The intern didn't make them "look bad". They were bad. I mean, I'm sure that they were great developers in some sense, but refusing to ever update your toolkit because you've always gotten along just fine with what you already use is a great way to get sped past by the next generation who start from a better baseline.
Yes! It says the rings would have caused a cooling effect. Vindication that my mad science plan of giving the Earth an artificial ring system to combat climate change is viable!
The moon is pretty reflective... If the rings were oriented just right it might actually mirror lots of light that would have missed earth and bounce it down to ground. Possible it would heat the earth.
My suggestion is not to blow up the moon, but to launch payloads from earth via nuclear pulse propulsion containing extremely low albedo material, like coal dust, and create an artificial ring that way.
-Future historians were baffled by the extinction of 99% of life on earth after the planet inexplicably became surrounded by a cloud of radioactive soot. Monuments were discovered exclaiming "at least we're not speaking German"
I'm sure there's a set of shaders that will basically let you emulate the fixed function pipeline without having to endure the shitty performance implications of passing a vertex list to the GPU every single frame.
I've seen this video and while it's informative overall, it's also about 10 minutes or less of information stretched out to 30 minutes. super repetitive throughout and trying to constantly tickle you with the idea that resolution to questions are coming any second now.
Totally agree. I couldn’t make it through 10 mins before being completely annoyed. It’s well constructed but frustrating to watch. It was constantly teasing their results throughout the video and I left knowing less than I did prior to watching.
Welcome to modern YouTube, where channels are heavily pressured to increase user watch-time or they'll get penalised.
I'm a huge fan of YouTube, it's the only tv/video/etc type content I watch in life, yet they're intent on destroying everything that made it amazing in the first place.
a pipe 230m tall with the bottom at ground level would experience the same hydrostatic pressure as water 230m under the ocean. the pressure comes from the weight of water above it, not distance from sea level. this is literally how water towers work.
The post I replied to said the opposite - that the pressure at the surface of the ocean would be the same as the pressure at the end of a pipe going under water, if there was a pipe.
Which clearly isn’t true or we’d have a trivial perpetual motion machine.
the dream of every ticket seller is to extract as much money as each ticket user is willing to pay. knowing who's getting tickets means more opportunities for differential pricing.
Concerts aren't like most other goods though. You have to be available on that date and the price needs to seem fair to you. Maybe you'd pay more for one concert vs another even if you can afford it either way. Maybe depending on the venue the cheap seats might not be that bad. All sorts of confounding variables are afoot even if you know joe shmoe likes Billy Eilish and makes 50k a year.
This wasn't some new gig economy venture, or some software idea. This was a submarine carrying tourists to one of the most dangerous places on earth.
There are companies dedicated to certifying maritime vehicles and standards against which they need to be built and tested, and Stockton Rush explicitly rejected them because he felt that they were stifling to innovation. Additionally, the people who told him that he was needlessly endangering people's lives were experts in their fields. And again, it wasn't just "someone", it was virtually everyone with experience in super-deep submersible operation.
The idea that just because there are often naysayers who claim some big projects are impossible doesn't mean that there aren't situations where they should absolutely be listened to and taking passengers on a submersible down to the Titanic is absolutely one of them. This guy played fast and loose with safety and if it had just been him down there, that would be fine, but he managed to bamboozle a bunch of innocent people into it as well.
> the people who told him that he was needlessly endangering people's lives were experts in their fields
Turns out engineers and other experts disagree with each other all the time.
I assume you are an expert in your field. Do you always get listened to?
> just because there are often naysayers who claim some big projects are impossible doesn't mean that there aren't situations where they should absolutely be listened to
I didn't say that. People expressing concern, is not enough evidence to say the management was wrong. All good managers consider criticism. It's then up to them to use judgement to decide what to do.
> This guy played fast and loose with safety
I guarantee if he spent 10x more on safety and still had the same outcome, the articles would be the same. Risk is just not easy for the public to reason about.
Maybe you're right, but once again the gossip the journalists dug up doesn't tell us that.
all I've heard about this guy is that he ignored warnings, cut corners, and that he was a wealthy dude who's never had to deal with anyone telling him no his entire life. in all the reporting I haven't heard anything at all that would make me say "he got that right at least" and I challenge anyone to come up with something.
also when engineers disagree with each other you generally don't continue to use the topic of disagreement as a passenger vehicle. Finally, the guy making decisions wasn't an engineer and as far as I've heard no actual engineers who were well informed on the subject and experts in the domain were supporting this guy.... so what you should have said is "management disagree with engineers and dismiss their opinion all the time, often leading to high public catastrophes like the Challenger and the Titan"
Hearing something else would require a journalist to formulate an alternative narrative. Not only would that conflict with their peers, it's not very interesting for readers ("actually that guy with the sub took a sufficient level of care").
Have you every had insider knowledge about a public story? How different was it from reality?
> no actual engineers who were well informed on the subject and experts in the domain were supporting this guy.
How did it get designed and built then? I wouldn't own up to this project with bad press. Would you?
