I hope you’re correct but the very realistic possibility of
SPO (single Pilot Operations) is what pushed myself - and many others like me - away from the career. The current pilot shortage was by design, as the airlines were well aware of the issue and had many ways to avoid it. I’m still of the mind the current shortage (and short term plans to mitigate it) are just to hold them over long enough to end the current 2-pilot system and bring the standard to single pilot operations
I think the biggest obstacle will be public acceptance of a single pilot at the helm. It would take some serious backup tech assurances and maybe a generation's worth of time before it happens.
Lived, sorry, typo, for 2 years. I’m pretty familiar with market street. Heck, I worked right next to the Caltrain station for a year, that area isn’t the nicest.
No it’s not. Many of the people complaining about people pooping on the street happens in the area between the Caltrain station and the convention center, not market. It’s not like we didn’t walk to market often enough for lunch.
I’ve seen burned out neighborhoods in Detroit, places that look like war zones. SF just has a large number of homeless in comparison, most of whom get there via the greyhound bus station.
>Many of the people complaining about people pooping on the street happens in the area between the Caltrain station and the convention center, not market.
Your definition of "many" differs from that of the rest of us. I lived in that exact area for years. As I said, there is no comparison whatsoever between there and the problem parts of Market Street in terms of homeless (whether defecating or not) or other things, like public drug use. To claim otherwise is a blatant lie.
>I’ve seen burned out neighborhoods in Detroit, places that look like war zones.
I have only visited Detroit once, years ago, so cannot personally make a current comparison between the two. SF has not (yet) reached the point where (as I remember seeing) entire blocks are completely burned down and empty, but that's hardly a high standard to meet. The people here who are making the Detroit comparisons aren't saying otherwise; they are warning that we may see a similar civic collapse, in kind if not necessarily in scale.
>SF just has a large number of homeless in comparison, most of whom get there via the greyhound bus station.
Ah yes, the old claim that "[insert city here] gives bus tickets to their homeless to go to San Francisco". Maybe this happened in the past, but 87% of surveyed homeless have lived in SF for more than one year, and 35% for ten or more years. <https://sfstandard.com/2023/05/22/san-francisco-homeless-peo...>
They don’t have to give them bus tickets, tickets are cheap enough on their own, or open tickets are given easy enough. If you have ever ridden greyhound for a long distance journey, you’ll notice they pick up a bunch at each prison, and these people get off at SF, LA, Portland, or Seattle. No surprise, good weather, you won’t die if you live outside.
Self reporting surveys are useless as data. You can ask a guy doing heroin if he has ever done drugs and he’ll say no. It’s like, sure, what else are they going to say?
It was nasty before the pandemic. I’ve frequented the metreon imax for probably two decades, as well as conferences at the Moscone center. The more people became obsessed with the world in their phones, the less they cared what was going on physically around them. We aren’t entitled to nice things, people worked very hard to build and maintain them. Collectively we accepted the decay, and now we have nothing
One provides service to the outside world broadly in trade to fulfill its needs, the other provides limited service to the outside world and trades with a highly limited subset of the world to fulfill its needs
More than likely there is only one interesting material in this specific composition. But understanding the phenomenon we are observing in this material can potentially lead to the development of other materials which display these characteristics, and tune those to function in this way at specific temperature/pressure situations. If we develop efficient ways to produce these materials in bulk (which is orders of magnitude more complicated than just characterizing what we see here) it would be unimaginably revolutionary. But the energy required to do this at scale will likely require our civilization to utilize orders of magnitude more energy, so if this is practical for our daily lives on a wide scale I believe it's development will be contingent on harnessing fusion. Otherwise it will be limited to only the most extreme use cases in the way superconductors are currently used now.
My friend, what exactly do you think is so energy intensive with LK99 synthesis? I've briefly taken a look and the process proposed is really not that onerous in terms of energy consumed. It is a matter of perfecting the process that is the hurdle, we already spend tons of energy happily in similar industrial processes.
Observed effects which have been given a name != a single universal truth. Just because we have experimental evidence of effects and theoretical explanations for their occurrence prove we actually have defined the underlying phenomenon's which produce the observed effect accurately. The reason we experiment isn't to prove our theories are correct so much as it is to probe where they break down so we can further refine our understanding of the universe. What we are likely seeing here is the result of an organized pattern of atomic nucleii forming a lattice which creates the conditions for the movement of electrons to be easier (or harder) than expected at certain temperatures (with temperature being the property which induces strain on the lattice). This is very crude, but begins to explain the multitude of factors at play here.
Yes, that's true, but that would require a shift in our understanding of physics and everything about this saga so far has not done that. And that in part is a reason why people take this serious: it is believable. New physics would raise the bar considerably.
So for now I'm on the measuring error, impurity or process issue side of that without committing to which team I think has the problematic side.
The fact that our existing computational models are in agreement with the experimental behavior leads me to believe there is no new physics involved here. That being said this raises the question as to whether this class of material is known and characterized within our national research labs but has been kept classified, and if it was unknown it raises the question of why experimentation is what discovered it and why weren't we able to harness the computational model to identify it theoretically and develop a method to produce it practically prior to this. My money says there are people in this world who have long been aware of this, and its either already in use in a classified manner or it's interesting but there are other materials which are more practical in all use cases.
I think one factor that's overlooked with these simulations is that there are a ton of parameters to these which really hinder automated searching.
It's easy (relatively) to verify the results from a real world test since you know the physical parameters and can tweak the others based on intuition, where if the result matches the real world you can consider it valid, but if it doesn't you can have to check all sorts of things to be sure that it isn't a glitch due to some parameter not being reasonable.
That makes searching for materials really hard because you either need an absurd amount of computational power to be able to set the simulation parameters so high as to not worry about their effects or you get tons of false positives simply because the computer can't as easily tune those parameters to ensure it produces correct results.
As my PhD advisor has often put it regarding my own simulation work, if the simulations were that capable of modeling reality, there would be no need for billion dollar facilities to perform tests irl, you'd just spend all that on building many supercomputers.
> why we [we]ren't we able to harness the computational model to identify it theoretically and develop a method to produce it practically prior to this.
Because the computational requirements are off the scale in the most literal sense. The search space is so large that you won't be able to come up with an improvement in efficiency for your search unless you guide it very carefully with experimentally obtained results and that's exactly what these people were doing as far as I understand it. You mix up a batch of stuff, test it for gross properties, do crystallography and then use the information from that to do some numerical simulations to check if your assumptions and observations hold up.
Statement should read no civil service government employee should talk to the media about their work or workplace unless the authority to speak on the topic on which they are speaking is in their formal job description, or they have been approved to speak to the media by someone who’s formal job description gives them authority to approve that they do so.
I am all for radical transparency in the public sector, but part of that transparency requires that the individuals communicating have a precise understanding of technical communication. I’ve seen inaccurate communication cause very similar issues to those caused by a lack of communication.
How does those instances compare to the number of times things that would be in the public interest were not shared, because the trained communicators knew it was bad for the bureaucracy?
Knowledge is power, and knowledge of what is going on can be used to harm the organization by outside actors - pathological and good ones - and control of information can be used by harmful internal actors to harm folks too.
Since (legitimately) harmful outside actors aren’t going away, especially in this space…..
