Going to the wreckage is a reasonable idea. There will be an ELT in there which is what a rescue crew will come looking for. Plus it's easier to spot from the air than a lone person. And maybe something useful survived the crash.
Yeah but once you make it to the plane the best bet would be staying in that area after activating the ELT, perhaps only making slight excursions in search of water or food.
The plane even if it didn't have an ELT would be a great beacon for rescuers that works come looking after he didn't arrive back on time.
Yes! I keep seeing these idealistic responses about negotiation.
When you negotiate a higher salary, you are saying to your boss, look, I know I am creating more value for you than I'm getting as a wage, and I know you can't just swap me out with somebody else. You're actually making a demand that needs to be underwritten with a credible threat, no matter how politely you communicate that. You demand that the company realign your wage with your value (actually, you demand that they get closer, they of course never pay you your full value, or they don't make any money).
It's really that simple. You get what you have the power to get. It's not magic, and it's not all about the attitude or w/e.
Of course we are all still constrained by material reality! If you can't make the credible threat, you can't "just" negotiate. (Duh)
The top 5 appear to be teachers, steelworkers, public service workers, autoworkers, and electrical workers. How many of these would you describe as "unskilled"?
The games industry is notorious for crunch hiring and firing, low wages and exhausting work regimes. When work conditions like that prevail, people unionize (good for them imo). If there's anything surprising about it, it's that people put up with it for this long.
Yeah, it's a good idea to learn how to negotiate and good advice to leave a failing company if you can.
But "just learn to negotiate" is really a non-solution if the goal is to transform unacceptable industry wide labor practices.
I'm far from well versed in this area but I was under the impression that renewables really suffer in this department. The lifespan of a wind turbine is about 20 years. We don't know exactly what the lifespan of a nuclear plant is but it's certainly longer than that. And of course the availability on solar and other "harvesting" type mechanisms can be inconsistent, up and down as a function of weather, etc. What am I missing?
Wind turbines have a design lifetime of 20 years, but most will last much longer (source: I work at a large offshore wind company).
There are two reasons why everything is still built for 20 years: Firstly, there is not pressure on the projects to increase lifetime, because the deprecated value today of further production in year 21 is basically zero. Secondly, the turbines we installed 20 years ago were so small that there is really no reason to keep them going.
Germany saw a huge increase in reliability over the past decade as it increased its renewable percentages. Old-timers said that anything above 5% renewable would cause grid collapse, then kept on shifting up the percentage as renewables increased on the grid and no disasters happened.
It does require running the grid differently. But part of that is becoming more responsive to constantly changing conditions, and a grid that it used to that will have far fewer problems then one where a GW reactor trips off because of some sensor problem (as happened in Texas). As we get closer to 80% renewable grids, then we will be used to running backup natural gas plants to keep everything running. And the ultimate in resilience and reliability will happen as we add more storage. With batteries everywhere, we will have buffering all over the grid that will make it far far easier to make sure everybody has power, and to limit outages to the smallest areas possible.
The first year of power shut offs for PG&E's public safety in the face of high wind and fire conditions covered massive areas. This last year they covered far less, as they could focus the power shut offs far better with an extra year of work. This sort of finer grained granularity and control is what happens as more renewables and storage will be added to the grid, as we update this impressive machine that we started building a century ago. Adding modern communication and control will come along with more storage, demand response, and home-to-grid power from solar.
I can't see any way of fixing it that doesn't entail interfering with the (supposedly) natural operations of profit seeking in the market.
At some point we need a state (or somebody or something that is in charge and able to reconfigure and manage economic processes "from above"), some agent or authority to be able to say, "Build this. Don't build that. Do it even if it doesn't make any money." Or we'll eventually experience our own very profitable self negation.
> No HR person would allow unpaid intern positions in 2021. It's very clearly illegal in the United States.
Unless this claim is scoped to the tech industry, it's absolutely wrong. Frankly I don't know the actual legal status but it's standard practice in a lot of industries, esp. things like publishing.
We ought to establish norms that discredit this kind of nonsense. Those of us who could afford to take on this kind of unpaid work for exposure ought to object sternly and without any particular regard for professional decorum (just like the author) when these sort of offers come by, because the other side has already thrown all of that out.
Always treat an "offer" for work without pay like the insult it is.
We = everyone who has to work to earn a living. And as I say, most especially people who can afford to take a pass on bullshit no-pay work and try to establish a culture where such exploitation is impermissible (like it used to be).
> you think this free market thing means get the government involved to prevent some kind of exploitation?
> Just-in-time works really well when it works really well. But the ripple effect of a global pandemic upon every sector of the globe...causes a lot of companies to feel the immobilizing weight of the ball attached to the supply chain.
We are now feeling the problems that come with the limits of this kind of global supply chain (which is the outcome of a political-economic project which has been underway, outside the spotlight of mainstream media coverage, for about three decades). The problem and possible solutions are inevitably more political than technical (who gets to decide where things are made, how, and how much is not something the average citizen who has to bear the brunt of the effects has any control over--a political problem).
I also recently learned about how single-use production techniques exacerbated the supply chain fragility, esp. as regards the US covid response. Interesting stuff. Big, long-term problems.
Sickening pro robo war jingoism!