An oversimplification: Interest rates are going up over the long run in an effort to keep inflation from getting out of hand (very generally, asset prices go down when interest rates go up). The risk is that it will worsen unemployment before we're ready for it.
Pretty much. For me, I think bootstrap comes out ahead even the projects that wanted to tweak everything. It gets a little messy, but not as messy as building from scratch.
Projects that allow you to work within bootstrap's limitations and simply tweak the colors and other basics are a dream come true and wind up looking great. Not design award grade artistic, but functionally very good in a way that's not hard to look at.
Square only offers an advance based upon your cash flow history. There is still risk, but they recoup their loan at a pretty good pace which makes the implied interest rate very high. But- it can be a good deal for the vendor anyhow because it is unsecured, and there is guaranteed cash flow with which to repay it. If you don't make any money, you don't pay anything.
But square appears smart enough only to give the money to people who are fairly certain to have stable enough cash flow to make it work.
On the one actual square example I've seen it looks like the repayment is on the order of 6 months, and is a total of roughly half a month's cash flow.
> If you don't make any money, you don't pay anything
With the transactions, and hence Square's information, being several days ahead of the cash settlement, they might have preferential access to cash in order to recoup from a business that is about to fail.
Democrats and Republicans are more similar than different. They both represent the financial elite to the detriment of those with less power. Sure, they may trade off from year to year on issues of little relevance (which party did Andrew Jackson belong to again? Abe Lincoln?), but in the end they're in lock step when it comes to who owns whom and what.
Who keeps Wall St in control of our banking regs? The popular answer is Republicans - the party of big business. The actual answer is that 4 of Hillary Clinton's top 5 all time donors are Wall St banks. In return Clinton talks tough about wall st - but only be saying we ought to "enhance" the volker rule. You can guess who will come up with that "enhancement" as well as I can. Ask a small bank what they think of Dodd-Frank (named after two Democrats, btw - and vocal "opposition" to Wall St excess). So much for the party of the little guy. You can go on and on like this for both parties. The only constant is that they support the rich.
You don't need to be so literal. When you look at honeycomb, for example, the manufacturers provide strength data in much the same way you'd see it for a solid metal. When you model it with finite element software, you treat it as an monolithic material - you don't model every fold of metal. In that sense, honeycomb (and this stuff) is a material in that it's used the same way. The properties of the "material" already account for its micro-structure.
Just by looking at it, I doubt there is enough shear strength to make it a useful sandwich panel web. Then again, I've been wrong before. But metallic/composite honeycomb is pretty well optimized stuff as it is.
Pretty cool. Returned some gibberish, and some solid sparks for topics. I wonder if you could tweak it to rank the relevance somehow. Maybe have users train it by clicking/removing crappy results, or some such. Not really my specialty - just thinking out loud.
How long have you been there? I've been gone for over a decade, so I'm curious if you can confirm a suspicion I've had recently - that NASA has a bit of Silicon Valley envy and are trying to emulate the tech startup world in ways that may or may not be appropriate to their mission. When I worked there during the .com bubble, nobody cared about Silicon Valley at all - it very much had a military industrial complex feel to it.
I would say that depends largely on the project. Some projects are purposefully trying to appropriate ideas from the tech world (development lifecycle practices, etc.) but others are pretty firm in holding on to more traditional gov't ways of operating. Flight projects in particular have not changed very dramatically, and that is probably not a bad thing.
My least favorite part about the traditional ways are that they tend to be very poor at estimating FTE/WYE needs for a body of work, and will more often than not err towards over-estimation. This ends up necessitating the creating of busy-work to make use of all assigned personnel. Mostly by adding extra checks and documentation that many would agree are not very beneficial.
It's hard to be lean when you're given 15 more people than you actually need, basically.
I would take it a step further. I used to work at NASA, and I never even thought about a patent. Not sure if we could have even gotten them, but the idea couldn't have been further from my mind.
To me, and what I would guess were most of the engineers around me, the whole point was space exploration. Full stop. Not climate studies, not "science for science's sake", but engineering (not science) to get us into space.
Maybe there is a role for a government organization dedicated to researching quasi-commerical science and engineering, but I would hate for NASA to become that agency. I want NASA focused on putting men in space.
"To me, and what I would guess were most of the engineers around me, the whole point was space exploration. Full stop. Not climate studies, not "science for science's sake", but engineering (not science) to get us into space."
There's obviously another branch of Nasa, otherwise how does
James Hansen ever work there?
James Hansen has not worked for NASA for two years, but that's nitpicking -- your point is correct.
There are multiple NASA centers who generally see the enterprise of space exploration differently. JSC and KSC are more focused on "putting men [sic] in space" (as the parent commenter said). GSFC is more focused on observing Earth and the Sun from space. JPL is more focused on robotic planetary exploration. Those are gross generalizations, because GSFC has been heavily involved with Hubble, and JPL does some Earth missions, etc.
I don't know who James Hansen is. The above is how I think NASA should operate, not how it actually does. I think NASA gets easily distracted by science, when it should be an engineering organization devoted to space and flight (more space than flight these days). Many smart people disagree.
