Can you explain what is false?

The NYT obituary, for instance, notes that she married her boss. That lines up with many of the complaints in the twitter feed.

There’s already several comments in that thread explaining that the linked X post makes some glaring factual errors.

There is exactly one comment about the post and it only disputes her title at a date. It does not address any of the other information.

As I described. Unfortunately neither pieces of information are available for others to read and evaluate.

So it is false that she married the manager? Is it false that she entered the role after the moon landing project was mostly finished?

> at about the worst possible moment,

The tweet was made in 2023

I was talking about timing of the HN comment, not the tweet.

As you can easily see from the HN thread, yes, it is false that she was (as claimed in the tweet) hired for an entry level role in 1968. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50002873

Who she was married to is neither here nor there, and you are doing your case no favors by fixating on that.

> you are doing your case no favors by fixating on that.

If it doesn’t matter then surely you have no concerned with sharing it? (with the corrected manager title date)

I think you may have a personal bias on this topic.

That's already in the comment that I linked to. There are records of her contributing to the codebase as early as 1966, and she's cced in the minutes of a senior management meeting in 1967, so the claim in the tweet that she was hired for an entry-level role in 1968 is clearly false. As is the claim that "her name does not appear [on the command module software] until 1969".

Correction accepted. She was hired earlier than the tweet said. The outstanding information is that she became the manager in the last 3 months before the event. In other words, the vast majority of development did not occur under her “lead”. The comment you’re holding up also acknowledges this overstatement.

Now I don’t know about you, but I think she still has a pretty cool job and did cool things. Why do we need to exaggerate?

>The outstanding information is that she became the manager in the last 3 months before the event

No, this is not outstanding. The comment I linked to already pointed out that Hamilton is shown as the head of CSM programming in the following org chart dating 9/30/68. Apollo 11 launched July 1969.

https://www.ibiblio.org/apollo/Documents/ApolloOrg-Group-23B...

That org chart of course gives the latest possible date of her appointment. The general consensus appears to be that she was appointed to this position in late 1967 (see footnote 102 of https://www.ibiblio.org/apollo/Documents/Birth%20of%20Softwa...) And we know from the source code that her overall involvement in the project dates to before 1967.

As for overstatements and exaggerations: by all means say what you like about Margaret Hamilton if it's true and you've checked that it's true. However, the claims that you keep repeating from the tweet aren't true, which is why the comment containing it got flagged. If you want to post a considered comment about how some aspects of Hamilton's role have been exaggerated, then go do that, rather than flogging the dead horse of this trashy tweet.

If you are correct and the real answer is late 1967, then my comment still stands. She wasn’t the manager for even 40% (20%?) of the schedule.

Not really. Here's what you claimed in your comment:

>A link [...] argues [...] that she did not participate in the moon landing project to the extent suggested here [i.e. in the article]

And what do we find in the article? A statement of exactly the facts we've tediously established above:

> Hamilton worked first on the software for the uncrewed Apollo missions and then was promoted into leading the team developing the on-board flight software for the crewed missions. By 1968 she was assistant director in charge of the Command and Service Module team, and more than 400 people were working on Apollo’s software.