Anyone could offer some insights on how expensive it is to really do this in one's backyard and where the backyard is best located? I remember joining a astrophotography group a few years ago, and the equipment setup and scouting process could be quite a burden.
I do some astrophotography and the equipment gets very expensive quickly. As far as location goes a dark sky is better but for the ISS clear air is very important.
Really? After watching the first two seasons, I got around to reading the first book, and when season 3 rolled around, I just couldn't handle the unnecessary tv drama any longer.
Would it be more interesting to the experimenter that the simulation itself is aware of the simulation, and what real incentive there is to terminate the simulation just because the simulated knew they're simulated? What if it's also part of the goal of the simulation.
The article is so confusing. I'm hooked when it started at "The point of the experiment, one imagines, was to prompt the question: “How do they know this?” in the target’s mind." and then it just ends without answering anything.
Has anyone seen a framework for companies to screen emotional skills such as resilience, drive and internal motivations for candidates and have done it well?
The voight kompff test is still in beta. People change over time and have complex motives which change in different environments. For instance, I know I work harder when my coworkers are more personally friendly, but generally despise work-related social events.
McKinsey tests for something like this through a structured probing of past actions. I always felt we did a reasonably good job of discovering evidence of such skills.
It can still take a few hours to put together or days to test performance. Apple's thermal issues could also make development difficult. This is an area we're working on to ensure stability of our modules running across multiple iOS devices.
Naive me would expect that these are typically lease agreements whereby the OEM promises an SLA with compensation if they have to take the aircraft out of service for design issues? If they don't do it that way, why not?
First, because taking aircraft out of service for design issues is incredibly rare (less than once a decade across all kinds of passenger aircraft).
Second, because airplane manufacturers have a significant amount of negotiating power, combined with airlines very often not being in a great financial position: Boeing certainly wouldn't want to be liable for storage costs and the logistics of getting a fleet of planes back to a central facility if an airline went bankrupt, for example. Leases also get legally interesting when the assets involved move internationally on a daily basis...
I wasn't proposing that any of that and I'm not sure it's relevant (e.g. in this case it's a software update that can be done without moving the plane); I agree they wouldn't want to take over a dead airline, and such an agreement doesn't get the incentives right. But it's common for OEMs to take the hit for things that are their own fault, if it isn't legally required.
And the rarity of the incidents plus Boeing's asymmetric knowledge of them would favor Boeing being a guarantor. And remember, I just said the design issues. Obviously the airline would be expected to take hits from e.g. FAA groundings from their own maintenance failures.
Edit: That leaves asymmetric bargaining power in your reply, but I don't see OEM aircraft competition as being so monopolized that they wouldn't compete on "hey this company makes us bear the costs of their design problems but this one doesn't".
Only one airline has a fleet of more than two dozen 737 MAXs (of any variety) currently: Southwest (and that's only 5% of their fleet). There are essentially no airlines with large fleets of them yet, which makes this relatively easy for them to deal with.
That said, "relatively easy" is still a comparative: aircraft are frequently leased and having any out of service will be costing the airline a lot of money.
Depends on how big the airline is, what percentage of its fleet consists of max 8s, etc.
Generally, planes like this have high operating costs, and usually are kept in the air pretty much constantly to be able to make a profit. Having one grounded potentially means losses of hundreds of thousands of dollars a day.
IANAL, but I would not want to deal with the headache of underwriting whatever plan you're thinking about. Who would they be buying this insurance from? What specifically could it be protecting against?
Seems much more likely that they'd need to seek restitution against the producer of the planes through civil court channels. "You sold me a faulty plane/didn't explain what your product did well enough and now you need to refund my money" but on a multi-million dollar scale.
Insurance for loss-of-use is quite common (edit: in other industries—no idea for aviation), though it's normally (AFAIK) for natural disasters and other random occurrences. I wonder how the purchasing contracts between Boeing and the carriers are structured—perhaps they have a warranty that would do something similar.
It’s not just about the money, there is also the intangible experience when it comes to information and family education. I’d argue that will put an even a stronger influence on a kid’s mindset so if a parent is giving a 15k loan to a child it doesn’t mean the kid isn’t helped significantly to bootstrap her otherwise. On the contrary, it feels even more like a status symbol of demonstration from the parents to illustrate to society how confident they were about the kids paying the loan back.
