the cost of re-training the average Windows user to run alternatives has proven to be an unmitigated bitch.
I was talking with someone who works for some firm that does a lot of contracting work for the PUC, she reviews documents using MS Word and the editing features (i.e. comments in red along the margins) along with many others. She calls herself a "cube rat" because it is typical cubicle workspace in an office. Anyway now and then Microsoft comes out with updated version of Office and her company immediately updates all the PCs with new program, etc. This causes everyone grief because the commands they all been used to are now different (and the company does not provide resources for re-training). "Microsoft and management don't understand. People that use MS Office are like monkeys. They have been trained to do specific tasks, when the tools are changed then they become helpless."
Another episode of Putin and his cronies making new plans and announcements, and it leaves this thread just begging for all kinds of snide remarks, jokes that are crass and crude. It makes sense as there are lots of US govt agencies that avoid Windows for various reasons, i.e. use Linux to avoid PC always calling home to Seattle. For secure systems, don't connect to internet (so simple but many just don't get it). I have a Windows system with very important stuff and I never connect it to internet (and the PC never crashes). Other than that, where's the "In Soviet Russia" comments?
boy oh boy, all these comments comparing US to Japan, Europe, etc. No! I'm not talking HSR across entire country like San Jose CA to Butte Montana. I'm talking about HSR to and from densely populated areas relatively nearby. Look closely at some areas it is much like Japan and Europe. Yes, it's expensive and yes it will be lots of work. What's the alternative? Just let hwy 101 and 5 between northern and southern California become a parking lot? My only take is the culture of this country knows of only two modes of transportation: Airplane and car. Other countries see HSR as a transportation system, US sees it like their grandpa's railroad. But I guess that goes with the territory, the very few cell providers talk of how superior their service is and yet going to just about every 3rd world country much better cellphone service.
USA struggles just to get started in high speed rail systems of what rest of industrialized countries has for years. HSR has face significant resistance in culture and business (sorry the excuse for it costs too much is bankrupted considering how much this country has spent on other stuff with not much to show for it). Now along comes Hyperloop and HSR opponents immediately say we need to go this route because it's done by private industry. Not that there is anything wrong with private industry but I don't see them as implementing it where it needs to go, only where the investment pays off for them. However, as gstoddart pointed out this is a buzzword before business model that may kill HSR in the US and then it will go way of all those dotcom companies leaving nothing behind.
Going OT as Musk does electric cars and rockets, some years ago a documentary on engineers that worked at Los Alamos talking about one time when they took a drive into a town to get loaded at the saloon. Obviously they could never say what they really do so they start talking out loud about "electric rockets." This engineer went on to describe where they were talking real loud of electric rockets, others in bar were ignoring them. Engineer then said he grabbed one guy by the shirt yelling at him, "we're building electric rockets!" but this guy was really drunk, probably had no idea what was going on. Of course that was way back when concept of electric rockets was science fiction.
Here we go again... NASA is doomed to keep a single course to Mars.
I think only reason they talk about Mars is if talk about the Moon, then need to put up some real money now to build transfer stage and lander. But talk about Mars because you can always defer those costs of hardware 20 years into the future for some other smucks to deal with. Also why colonize Mars? I don't see a huge land rush to Gobi Desert even though that place is 1000 times easier to settle. Reason is that place is a terrible place to live, we only fantasize about Mars because it is so far away.
Matula posted this on NASAwatch:
I blame most of the destination argument on the creation of the Mars underground in the 1980's. Prior to that NASA was focused on using the Shuttle for industrialization in LEO with projects like demonstrating the repair and return of satellites, building structural items in orbit, tethers, etc., all logical starting points for building a Cislunar industrial capability that would have given us the Solar System. NASA didn't even have plans to send robots to Mars. By advocating that we needed to skip the Moon and go rushing off to Mars they started this entire useless destination debate that has paralyzed space policy ever since.
Although their arguments made no rational or economic sense, falling back on outdated ideas like "manifest destiny" and painting Mars like a second Earth, they struck some cord among a very vocal hard core group that has shouted down any rational space strategy ever since. We see it now with Senators force feeding the SLS with money it doesn't need while starving commercial crew because the SLS would, in theory, be able to take astronauts to Mars. As a result the ISS is only one Soyuz failure away from being abandoned.
We need to give Mars a rest and once again spend the limited budget on building capabilities in space, space tugs, orbital refueling, lunar LOX, that would serve for going to all the interesting destinations beyond Earth, not keep wasting money on plans to go to a single one that is already well mapped and explored.
Why do you say it's aliens that kicked the Americans off? They were either native Lunariens or first settlers that simply got there first, and standing up for their rights of land ownership.
Gag. Another lame imitation of more advanced US missions.
Well, yes and no. Chinese have the best high res surface images from a rover, US has rovers on Mars, none on the Moon. US has excellent photos from manned missions but those are more than 40 years old. US has high res images from orbit but when considering surface images from a rover, the US has none and will not have any for years to come. First step is to dump the lunar phobia. Imagine something of Mars rover technology that can visit and analyze soils from places like craters that never receive sunlight. I want to have a rover visit the Apollo landing sites to observe how materials have degraded from more than 40 years of sunlight exposure. And to see if which flags are still standing.
It is interesting to see these lunar surface images, they don't circulate around the internet that much. Again, it seems a lunar phobia among Americans to avoid taking about the Moon with exception of the grand Apollo missions (which this country can no longer do).
Plus anyone that writes something critical of Musk is downgraded. Like others gave you negative marks for pointing out how media treats him like the second coming.
In the space forums there was one guy who criticized Musk and his "hobby rockets" that will go nowhere beyond LEO. His reasoning is to go BEO need pressure fed rocket engines, requiring powerful turbopumps and liquid hydrogen for fuel because that high of ISP is needed. Though many can argue over the numbers, hardware, rocket equation, etc., this one person was the only one to question Musk's intentions and he was banned from the forums.
Elon Musk has created some neat stuff, but like Steve Jobs and Howard Hughes they made their share of mistakes and bad projects.
Or is it because you have multiple cables running all over the place and you don't want yank, reroute, climb into dusty areas to replace all those cables?
Though it seems those big clunkers had better contrast than many flat screens, but I'm not the strong-back/weak-mind 20-something that can easily lug those 32" monsters around (especially at work there was always moving monitors around).
Configuring those things was sometimes a tedious exercise. I heard if set refresh rate at 85 hz, the monitor will burn itself out. Getting back to VGA and these days of automatic configuration, I have been wondering what is the framerate from the computer, and the refresh rate of the monitor. I hear they are 60 Hz (I think it really is 59.94hz) but looking for actual technical specs, I keep finding sales/marketing generalities. But what is the usual framerate of a VGA output?
I'll take 720p over NTSC, 4k is nice but not really required. And can fan out multiple SDI like multiple VGA. There's always one more person who wants the feed!
Good point about locking connectors. I would say non-locking connector of S-video is what killed that mode (even though it was only 25% better than composite video). And old school composite video (renamed as CVS or some other silly acronym) continue to live on because solid BNC locking connector. But for consumer gear the RCA connector that has reasonable snugness.
I want my video port to send the video signal to my monitor without hand-shaking, asking for permissions and assuming I'm a pirate and kitten-murderer.
I notice ***all*** broadcasters and serious videographers use SDI because it is uncompressed unencrypted HD video that includes audio all in a single coax with a locking BNC connector. None of this DRM baggage, and those big boys on a video shoot need to connect cameras to switchers and recorders need them to promptly feed the video instead of spending time on WTF this ain't displaying (but you probably already know that). I'm surveying camera equipment, and these days it is all HD, and to feed signals to multiple displays. Talking with someone said keep it all baseband until maybe the monitor if it doesn't have SDI.
I also notice that all SDI gear has loop out which is nice when installing switchers, recorders, or whatever in the food chain but I can continue the signal on to another destination. And like VGA, there are boxes of one input to four outputs (there's always more than one that wants that same video feed). So when I look into different modes, I clearly saw HDMI problematic and so not waste time surveying equipment with that mode. I also learned DVI is the same as HDMI but no audio, but I guess it still has DRM baggage as well. I hear of DisplayPort, I don't see it around that much. I read someplace DisplayPort is going nowhere as the "standard" for monitors because it is royalty free and companies don't like that as they can't do their control freakery like they do with HDMI. I imagine SDI is immune to all that as it remains in the world of professional video (who are also the content creators).
Anyway during equipment survey and selection, I have cameras with HD-SDI (I call it simply SDI, why would anyone take an old SD camera and feed SDI?). Then route to data inserters (all SDI), to HDD recorders. I then ask for SDI to VGA converters, the vendors give me this weird look of "why do you go through all this expense and squalsh it to VGA?" Our rooms have several monitors that are all VGA, we have lots of computers that do VGA, that's just how it has evolved over time. I'm sure not going to mix and match different monitors as many times same monitor may either view a PC output or a camera output.
Yep, all those converter boxes from BlackMagic to convert the SDI at the monitor (actually it looks pretty good and these things have SDI loop out for auxiliary feeds if needed). Looking to take resolution to the next level, I tried using SDI to DVI converter box but monitor displays nothing. It's gotta be that DRM handshake nonsense. VGA forever!
Thanks for additional input. Another thing this ex MT/ATK employee said everyone that worked at the company was a pyro geek of sorts i.e. bombs, rockets, throwing sodium in water, etc. in their youth.
I talked to someone who worked for MT before and after they changed to ATK. He said ATK was ridding the Morton-Thiokol name from all their paperwork as if it were a bad word. Maybe not the best in the business but getting rid of history? I guess someone will repeat those same mistakes.
if talking about Thiokol, need to mention Roger Boisjoly who argued to not proceed with launch. I remember shortly after he became well known for being the engineer who objected to proceeding with launch. A manager told him "Take your engineering hat off and put on your management hat" or something like that. I read back then Roger tended to be type of guy that many people just wanted to slug him in the mouth. He had his reasons but unfortunately lacked the tact skills, but maybe it didn't really matter as the entire STS program was a machine set on launching that day overriding human common sense. A movie was made about 51L with Peter Boyle portraying Boisjoly, one part where he argued they should raise lower limit for no flight of 50 deg F to 55 (something like that). A management class I took said that part of the movie used actual transcripts of that MT launch review meeting for the movie script, and showed that clip as part of the class. Important take is while Boisjoly and managers argued over 55 vs. 50, the pad temperature was 32. Which brings up why are they having that discussion? Note that all these guys haven't slept in 24 hours, that much lack of sleep decreases the IQ level.
Yes, after 51L, that was the end of Vandenberg Shuttle flights. Would have been cool for all those in Los Angeles that were major builders of it being able to watch it go into space if that pad became operational. Speaking of getting up and watching it on TV, reminds me when I woke up and turn on the TV to see replays of Columbia landing, but only to see all this stuff streaking across the sky. I knew something was terribly wrong before hearing reporters talking.
My knee jerk reaction while at work concentrating at a particular task, someone ran in "the Challenger just blew up!" As I remember the day before when launch was scrubbed because they couldn't remove the door mechanism off side hatch. A handle assembly is attached to side hatch on Orbiter for crew entry, hatch is closed, and White Room techs remove this assembly. However, some bolts were stuck, they couldn't remove the assembly (was taking too long) so the launch was scrubbed. Meanwhile media people were criticizing NASA for continual delays of this flight particularly the first teacher in space. I remember many people saying "well back in the days NASA was able to do a launch one after another without all these delays." Hmm, they must have forgotten the 1960s launches had lots of delays and lots of exploding launch vehicles.
Shortly after I knew the Challenger did explode. I also remembered some of the guys play back on their VHS decks in slow-mo and pause to do their own analysis. Another remarkable thing because only few years before only crash investigators had those tools. Of course everyone can to wrong conclusions. Rest of day and the week was really sad, like it was night time even in the middle of the day.
Going off on a tangent because I never RTFA. Johnny Cash was a really good radio tech in USAF, picked up morse code quickly and can distinguish between different operators in USSR and the Warsaw Pact countries by how they use the keys. An officer asked Johnny to re-enlist but he said I want to be on the radio, not work with radios.
For what it's worth, I found this post by Chris Johnson interesting:
It's designed to make maximum use of crazy people and force the others to live up to that standard or be fired.
I'll define 'crazy Uber people' not as 'danger to customers', but 'people who are bringing more value in terms of vehicle, skill and desire to please, than they are getting back in pay and benefits'. So the crazy Uber person is the one who keeps buying a new Lexus or whatever, vacuums their car three times a day and busts their ass to outperform all the other Uber drivers, so they can continue to win out over anybody else seeking to be a driver.
The key factor is that they are giving more than they get back, in the belief that they're cornering some kind of market or buying in to something important.
If you make a business that relies on people like this, you can demolish anybody else because you've worked out how to get voluntary unpaid labor, like the Amazon exec who was said to use her own money to hire subcontractors to do more. As long as there are people who are willing to do that, the market breaks and Amazon/Uber get to do what Wal-Mart did in small towns, break the back of other market participants so they can't break even or continue.
Another way to be a crazy Uber person is to put more depreciation and wear and tear on your car than you can afford to repair (or replace). It's easy to be crazy in these ways. It's externalities which are easy to overlook. These Amazon/Uber business models are designed to leverage that kind of crazy as hard as possible, and kick out everybody who's not willing to lose (one way or another) on the deal. Psychology is useful in getting people to buy into this stuff.
Slashdot Mirror
the cost of re-training the average Windows user to run alternatives has proven to be an unmitigated bitch.
I was talking with someone who works for some firm that does a lot of contracting work for the PUC, she reviews documents using MS Word and the editing features (i.e. comments in red along the margins) along with many others. She calls herself a "cube rat" because it is typical cubicle workspace in an office. Anyway now and then Microsoft comes out with updated version of Office and her company immediately updates all the PCs with new program, etc. This causes everyone grief because the commands they all been used to are now different (and the company does not provide resources for re-training). "Microsoft and management don't understand. People that use MS Office are like monkeys. They have been trained to do specific tasks, when the tools are changed then they become helpless."
Another episode of Putin and his cronies making new plans and announcements, and it leaves this thread just begging for all kinds of snide remarks, jokes that are crass and crude. It makes sense as there are lots of US govt agencies that avoid Windows for various reasons, i.e. use Linux to avoid PC always calling home to Seattle. For secure systems, don't connect to internet (so simple but many just don't get it). I have a Windows system with very important stuff and I never connect it to internet (and the PC never crashes). Other than that, where's the "In Soviet Russia" comments?
boy oh boy, all these comments comparing US to Japan, Europe, etc. No! I'm not talking HSR across entire country like San Jose CA to Butte Montana. I'm talking about HSR to and from densely populated areas relatively nearby. Look closely at some areas it is much like Japan and Europe. Yes, it's expensive and yes it will be lots of work. What's the alternative? Just let hwy 101 and 5 between northern and southern California become a parking lot? My only take is the culture of this country knows of only two modes of transportation: Airplane and car. Other countries see HSR as a transportation system, US sees it like their grandpa's railroad. But I guess that goes with the territory, the very few cell providers talk of how superior their service is and yet going to just about every 3rd world country much better cellphone service.
USA struggles just to get started in high speed rail systems of what rest of industrialized countries has for years. HSR has face significant resistance in culture and business (sorry the excuse for it costs too much is bankrupted considering how much this country has spent on other stuff with not much to show for it). Now along comes Hyperloop and HSR opponents immediately say we need to go this route because it's done by private industry. Not that there is anything wrong with private industry but I don't see them as implementing it where it needs to go, only where the investment pays off for them. However, as gstoddart pointed out this is a buzzword before business model that may kill HSR in the US and then it will go way of all those dotcom companies leaving nothing behind.
Useful if you already have a satellite in space.
back in those days there were no satellites and nothing big enough to put them in orbit (V2 was only a IRBM).
Going OT as Musk does electric cars and rockets, some years ago a documentary on engineers that worked at Los Alamos talking about one time when they took a drive into a town to get loaded at the saloon. Obviously they could never say what they really do so they start talking out loud about "electric rockets." This engineer went on to describe where they were talking real loud of electric rockets, others in bar were ignoring them. Engineer then said he grabbed one guy by the shirt yelling at him, "we're building electric rockets!" but this guy was really drunk, probably had no idea what was going on. Of course that was way back when concept of electric rockets was science fiction.
Actually every forum and media outlet see Elon as the Second Coming. If anyone in these areas criticizes him, they will be flamed, downvoted, etc.
I don't know what teams whether it be Boston Broncos or Portland Panthers to place bets on the football pool so I'll squandor the day on Facebook.
no, you play "Ding Dong Ditch It."
Here we go again... NASA is doomed to keep a single course to Mars.
I think only reason they talk about Mars is if talk about the Moon, then need to put up some real money now to build transfer stage and lander. But talk about Mars because you can always defer those costs of hardware 20 years into the future for some other smucks to deal with. Also why colonize Mars? I don't see a huge land rush to Gobi Desert even though that place is 1000 times easier to settle. Reason is that place is a terrible place to live, we only fantasize about Mars because it is so far away.
Matula posted this on NASAwatch:
I blame most of the destination argument on the creation of the Mars underground in the 1980's. Prior to that NASA was focused on using the Shuttle for industrialization in LEO with projects like demonstrating the repair and return of satellites, building structural items in orbit, tethers, etc., all logical starting points for building a Cislunar industrial capability that would have given us the Solar System. NASA didn't even have plans to send robots to Mars. By advocating that we needed to skip the Moon and go rushing off to Mars they started this entire useless destination debate that has paralyzed space policy ever since.
Although their arguments made no rational or economic sense, falling back on outdated ideas like "manifest destiny" and painting Mars like a second Earth, they struck some cord among a very vocal hard core group that has shouted down any rational space strategy ever since. We see it now with Senators force feeding the SLS with money it doesn't need while starving commercial crew because the SLS would, in theory, be able to take astronauts to Mars. As a result the ISS is only one Soyuz failure away from being abandoned.
We need to give Mars a rest and once again spend the limited budget on building capabilities in space, space tugs, orbital refueling, lunar LOX, that would serve for going to all the interesting destinations beyond Earth, not keep wasting money on plans to go to a single one that is already well mapped and explored.
end quote
Why do you say it's aliens that kicked the Americans off? They were either native Lunariens or first settlers that simply got there first, and standing up for their rights of land ownership.
Gag. Another lame imitation of more advanced US missions.
Well, yes and no. Chinese have the best high res surface images from a rover, US has rovers on Mars, none on the Moon. US has excellent photos from manned missions but those are more than 40 years old. US has high res images from orbit but when considering surface images from a rover, the US has none and will not have any for years to come. First step is to dump the lunar phobia. Imagine something of Mars rover technology that can visit and analyze soils from places like craters that never receive sunlight. I want to have a rover visit the Apollo landing sites to observe how materials have degraded from more than 40 years of sunlight exposure. And to see if which flags are still standing.
It is interesting to see these lunar surface images, they don't circulate around the internet that much. Again, it seems a lunar phobia among Americans to avoid taking about the Moon with exception of the grand Apollo missions (which this country can no longer do).
Plus anyone that writes something critical of Musk is downgraded. Like others gave you negative marks for pointing out how media treats him like the second coming.
In the space forums there was one guy who criticized Musk and his "hobby rockets" that will go nowhere beyond LEO. His reasoning is to go BEO need pressure fed rocket engines, requiring powerful turbopumps and liquid hydrogen for fuel because that high of ISP is needed. Though many can argue over the numbers, hardware, rocket equation, etc., this one person was the only one to question Musk's intentions and he was banned from the forums.
Elon Musk has created some neat stuff, but like Steve Jobs and Howard Hughes they made their share of mistakes and bad projects.
Or is it because you have multiple cables running all over the place and you don't want yank, reroute, climb into dusty areas to replace all those cables?
Though it seems those big clunkers had better contrast than many flat screens, but I'm not the strong-back/weak-mind 20-something that can easily lug those 32" monsters around (especially at work there was always moving monitors around).
Configuring those things was sometimes a tedious exercise. I heard if set refresh rate at 85 hz, the monitor will burn itself out. Getting back to VGA and these days of automatic configuration, I have been wondering what is the framerate from the computer, and the refresh rate of the monitor. I hear they are 60 Hz (I think it really is 59.94hz) but looking for actual technical specs, I keep finding sales/marketing generalities. But what is the usual framerate of a VGA output?
I'll take 720p over NTSC, 4k is nice but not really required. And can fan out multiple SDI like multiple VGA. There's always one more person who wants the feed!
Good point about locking connectors. I would say non-locking connector of S-video is what killed that mode (even though it was only 25% better than composite video). And old school composite video (renamed as CVS or some other silly acronym) continue to live on because solid BNC locking connector. But for consumer gear the RCA connector that has reasonable snugness.
I want my video port to send the video signal to my monitor without hand-shaking, asking for permissions and assuming I'm a pirate and kitten-murderer.
I notice ***all*** broadcasters and serious videographers use SDI because it is uncompressed unencrypted HD video that includes audio all in a single coax with a locking BNC connector. None of this DRM baggage, and those big boys on a video shoot need to connect cameras to switchers and recorders need them to promptly feed the video instead of spending time on WTF this ain't displaying (but you probably already know that). I'm surveying camera equipment, and these days it is all HD, and to feed signals to multiple displays. Talking with someone said keep it all baseband until maybe the monitor if it doesn't have SDI.
I also notice that all SDI gear has loop out which is nice when installing switchers, recorders, or whatever in the food chain but I can continue the signal on to another destination. And like VGA, there are boxes of one input to four outputs (there's always more than one that wants that same video feed). So when I look into different modes, I clearly saw HDMI problematic and so not waste time surveying equipment with that mode. I also learned DVI is the same as HDMI but no audio, but I guess it still has DRM baggage as well. I hear of DisplayPort, I don't see it around that much. I read someplace DisplayPort is going nowhere as the "standard" for monitors because it is royalty free and companies don't like that as they can't do their control freakery like they do with HDMI. I imagine SDI is immune to all that as it remains in the world of professional video (who are also the content creators).
Anyway during equipment survey and selection, I have cameras with HD-SDI (I call it simply SDI, why would anyone take an old SD camera and feed SDI?). Then route to data inserters (all SDI), to HDD recorders. I then ask for SDI to VGA converters, the vendors give me this weird look of "why do you go through all this expense and squalsh it to VGA?" Our rooms have several monitors that are all VGA, we have lots of computers that do VGA, that's just how it has evolved over time. I'm sure not going to mix and match different monitors as many times same monitor may either view a PC output or a camera output.
Yep, all those converter boxes from BlackMagic to convert the SDI at the monitor (actually it looks pretty good and these things have SDI loop out for auxiliary feeds if needed). Looking to take resolution to the next level, I tried using SDI to DVI converter box but monitor displays nothing. It's gotta be that DRM handshake nonsense. VGA forever!
Thanks for additional input. Another thing this ex MT/ATK employee said everyone that worked at the company was a pyro geek of sorts i.e. bombs, rockets, throwing sodium in water, etc. in their youth.
I talked to someone who worked for MT before and after they changed to ATK. He said ATK was ridding the Morton-Thiokol name from all their paperwork as if it were a bad word. Maybe not the best in the business but getting rid of history? I guess someone will repeat those same mistakes.
if talking about Thiokol, need to mention Roger Boisjoly who argued to not proceed with launch. I remember shortly after he became well known for being the engineer who objected to proceeding with launch. A manager told him "Take your engineering hat off and put on your management hat" or something like that. I read back then Roger tended to be type of guy that many people just wanted to slug him in the mouth. He had his reasons but unfortunately lacked the tact skills, but maybe it didn't really matter as the entire STS program was a machine set on launching that day overriding human common sense. A movie was made about 51L with Peter Boyle portraying Boisjoly, one part where he argued they should raise lower limit for no flight of 50 deg F to 55 (something like that). A management class I took said that part of the movie used actual transcripts of that MT launch review meeting for the movie script, and showed that clip as part of the class. Important take is while Boisjoly and managers argued over 55 vs. 50, the pad temperature was 32. Which brings up why are they having that discussion? Note that all these guys haven't slept in 24 hours, that much lack of sleep decreases the IQ level.
Yes, after 51L, that was the end of Vandenberg Shuttle flights. Would have been cool for all those in Los Angeles that were major builders of it being able to watch it go into space if that pad became operational. Speaking of getting up and watching it on TV, reminds me when I woke up and turn on the TV to see replays of Columbia landing, but only to see all this stuff streaking across the sky. I knew something was terribly wrong before hearing reporters talking.
My knee jerk reaction while at work concentrating at a particular task, someone ran in "the Challenger just blew up!" As I remember the day before when launch was scrubbed because they couldn't remove the door mechanism off side hatch. A handle assembly is attached to side hatch on Orbiter for crew entry, hatch is closed, and White Room techs remove this assembly. However, some bolts were stuck, they couldn't remove the assembly (was taking too long) so the launch was scrubbed. Meanwhile media people were criticizing NASA for continual delays of this flight particularly the first teacher in space. I remember many people saying "well back in the days NASA was able to do a launch one after another without all these delays." Hmm, they must have forgotten the 1960s launches had lots of delays and lots of exploding launch vehicles.
Shortly after I knew the Challenger did explode. I also remembered some of the guys play back on their VHS decks in slow-mo and pause to do their own analysis. Another remarkable thing because only few years before only crash investigators had those tools. Of course everyone can to wrong conclusions. Rest of day and the week was really sad, like it was night time even in the middle of the day.
Going off on a tangent because I never RTFA. Johnny Cash was a really good radio tech in USAF, picked up morse code quickly and can distinguish between different operators in USSR and the Warsaw Pact countries by how they use the keys. An officer asked Johnny to re-enlist but he said I want to be on the radio, not work with radios.
For what it's worth, I found this post by Chris Johnson interesting:
It's designed to make maximum use of crazy people and force the others to live up to that standard or be fired.
I'll define 'crazy Uber people' not as 'danger to customers', but 'people who are bringing more value in terms of vehicle, skill and desire to please, than they are getting back in pay and benefits'. So the crazy Uber person is the one who keeps buying a new Lexus or whatever, vacuums their car three times a day and busts their ass to outperform all the other Uber drivers, so they can continue to win out over anybody else seeking to be a driver.
The key factor is that they are giving more than they get back, in the belief that they're cornering some kind of market or buying in to something important.
If you make a business that relies on people like this, you can demolish anybody else because you've worked out how to get voluntary unpaid labor, like the Amazon exec who was said to use her own money to hire subcontractors to do more. As long as there are people who are willing to do that, the market breaks and Amazon/Uber get to do what Wal-Mart did in small towns, break the back of other market participants so they can't break even or continue.
Another way to be a crazy Uber person is to put more depreciation and wear and tear on your car than you can afford to repair (or replace). It's easy to be crazy in these ways. It's externalities which are easy to overlook. These Amazon/Uber business models are designed to leverage that kind of crazy as hard as possible, and kick out everybody who's not willing to lose (one way or another) on the deal. Psychology is useful in getting people to buy into this stuff.
As they say, a cult.