If they aren't doing this role, then each of the 10 people they directly manage will end up doing 20% of it, and there will be another 30% that no one does and causes large but untraceable-to-this-absence issues in a year.

When you put it like that, you make it sound reasonable! The house being collateral for the debt seems in a blurry way to be "the house owes the debt".

That's pretty blurry, though. Blurry enough that we don't distinguish between the collateral and the borrower.

> You should think what makes you feel they didn't make an effort?

Long experience. There are a lot of people out there in the workforce who ask their boss or a more senior coworker a question the moment they think of it, with no attempt to find the answer via tools at their disposal. Maybe not as many as 80%, as implied by @sdoering below in a sibling thread, but quite a few.

Unfortunately this is true; and if you're not careful with your time, a lot can be wasted by people who realize "I can email so-and-so instead of putting in 5 minutes to finding the issue myself".

They're usually pretty courteous in their interaction, which makes it all the more difficult to be "rude", in my case, by adding an exponential falloff in response times - after I realize what's happening, I tend to take a little longer for each reply so they figure out it's faster to just do the research on their own most times.

> after I realize what's happening, I tend to take a little longer for each reply so they figure out it's faster to just do the research on their own most times.

Agreed, and I do the same. They still get a courteous reply, but they also feel a little "pain" when they don't get a timely answer - an effective teacher.

But as a good manager, you should throw it back: "what do you think?" "what have you tried so far?" etc.

Just giving them AI back is pointless. It means _your_ role is pointless.

Indeed - I had a team that called this "remote brain execution" (we were a build team that used Bazel, and often fielded questions about why someone's build broke).

My favorite phrase on that team was "What have you tried so far?"

Ironically, I have to edit out my "what I have tried so far" when asking questions, because I'm more likely to go into a long-winded explanation of the headers that I hacked and the kernel module I installed to fake my way around this or that, when the actual answer tends to be "uh... are you sure you're building the code you think you are? That sounds like you're running from the wrong directory or wrong branch."

Not just the workforce, my parents still barely know how to use a computer because any time they hit the slightest snag, they immediately call me for help.

The primary way that Google's AI Overview appears in my life is having to correct the misapprehensions of older family who see the immediate answer on top of their search and just uncritically accept it. Based on that, I think it must be wrong quite a lot.

The best part of this flight was seeing the full reentry with no visible hot spots or burn through like we've seen on every previous reentry of Starship. Seems like they have the heat shields really nailed.

Yes, reuse of the heat shield has been the biggest question mark of the whole program and this is by far the best result of any launch so far. This is the first time it looks plausible that you could consider reusing the heat shield.

Plausible? It was always plausible. This flight does nothing to increase or decrease that - it is still very much a wide open question. The goal is full rapid reusability, and nothing we have seen yet suggests that that is possible, because no Starship has flown twice, much less re-entered twice with the same non-refurbished tiles.

It may be that the heat shield is the thing that causes them to miss the BHAG. Starship will still be cool if it needs all-new tiles every flight but let’s not pretend that that would be anything but a miss for the program.

I sure hope they can figure it out.

Keep in mind that all the prior flights had deliberately missing tiles specifically to test how bad the damage would be. This one had no missing tiles so it should have essentially no damage to the hull.

I think the worst damage on previous flights was often not related to the missing tiles.

I think it was due to voids in the hinge area causing localized plasma impingement and heating. The v3 design has a more continuous shape around the hinges.

Right. I’d have to go back and find explicit statements about the redesigns, but as I recall the v1 Starship had the flaps further forward and lots of tiles missing around the hinges. V2 moved the flaps back so that the hinge is shielded more by the curve of the body, but still had not enough tiles. V3 has almost continuous coverage using much more uniquely curved tiles. They look harder to make but not as bad as the shuttle’s.

Some 20% of US billionaires grew up poor, or at least without well-off parents. 60+% were upper middle class or below. So, I think we can note that they've created enough value for the rest of us and deserve to keep the fraction of that value that they were able to negotiate.

What is the demographics breakdown on those statistics? How much is old vs new wealth vs generational wealth?

A lot has changed in the U.S. in the last 20-40 years.

Also I'm not really convinced that the existence of individuals with over a billion dollars in wealth is a net positive for society or really anyone except that individual.

From the standpoint of 1926, we built the better world and you're living in it. It's hard to imagine how much better off we all are, but it's not a law of nature, and with enough damage to markets and production, we can get back there again!

We've built a lot of layers of social machinery on top of it, but looking at the behavior of animals, ownership predates humanity, let alone social convention. Coming at it from that direction, something can be private property only if it is defensible in principle. Physical objects meet this bar, but concepts and types do not.

> something can be private property only if it is defensible in principle. Physical objects meet this bar, but concepts and types do not

Why not? I sing song. You sing song. I beat you with stick because that’s my song. You stop singing song.

Well it really comes down to how good you are with that stick. You "can" stop me from singing your song... But can you? You don't even know where I am.

And this is the premise on which Anna's Archive operates.

The operator isn't even called Anna, just in case that wasn't already obvious to literally everyone.

The countries that still employ the death penalty highly overlap with countries that disrespect intellectual property, to the point of bootleg media being openly sold in the market, a thriving local torrent scene, etc. Appealing to ancient blood codes doesn’t bolster your case as much as you think.

>> You don't even know where I am

> This isn’t a thing in early human societies.

Sure it is. I hear you sing your song. I travel. I sing your song to other people while you're not around to hear it. You don't even know where I am.

(Of course, there was never any "theft", as it were. I even paid to go to your concert!)

I'm a native speaker, and read it the "Wozniak gave a little cheer after" way at first, though the more likely meaning did occur to me immediately after. As for it making no sense, I differ. There are scenarios I can conjure in which that exact sequence could happen, either because he was cheering the students after telling them they're great, or because he forgot what he was doing -- dementia wouldn't even be "early onset" at his age. Further, if something is utterly mundane and expected, there are no headlines about it, as in the old saying about the difference between "Dog bites man" and "Man bites dog".

One of the major reasons for fans of space exploration to be concerned about all this was the dilution of control that seemed inherent in an IPO, but since that seems to be fixed, I don't hate the idea any more.