There is nothing competitive about the wages in Denver when you're comparing to CA. Cost of living is lower than SV, but still one of the highest in the country.
Have any numbers you'd care to furnish? Cost of living may be one of the highest, but you can easily get a 2 bedroom or a house in the burbs for $1500. It's quite easy to allocated less than a third of your take home to rent, unlike SV, Seattle, NYC, Boston, etc.
I agree with you, here are some numbers to back up Denver is great COL vs salary wise. I work remotely as a mid-level DevOps guy for about $115k and no equity. I bought a 3 br house with a yard next to a light rail station 10 min drive 20 min train ride to downtown. I bought during the recession for ~220k ($350k ish now) but rent in our neighborhood for a similar house would be $1800 total. If I were moving here today and renting, we'd rent a 1 br apartment nearby for about $1100.
This is an interesting look for me into exactly who Apple is targeting. Obviously, not you, because you want more control. But the more that I hear about what they are doing and the direction they are going, I am more likely to buy their services, because I just want something that works.
Really, I think the crux is that I trust Apple to do the right thing for a bunch of non-solid reasons, and so I am willing to give them the control over the particulars of the mechanisms as long as the input-->output is what I want/expect from them.
St. Louis here. The startup scene here are also trying to copy the Silicon Valley model, instead of trying to be something unique and different. It is frustrating.
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Remote: Preferred
Willing to relocate: Dependent on new location and nature of work
Technologies: 2D/3D mechanical design, SolidWorks, AutoCAD, FEA, CFD
Résumé/CV: e-mail
Email: enmock at gmail
The issue, as I understand it, is all about weight. Putting two different power systems on board takes away all of the benefits of using one or the other exclusively.
At least for fixed wing aircraft, there is actually a bit of opening where hybrids could make sense: planes need big power reserves relative to their cruise power demand (or relative to moderate climb) for takeoff and landing abort capability. That extra power needs very little endurance and since electric is much heavier than fossil per Wh, but lighter per W, burning fuel for baseline demand augmented with batteries for peak can be a
meaningful optimization.
I would expect to be a scaling point past which choosing gasoline over batteries becomes more efficient. Maybe common electric flying vehicles have not reached that size point yet.
I think that it is not a size point but an endurance point. A camera drone can be useful even with just five minutes on a single battery pack (your audience might actually be grateful if those overhead takes are less endless ;)). But a big commercial liner that has to be in final approach after only five minutes in the air would be very, very pointless.
I think that "paying attention to" could just mean watching for other bad behavior to justify action. Not necessarily paying attention to take notes from.
One of the first things that I got told in my materials class was that for the strength and weight, carbon steel and aluminum are essentially the same. Steel is about 3x as dense, but also 3x as strong, and does not fatigue like aluminum.
I'm assuming that NASA knows this, and chose aluminum for another reason that I'm not aware of.
