One example where picking units within a project is still not saving you from cognitive load is e.g. when doing woodworking. Ymmv, but I can add decimals way faster than I can add 7 9/16" + 13 23/32" (numbers picked arbitrarily but close to a precision of 1mm so if you are ok w/ that precision, you don't even need fractions in SI).
Good idea, I'm gonna quit my job today and start my own coop with all the earnings my current employer shared with me! Oh, wait...
Seriously though, most people cannot afford to just quit. You at least need savings for that, and you need to be fine with burning through them and still failing, cause that's a very real possibility.
> All these workers could set up cooperatives and work for / own them instead.
And some people do that (modulo creating coops), just not middle-class people. No-one without a decent cushion would be able to risk it. Especially with health care being tied to employment.
It doesn't even have to always be electricity on demand, sometimes we also need heat. I wonder if heat storage will be a thing we'll have in the households (or maybe it's enough to have it in district heating facilities?).
How do you reconcile this advice with the fact that in both places I've worked at, the expectation was that just the onboarding takes significant amount of time (up to ~0.5yr)? Even if I personally didn't need that much time, it was nice to know that it's available -it's not easy to get into the grind and catch up to others that already have all the institutional knowledge when starting a new job.
You shouldn’t need to be onboarded to basic development skills when you come in as a senior developer as the OP is saying here. Institutional knowledge specific to each company takes time to learn, but many dev skills should be directly transferable.
Be sure that half a year is thought through. I’ve seen places that pay too little attention to new employees in the first few months and then surprise them with complaints about performance. Those first few months should be drilling specific institutional knowledge (through bugs, presenting on parts of the stack, talking to a variety of people, shadowing, studying certain tech/tools most people don’t know.)
You should be looking for the employee to be making good general efforts, just without taking everything into account yet. And the employee should see evidence that you are serious about helping them master specifics of their new environment.
It's not a bias for 2d projection. If someone tells me to "go east in a straight line", I think about how practically I'd go about it. In this case, I'd take a compass, point myself to go east, and keep adjusting my bearing so that I keep facing east. Bonjour, France.
Nobody familiar with navigation would say "go east in a straight line" because it's a paradox. That's why they say "maintain an easterly heading", or, for shorter distances (e.g. car directions), "head straight east", as in "exactly east", and not "east in a perfectly straight line", which would be less relevant for shorter distances.
It's also why the question is (paraphrased) "start facing east and go in a straight line", and not "go east in a straight line".
Now that is, in fact, a silly gotcha. It's a third abstraction, irrelevant to the topic of two dimensional navigation. It is abstracted away for both cartesian and global concepts, and nobody is realistically confused by its absence.
The most reasonable interpretation of this is to follow the latitudenal geodesic along its eastern path. You cannot claim that one geodesic is more “straight” than another in 3d Euclidean geometry, that is nonsense. But that is what the author does.
Edit: Ok, the latitudinal geodesic only exists at the equator, so the question is fundamentally impossible, with how the author defines a straight line.
There is no such thing. A curve of constant latitude on Earth, except for the equator, is not a geodesic.
> You cannot claim that one geodesic is more “straight” than another in 3d Euclidean geometry
In terms of 3D Euclidean geometry, neither a curve of constant latitude on Earth's surface nor a great circle on Earth's surface is a straight line/geodesic. Both are curved.
If you restrict to the 2D surface of the Earth, a great circle is a geodesic but a curve of constant latitude, except for the equator, is not.
You're right, so if the puzzle restricts one (arbitrarily) to geodesics as the only valid straight-lined curve (?), it becomes nonsense because the only easterly geodesic is at the equator, and seattle is not at the equator.
Wrong. There is a perfectly good great circle passing through Seattle and pointing due east at the point where it passes through Seattle. The author showed it to you in the article. That geodesic does not always point due east, but nothing in the article said it had to. The article only said you have to face due east at the start, not that you need to continue facing that way.
> the original instruction was "straight line", not "geodesic"
If you're working within a 2-sphere, such as the Earth's surface, or indeed any non-Euclidean geometry, they mean the same thing. More precisely, there are no "straight lines" in the exact sense you mean in a non-Euclidean geometry, but there are geodesics that satisfy all of the geometric properties of "straight lines" within that non-Euclidean geometry.
How much (little?) radioactive material would there have to be inside the SMR for an impact of a 737 into the neighborhood to be more devastating than the release of the radioactive material?
Well, this doesn't answer your question, but there is also the issue of waste storage. In light water reactors, that's stored on-site for a long time. This research appears to indicate that with SMRs, this is actually a bigger issue.
> Small modular reactors (SMRs), proposed as the future of nuclear energy, have purported cost and safety advantages over existing gigawatt-scale light water reactors (LWRs). However, few studies have assessed the implications of SMRs for the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle. The low-, intermediate-, and high-level waste stream characterization presented here reveals that SMRs will produce more voluminous and chemically/physically reactive waste than LWRs, which will impact options for the management and disposal of this waste. Although the analysis focuses on only three of dozens of proposed SMR designs, the intrinsically higher neutron leakage associated with SMRs suggests that most designs are inferior to LWRs with respect to the generation, management, and final disposal of key radionuclides in nuclear waste.
