Are you seriously telling me that Joe Lunchbox who supports tariffs truly understands what the cost increase is going to be for having a product manufactured in the USA, and is going to be willing to pay that increased cost? After decades of Walmart shoving out cheap Chinese goods driving prices down?
> Even well-meaning US liberals overestimate the count of black people shot by the police by three orders of magnitude. That is some serious divergence from reality, and it was hyped by social networks.
Starliner leaving astronauts stranded after first not making it to the space station.
737 MAX crashing and killing people due to slapped-together flight control integration.
737 MAX having windows blow out due to sheer manufacturing incompetence.
KC-46 deliveries being rejected due to literal tools being found in fuel tanks.
Boeing HAD an over 100 year history of delivering. You can build a thousand bridges. No one's calling you a bridgebuilder after you shag just one sheep.
My experience was less good. Starlink suffered from intermittent outages, and enough bitrate jitter to make video calling a distraction. Latency was good but still higher than advertised, and the average download speed felt noticeably slower than wired broadband. It wasn't uncommon to see 50% dropped packets while playing a game or watching live content, which is more than I saw with Hughesnet.
It's preferable to 3G or being stranded in the woods, but there are definitely points where I wondered if a 4G LTE hotspot would have been faster for home internet.
I mean anecdotes aren't great for sweeping generalizations. When I'm taking vacation at my sister's ranch teams calls work just fine with my customers, so ones mileage may vary.
Is satellite internet advertised as being more capable than a 4G LTE hotspot?
From my understanding, physics would not allow that (for a decent, not oversubscribed 4G LTE mobile connection and backhaul). But those parameters exist for satellite internet, too.
Ah yes. One of them got $2.6B for six flights. The other one got $4.2B for six flights.
One of them flew six flights successfully, got contract extended further to 14 flights for a total of 4.93 billion. They also flew other paying customers seven times.
In that time, the second one flew once with astronauts, and had so many problems that they ended up coming home on the first guy's spacecraft.
It's about growth potential. Boeing has all the excitement of a utility company, just with bigger publicity problems. SpaceX has the potential to forge whole new industries. If you're bullish on space tourism or asteroid mining, SpaceX is the best bet on the table right now.
> China's building two, so that advantage will be fleeting
Monopoly may be fleeting. Advantage, no.
Again, we're looking at a decade plus of SpaceX having a decided advantage in putting mass in orbit. That could mean more capability, more capacity, faster deployment of new technology or even more margin (since you can go cheap on station keeping).
I worked as an analyst on a team doing a system replacement.
The old system assigned work cases out in a plain round robin system - Person 1 got Case 1, Person 2 got Case 2, etc, regardless of what people already had on their plate.
The new system looked at a number of factors and assigned a new case to people who had the least amount of overall work in their queue. So if Person 1 had 2 cases and Person 2 had 10, then Person 1 was getting the next case.
Management in one division came to us after a while and said the method of assigning cases was broken, and cases were not being assigned out "fairly." They wanted us to implement the old system's round-robin assignment method in the new system.
After some investigation I determined that workers had figured out ways to game the system in order to seem more busy than they actually were and therefore receive less new cases. As a result efficient workers who were actually doing their jobs were getting punished with new cases while inefficient workers were getting rewarded.
I, another analyst from that division, and my management laid out a very clear case that if employees were not properly handling their cases, and not being monitored on their progress (by all the new monitoring tools the new system provided) then changing the method of distributing cases wouldn't fix the underlying problem.
We were overruled and forced to implement the technical solution to the human problem.
The problems GenX had to deal with was watching Boomers, who enjoyed all the benefits of post-WW2 expansion of infrastructure and social services, pull the rope ladder up behind them once they got well-paying jobs.
The 80's and 90's saw the beginning of the "fuck you, got mine" mentality that pervades all but the most egalitarian societies. Reagan and Thatcher deregulated and privatized everything, and as a result a select few made a mountain of money and destroyed the middle class. "Shareholder value" and mass layoffs became the order of the day way before the dot com bubble burst. GenX knew we'd never have it as good as our parents - we just didn't know how fucked we were going to end up.
>The problems GenX had to deal with was watching Boomers, who enjoyed all the benefits of post-WW2 expansion of infrastructure and social services, pull the rope ladder up behind them once they got well-paying jobs.
No, I agree. But pulling the ladder from under them is not the biggest issue per se since every generation after them did them same if they could get on the ladder, the big problem with boomers is their immense hypocrisy.
GenX and Millennials knew that the situation was every man for himself grab everything you can while the going is still good, but crucially IMHO they didn't try to gaslight the next generations that this system of gains is somehow fair or the result of hard work and self sacrifice.
But boomers indulged in the period of sexual liberation and drug use, while then preaching about conservative family values and war on drugs when they got older, they enjoyed crazy good housing market and unionized jobs while preaching you should pull yourself by your bootstraps for a job that treats you like a disposable cog and won't buy you a house, they vocally hate socialism while depending on a generous social security system they designed for themselves and costing the taxpayer a huge amount on socialized government healthcare programs paid by the younger generations, etc the examples could go on. You can't hate boomers enough for this. Granted, not all are this hypocritical, but enough for the dots to form a line on the graph.
In my very humble opinion, the impact that software has on our lives is getting to the point where software engineering should become a true profession like the other engineering branches (electrical, mechanical, etc).
There should be things like professional certifications that engineers have to maintain through continuous education, a professional code of ethics, a board of review, and other functions.
My reasoning is that we are at the point where a software "engineer" can make a mistake that can have the same impact as a civil engineer making a bad calculation and causing a bridge collapse.
There's different levels to this, of course. An app for booking restaurant reservations wouldn't need that much oversight. But we've seen some outages having massive impacts that quite frankly did not happy twenty years ago.
I agree. I like the position of Dr. Josef Witt-Doerring, board-certified psychiatrist, who maintains that psych drugs are appropriate in certain circumstances. He says that if they were used only when appropriate (i.e., not as a response to an adverse life event and only after a trial of interventions like counseling, exercise, keto diet, gluten-free diet and evaluation for physiological disorders) they'd be used at about 5% of the rate that they used now.
Our ability to diagnose mental illnesses are improving.
50 years ago many people with mental illness would go undiagnosed. They would instead self-medicate through alcohol, illicit drugs, or risky behavior and die far too young after leading miserable lives.
This is an assertion, but there’s no supporting evidence and many indicators you are incorrect.
50 years ago was 1975. It wasn’t the dark ages and the worst cases were already being moved to asylums for at least 150 years before that.
Suicide in particular is hard to hide any suicide rates are going up despite treatment. If mental illness rates are the same as 50 years ago and more people are getting effective treatment, we’d expect per capita rates to decrease.
Impoverished third world countries where people have nothing but problems almost universally have higher reported happiness and less suicide.
Severe mental health issues don’t just go away because you drink and if alcohol could suppress the problems, we’d never have made treatments to begin with.
In terms of “self medicating” with drugs, we’re hitting an all-time high (pun intended). Risky and self destructive behavior is also way up as evidence with our prison systems overflowing.
Nothing indicates to me that mental health is improving and everything seems to indicate it getting worse despite all the attempted interventions.
reply