carbine

I think for demanding jobs the distinction between remote and in-office is non-trivial. If you expect people to push themselves to (and past) the limit, coming into the office and handling all the interruptions that entails is an enormous source of daily friction.

We hear so much hand wringing about the loss of 'hallway conversations,' but few people seem to discuss the loss of productivity from high performers in particular. I was at an intense startup when the pandemic hit, and switching from in-office to remote was such an unlock. I had an additional ~90 mins a day, could wear whatever, and just focus on executing.

I'm 38, remote, and can't imagine working in-office ever again. Our small-ish team (~25) works very effectively remotely.

But I suspect you're right. I learned a huge number of skills being in high velocity office environments, shadowing/observing others, etc. Starting out remote must be much harder.

?

lower revenues -> lower budgets -> relying on poorly equipped junior staff

i used to work with publishers (incl many implicated in this article) and they often operate on the presumption that everyone would be paying for a news subscription, if only tech companies weren't twisting their arms and misdirecting people away from doing so

it never seems to occur to them that it's because their content has gone from great to good to bad to worse

moderates / reasonable people keeping quiet is the reason we got into this collective problem in the first place.

not to pressure OP, it's an understandable point of view. but it's time for reasonable people to speak up.

I hear this criticism but it always seems to be from people who claim to rarely go on Twitter. I use it all the time and see basically zero bot content. My feed is full of high quality info and it's been a far better source than most mainstream news over the past few days. Faster, more nuanced, and quicker to self-correct. Community Notes seem, on balance, pretty effective.

Moving back to my hometown to be near my closest friends is one of the best decisions I've ever made.

it's laughable that engineers and product teams wanted to unionize. get real, people.

For this reason there's a pretty good argument to be made that legacy and donation status shouldn't be taken into account when determining admissions. Ditching standardized testing, however, is going in the wrong direction.

I don't think this is necessarily true -- if you limit your sources to "good" ones (thoughtful, reliable, with minimal political agenda -- I'd include the economist and a handful of substack writers in this mix) then you can be informed without needing to expose yourself to the awful deluge of mainstream crap. So maybe you can be somewhat happy (if your definition of happiness depends upon you not being engaged in the culture war), but still informed and intelligent.

The problem, however, is the impact this change in political reporting has on actual politics. That, I'm not sure how to solve.

It used to be that pre-election debates were for nerds and policy wonks. Now everyone watches them, but all substance has been removed. Debates themselves may even cease to exist.

I'm Canadian and there are more "ehs" in this article than I've heard in the past 5 years combined

try to buy tickets to opening night. I booked both a couple weeks ago and they're both now closed to sold out already.

Also adding this patent for the hull monitoring

https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/originalD...

yes, same in Canada afaik. seems quite plausible to me that some of these bills will be sent to OceanGate, we don't know. ofc their ability to pay is another question.

Lots of talk about carbon fiber, ofc. But also seems relevant that that this seems to be one of the only (or truly the only?) deep sea submersibles with a non-spherical personnel chamber.

it's not the assertion that it was avoidable I'm objecting to, it's the 'not gonna shed a tear' <3

Respectfully, I’m not allocating those funds myself. I share your frustration about the unequal devotion of resources to helping people. But that doesn’t mean that these people aren’t worth saving, or grieving.

I'm just trying to understand your philosophical position: I don't have to care about certain people, as revenge for others not caring about a different group of people?

For me all human life is precious and equally worthy of effort to save, as well as sympathy and grief for their loss. I suppose that's not your position, but I don't quite understand what it is.

Whatabouism.

Also tragic. Being sad over this does not preclude being sad about those events.

Well I wouldn't agree with either position. Human life is human life, but I guess some people seem to believe that either poor OR wealthy people are less deserving of sympathy, care, and investment of resources.

I happen to disagree, but you do you.

You're probably right but I, like you, am a lurker on the internet and not in possession of every single fact, so I'm choosing my words.

Still not a reason to completely dehumanize people.

Yes, and SpaceX's approach to safety and testing is significantly different for crewed and uncrewed rockets.

The same way we justify the significant resources devoted to the attempted rescues of the Thai boys in the cave and the Chilean miners.

No amount of poor decision making changes the fact that several precious human lives were lost. Frustration over the company's potential negligence and sadness over the loss of life can coexist.

yes I believe in one interview the CEO said carbon fiber provides buoyancy but is much cheaper than syntactic foam, which other similar such vessels have used

Yeah. IMHO this thing should have gone unmanned to the bottom a gajillion times, and exposed to all variety of stressors, before a paying passenger was on board. Maybe that's not possible? Maybe it was in fact prohibitively expensive? I'd love to hear why I'm wrong, but it seems wild to me that paying passengers are along for a ride after only really a handful of successful trips in this thing, ever.

SpaceX has explicitly very different approaches for crewed and uncrewed crafts. Uncrewed rockets are pushed to the limit over and over and over again, to drive innovation and thoroughly test them. As soon as a single person is on board, their margin for error goes to zero.

I'd argue this is in fact superior to NASA's approach, which rarely allows for uncrewed testing (and spectacular RUDs), leading to technological stagnation and catastrophic organizational risks. (i.e. internal resistance to doing anything about the O-ring problem on Challenger, even though they had been alerted about the potential issue).