Iranian sources state it was a "technical malfunction", but given current geopolitical events, it may be a anti-air malfunction in their defense system downing a civilian airliner, which looks bad, obviously.
What kind of a technical malfunction causes a new airliner to descend to the ground engulfed in flames mere minutes after takeoff? This has MH17 all over it. Sad.
What kind of a technical malfunction causes a new airliner to descend to the ground engulfed in flames mere minutes after takeoff?
There have been two 737 crashes minutes after take off in the past two years. Boeing have acknowledged the issue is real and have tried to fix. That goes a long way to suggest this plane might not have been shot down.
But recent CFM56 engines om 737-800 disintegrating at high power does. There were two cases (with one passenger death and 8 injured) in the USA with 737-800 suffering damage after engine disintegrated in flight.
While from a statistical standpoint it's obviously not a coincidence given the ongoing warfare events, how could one even go a step further and call it a technical malfunction minutes after crash? You'd think Russia et al would improve their cover-up skills since the MH17 tragedy.
More and more new airliners come with real-time monitoring, especially for engines (often a separate monitoring system with sat uplink, part of a maintenance contract for the engine)
They not only pay you scraps, but keep you hostage by employing blacklists shared by multiple companies (so that if you leave, you don't get another job at a high level company) and conspire with other companies to keep your wages low.
Difficult to bring about the singularity without historic levels of technical competency and financial investment. Anything less is simply being contemptuous of the true challenge that must be overcome to achieve even 1/10th of what could be possible. A bunch of lectures, or sci-fi-esque stories really aren't going to do anything to achieve it past the first batch that really opened it up, but they do have an effect on what people care about, and what motivates them, so they aren't totally worthless.
Imagine if scientists approached bringing about the Manhattan Project without also demanding 10% of US GDP for five years, multiple state spanning test sites, absolute discretion, and the work output of hundreds of thousands. Same goes for the Apollo project.
Achieving the promises of the Singularity - whatever that happens to be exactly - is bigger than all of those nation spanning projects combined.
And we will only get there through enormous quantities of technical and organizational blood, sweat and tears spanning decades, and more likely, centuries. The work required is bigger than every research org, every country, and every company, so it looks less like "hard take off" and more like faster plodding.
I have the impression that you think the Singularity University is an organization that tries to bring about the Singularity. It's not. It's an organization that yells "Singularity!" and then organizes talks about food delivery startups.
I don't have that impression. I do believe we need a coalition that builds towards the ideals promised. The closest we have is the FANG cohort, but even then in only a few verticals (with some "progress" not being particularly helpful long term), with the rest of the economy improving drastically slower than they should. Science is the same - outside of some fields.
What I am saying is that if we do want to achieve impressive results at a massive scale, it's gonna require everyone to up their respective games by an order of magnitude. Globally we need everything to get better, much faster, period.
Well no one can argue with your point that to achieve massive results in a massive scale it requires a big effort from a lot of people. So to your own point Singularity University cannot (and is not claiming) do this with a 10 week program or conferences for that matter. But they are trying to stir a conversation, a brainstorm if you will, towards problems that matter. This is not the singularity. I am talking about bringing 80 graduates together to brainstorm solutions on real problems like poverty, health, energy, education and so forth using technology. A brainstorm like that will have a lot of content which is never pursued while other ideas are. The real science is up to the founders to conduct after the program. Hardly any "real science" can be conducted in a 10 week program. So what is the problem this mission?
Then you argue almost anyone can teach there? What are you basing that on? If you look at their faculty you will find some very impressive faculty members teaching there - some of which are also students from past programmes which speaks to the fact that 1) There are some impressive students in the classes with a lot of industry specific knowledge and 2) Students will come back and teach other students because the cause matters to them and SU is a place they like to be.
The issues around fraud and sexual assaults are obviously real issues but events in the past that the university, like any other, organizations has to deal with and prevent - and which they are dealing with.
I may not agree with everything SU is doing. I have a medical background and am not a "tech person" when it comes down to it, so a lot of the conversations around making humans machines and so forth does not grab my immediate interest. But the conversations, discussions and brainstorming sessions I have participated in at SU were legit, interesting and focused on real problems. The solutions and teams that come out from there will have to put in years and years of work, sweat and tears to create impact, but that is no different from you and me and everyone else trying to launch an impactful company.
I may also not agree entirely with the direction the University is going but every organisation must make their own decisions on their direction. You nor I have the data or insights to understsand why they are changing direction, if we had we may just have come to the same conclusions. I am excited to see where it will take them in the future and hope they will hold on to their goal of creating impact that matters in the world.
Key aspect of becoming a manager is making promises you may or may not keep. They cost you nothing, and when they come due it's the employees who suffer.
Sometimes, a great manager needs to speculate and do things at uncertainty and risk, while motivating their subordinates. They are clearly working to save the company in OPs case.
But alas, communicating earlier is when things have the most uncertainty. I have had great managers that set expectations around how much uncertainty and change is built-in to what they're communicating, but in general, the earlier they share something, the more likely it is to not be certain yet, still it's often useful information to have.
(I'm only speaking in general, not specific to this situation.)
https://twitter.com/TheBelaaz/status/1214757041123803136
https://twitter.com/Asylumseeker111/status/12147702487436738...
Iranian sources state it was a "technical malfunction", but given current geopolitical events, it may be a anti-air malfunction in their defense system downing a civilian airliner, which looks bad, obviously.