HN user

hydrogen18

521 karma
Posts16
Comments240
View on HN

Correct, but I could go rent the cab for a flat fee and just drive it around for my own personal wishes if I wanted to. They might put some restrictions on it (don't drive outside the city, no interstate) but otherwise I'd be fine.

As far as medallions go, that is just the result of government regulation. Plenty of industries wind up being populated with nothing more than a bunch of rent seekers. The government sets up an artificial scarcity where there is none to control negative externalities. The fix is easy: require the license holder to be the one that actually uses it. No leasing to others. As far as I know, no one has done that for commercial licensing. Ironically for private licenses (fishing license, etc.) this is already the case.

Would you agree that none of those people pay their employer in that case? I certainly agree salespeople pay for leads, but it is usually an outside party supplying them.

It is largely one of timescale. Carbon dioxide is not only present in our atmosphere but essential for our life. We've just got more of it than the atmosphere than we need without a doubt.

So in comes this notion of capture. Capture to me means taking existing processes which produce carbon dioxide and somehow sequestered. So you've got a plant that burns natural gas to produce electrical power. If you capture the carbon dioxide and somehow incorporate it into something else that people need, they have an incentive to keep it capturing. The obvious example would be bricks. Use the bricks to build a structure, people preserve and use the structure. The carbon dioxide is captured. Obviously no one has figured out how to create room temperature bricks of carbon dioxide.

My issue with this project is they basically are shoving some carbon dioxide containing material in the ground and saying it is somehow captured. It might stay down there for a million years or just a few months. It's like the fracking industry claiming it doesn't impact the environment.

When I bought my house in TX I had to explicitly go through a separate agreement with the mortgage defining what a flood plain was and how it could affect my property. I'm not even in a flood plain and had to learn about them.

I guess if you buy cash you might not know, but in general it's in the documentation you get while purchasing a house here in TX.

It's rather remarkable to read this about a current leader of a nation like China. I've always enjoyed reading autobiographies because figures often relate a personal evaluation of those they worked with. A sort of mini biography within an autobiography. I feel like these sort of evaluations often tell you much more than an "history" book can tell you about a person.

For example, Albert Speer wrote that although Adolf Hitler had a very well established reputation of being impatient and intolerant of mistakes in the public sphere, he apparently was totally opposite in private. Speer wrote that even if a civil servant's work was completely inadequate Hitler would simply send it back until it was acceptable. If this failed he'd just move the person to another role and ask someone else to complete it.

So MegaCorp A buys a huge amount of Cisco gear to modern their internal networks in all their infrastructure.

Two years later OmniCorp B enters into a deal to add them to their portfolio for whatever price they agreed upon. OmniCorp B now owns the physical Cisco gear but doesn't have a license to use it?

I believe you meant to say the "SR-71".

A SR71 would not have "War Emergency Power". I'm not even sure I've seen reference to "War Emergency Power" on any turbine engine. It's simply not a combat aircraft. As a matter of its regular operation, it must be capable of outflying any aircraft or missile in pursuit. In other words, flying at the absolute maximum airspeed was a normal event that is a possibility in every mission. Not a last ditch effort to disengage.

You really have nothing to back up the claims you are making. Not only is the SR71 no longer in operation, the aircraft don't even really exist anymore. The static displays out there largely had their wings cut off for transport. They were just reattached on site afterwards. They aren't airworthy any longer. Even if the top speed was a bit higher than published, there would be no reason to keep it classified now.

Plenty of pilots have published memoirs about how regular flight was Mach 3, with excursions to Mach 3.2. The absolute speed is just like any other aircraft. It's limited by design factors. Of course some crews wound up flying faster than Mach 3.2. But it's not like the blackbird was running around secretly at mach 10 or something.

I wouldn't hold up any Century Series aircraft as an example of anything other than extravagant expenditure. They were all garbage when compared against the actual missions they needed to perform. That was mostly the result of brain dead acquisitions on the part of the DoD.

There are a number of reasons, but limiting the amount of fuel provides a certain amount of safety in a crash. It also prevents an arms race for ever increasing horsepower amongst builders. You can't just increase power delivery forever if you don't have the fuel to finish the race.

X-Seed 4000 9 years ago

Better yet, announce we're building 2. That way we he can plan on building 3.

X-Seed 4000 9 years ago

Yeah, but the defense industry can't charge the firm that does the maintenance $1500/gallon for regular paint.

I don't know if you have read it, but this is basically the hypothesis of Germaine Greer. Her conclusion is that equality for women (and thus feminism) does not mean lives for women that are equivalent to that of men.

They are. Why anyone is willing to adopt the delusion that a "personal improvement plan" is about improving anything I cannot understand. The circumstances are far less severe and consequential, but I can only compare it to a political dissident in a totalitarian state being tortured so long that he eventually believes he was undermining some righteous, just society with his actions.

You shouldn't take it as a personal insult or grievance against you, but the "personal improvement plan" is what HR came up with when your boss requested that you be let go. If you've committed a crime or violated some policy (no matter how trivial) you can be let go immediately. But in most of the United States, it is simply a bad decision (financially) to just let someone go. It is much better to have some documentation of their inadequacy. Hence the weekly meetings.

The person conducting these reviews (be it your boss, or someone else) is probably bored out of their mind that they must participate in these meetings. The phrase "what did I do to deserve this?" probably goes through their head each time they complete one. They don't care about your performance at all at this point. They may provide an objective review, or they may just copy in some boilerplate. Something that sounds great like "fails to meet established goals". It doesn't really matter.

Again, it is completely pointless to take any of this process as any sort of rational feedback. At this point, the decision was already made that you need to go. They just need some documentation before you are let go. I would take the fact that you are being let go as feedback, but stop there. The "personal improvement plan" isn't about you. It never has been.

If you're in a financial situation where you can, just resign. If you can't, that is understandable. But no one involved is going to be upset if you just resign. I'd offer 2 weeks, but they'll likely just counter with an immediate resignation. If anything, everyone will be at ease.