I've [argued](https://benconrad.net/posts/230717_fundingOpenSource/) that oss developers need to have real world use information in order to ship good software. Contra some here, I think oss developers that don't understand how users use their software can't maintain or improve it.
Bear in mind that some of the people reading this comment are OSS developers, potentially even ones who write software you're personally using. ;)
> I think oss developers that don't understand how users use their software can't maintain or improve it.
For trivial improvements, that's definitely not the case.
For example, if someone files a GitHub issue saying "please add new menu shortcut XYZ". That's the kind of thing which doesn't directly need in depth understanding of how users are using the software.
More major features though will indeed benefit from understanding how users use it. That's not really a case for telemetry though, rather it's a case of having a wide enough user base that users ask for changes/features/fixes themselves.
Sometimes the users asking for changes/features/fixes is us ourselves. ;)
> What limits AI creation is not base creation but creating things that satisfy people. And determining what will satisfy people is much more the domain of influencers than AI, and this sounds like jobs that filter AI outputs for market success.
There's pretty clearly a law of conserved latency, that users will gladly suffer x latency for y capability, with capability complexifying until things are too slow, requiring then hw/sw stack upgrades to make it all fast again, while overall capability utilization decreases
Too bad they chose the wrong differentiation, when Neeva launched I wrote: "if I were Neeva, I'd attempt to make search a better experience, by providing better results and context than Google does. I'd classify users according to their search history/sophistication and prefer results that other users in their class have found helpful, while at the same time making clear that the results are tailored based on their search history and offering a way to remove the class restriction. Search that uses my and other users search history to become better, in a transparent way, that's what I'd subscribe to."
http://benconrad.net/posts/200629_searchingForInformation/
NASA has funded SBIR topics on automating EVA scheduling; TRACLabs (based in Clear Lake) has done some of this work, see http://traclabs.com/research/our-thought-leaders/ and particularly work by Debra Schreckenghost, Pete Bonasso, and Scott Bell.
So NASA is developing automated scheduling tools and prototypes exist, they're just taking some time to reach your desk.
I've met Pete. Unfortunately their solutions don't handle the parallel nature of what we're doing. They have essentially written an Eclipse plug-in if I recall correctly.
They were using Eclipse as an interface for task creation and presentation; there's AI in the background ordering the tasks according to, eg, minimal procedure time. While their website is a little sparse, I think an email would prove useful.
Also, as I understand it, you're asking for solutions to the wrong problem. While any sort of project planner would be an improvement over scheduling in Word, the reason you don't use that already is a certain rigidity in how EVAs are planned. If that rigidity were overcome, you'd be able to use a simple project planner, and you'd also be able to use a much more advanced solution that ensures that no tasks collide.
