I also find the "people" stories somewhat less interesting than technical. I really enjoyed the "How Apollo Flew to Moon" book. I also have "Stages to Saturn" on my list to read sometime, sounded interesting but haven't read it yet.
Interesting that they would act this hostile towards ATT. AT&T would surely be a major potential customer for Broadcom's network chips (either directly or through someone like Arista that builds products with them).
The value of that business from an ISP has to be much much higher than a support contract for servers. Even if they don't use Broadcom for networking today, why put any more strategic business at risk over something like this?
I just finished reading and would strongly recommend it to anyone interested in Challenger or aerospace in general. One of my better reads in the last few years.
And also infuriating to read...my previous impression was that there was some concern about cold weather + the o-rings, and one guy thought they shouldn't launch.
But the management mistakes were far more grievous than I realized. There was a repeated pattern of near misses on the SRB's over the years before Challenger, and most engineers working on the SRB's felt very strongly that they should not launch. The previous coldest launch was 15+ degrees warmer than Challenger's, and came very very close to failure itself.
(And while it ended up not being what killed them, Rockwell, the folks who build the Shuttle itself, also did not want to launch, out of concerns about ice).
Sourcegraph has become pretty obscenely expensive in the last couple years (with borderline hostile sales folks to boot). I know at least one company who would love to be able to cancel that contract if GH search is "good enough" now.
Sourcegraph CEO here. We definitely need a cheaper tier for smaller companies or those who don’t need our entire feature set. I agree! What do you think that should be?
Overall, we’re building what our customers need, and our product goes way beyond what GitHub can offer. Sourcegraph indexes all the code and increasingly all the code intelligence (including code nav but also code ownership and other metadata in the future from your other dev tools). We charge based on active usage, so we make money when devs at customers /choose/ to use us over the alternatives. We’re trying to do this the right way, and tons of customers agree. (If anyone reading this disagrees, please let me know!)
Re: your comment about our sales team, I’m really sorry to hear that and want to understand more so I can fix the problem. Can you please email me at [email protected]?
