrote:
| Yes, a strong military protects you. See: all of human
| history. Do you think Ukrainians would perhaps have
| personally benefited if they still had their nuclear
| deterrence? Or if they had been given 10x military aid before
| February 2022? The fact is Anduril systems are deployed in
| Ukraine today, helping to protect Ukrainian lives. If you
| want to see what happens when you don't have a strong
| military, look to Bucha.
| jgilias wrote:
| I live in a NATO country, less than 200 kilometers from the
| Russian border. I personally benefit from any and all
| military edge that the West has.
| preisschild wrote:
| Completely agree. We live in a time and world where it is
| extremely important that EUrope needs to have a strong defense
| sector. Russia won't stop just because we continue investing
| nothing into defense and sing kumbaya at the border.
| stefan_ wrote:
| I'm sure the author was given an appropriate spiel, but it just
| screams naivety. No, the guys operating recon drones in Ukraine
| are not in permanent PTSD at the horrors and evil of the "drone
| warfare", it's the highlight of their day if them looking at
| mostly nothing for hours can help their countrymen who are
| fighting in much more exposed roles.
| llamaimperative wrote:
| > the guys operating recon drones in Ukraine are not in
| permanent PTSD at the horrors and evil of the "drone
| warfare", it's the highlight of their day if them looking at
| mostly nothing for hours can help their countrymen who are
| fighting in much more exposed roles.
|
| These are not mutually exclusive
| flumpcakes wrote:
| I don't think this post applies much critical considerations on
| the reality we live in. Just pulling some of the examples at the
| start of the article and giving an alternative interpretation:
|
| > Helsing has a contract making German Eurofighters able to
| detect radar lock-on (which indicates the aircraft may be being
| targeted by AAW, Anti Aircraft Warfare). This could help make
| German Eurofighters more "survivable", which includes the ones
| that carry Nuclear Weapons for deterrence. They argue this helps
| ensure German nuclear deterrence isn't nullified by AAW, ensuring
| peace.
|
| Germany does not own their own nuclear weapons. It may host
| US/NATO nuclear weapons, but they're not German. Perhaps this
| German fighter was destroying an unoccupied bridge to stop the
| advance of enemy troops that were about to kill and rape a
| village of citizens. Does this now make the plane "good" and no
| longer "evil"?
|
| > Autonomous drone flight control systems for Ukraine, including
| "GPS Denied" option (navigating while GPS is being jammed). It
| was impossible to confirm IRL whether or not this is purely
| reconnaissance or navigating and dropping payloads on targets.
| However, it is likely part of a kill chain, as even SIGINT will
| likely be used for e.g. artillery fire.
|
| Perhaps this will also be used by the civilian aviation industry
| which currently suffers the same GPS interference. Would the
| author prefer a precise artillery strike that disables an
| opponent or imprecise artillery that may destroy kilometres of
| land and housing and ancillary buildings (and potentially
| innocent lives)?
| scellus wrote:
| For someone living in Helsinki and currently working in steel
| industry, the title of the post was particularly hard to parse.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-12-07 23:01 UTC)