More specifically, the US proceeded with what they had already planned before the events in Cuba - replacing Jupiter missiles in Cuba with Polaris nuclear ballistic missiles. The Politburo got rid of Kruschev soon after because despite the fact that they didn't know the Jupiters were going to be removed anyway, they still saw that the USSR got the worst of the deal.
Chief of Staff USAF General Curtis LeMay and others didn't want to make that deal - they strongly encouraged Kennedy to invade Cuba. In fact, there were several "accidents" that could have escalated the situation to full-scale war, such as dropping depth charges on a Soviet sub armed with nuclear missiles, and a U2 under LeMay's command "accidentally" flying over the Soviet Union. It's curious that while the military generals wanted war, the people under their command were accidentally doing things likely to trigger war.
> The US freaks out and want to sink ships legally sailing on international waters, bomb Cuba and a lot of other shit.... > The ones that could have caused WWIII was the USA leadership and military.
Absolutely, there were high-ranking leaders, military, intelligence, and civilian leaders, who very much wanted to escalate the situation. Air strikes on Cuba were favored by many of Kennedy's advisors. My understanding, both from open sources and personal conversations with my uncle, an air force colonel who was involved, is that the people who wanted to escalate the situation were stopped by President Kennedy, with the advice of his brother. Another president may well have allowed the Pentagon to escalate the situation. A particularly timid president might have allowed the missiles to stay. According to my uncle, and many people who have studied the situation, President Kennedy went against the advice of almost everyone (other than his brother) by ordering them (in no uncertain terms) not to bomb or otherwise escalate the situation. Kruschev's foreign minister, Andrei Gromyko, agrees with the general consensus that Kennedy amd his ambassador also expertly manipulated Kruschev into a situation where he had to remove the missiles and couldn't demand much in return. That's agreed by both Soviet and American leaders involved (though Kruschev himself didn't admit he was outfoxed).
>> may cause some investors to question whether he has the disposition to lead a $69 billion company with a footprint that spans the globe.
> "Pleasant temperament" doesn't seem to be a requirement for being CEO.
I think the issue here isn't pleasant or unpleasant, but losing his cool a bit in a situation that shouldn't get a mature leader riled up. There's a time when being a dick might be the right move, when a smart person might *decide* to be aggressive. It doesn't look like he *chose* that as a tactic in this case, rather he lost his cool, he let emotions dictate his actions in an immature way. That's not the guy you want handling a billion dollar business deal - someone who will screw up a major deal because it's annoyed about some inconsequential thing. I want the opposite in a leader - John F. Kennedy very much kept his cool during the Cuban missile crisis, and possibly prevented World War 3 by being cool, calm, and collected - though not at all wimpy.
Anyway, back to "pleasant disposition". It seems to me that being pleasant isn't a strict rrequirement, but it does help. There *is* a type of effective leader who might be described as "brutally honest", "clear", "no bullshit", or "tough". MOST CEOs who are successful over the long term aren't the tough type, though. MOST are very easy to get along with, they are the type of people that inspire loyalty in the people they work with, the kinds of people board members want to work with, and make friends with all different kinds of powerful people who can make deals happen. You don't make a billion dollar deal with Ford by being a dick to the Ford people and pissing off the Ford CEO. Contrast Obama and Trump - Obama is likeable (even though I disagree with him) and became CEO of the country. This a year after he himself said it would be irresponsible for him to run for president because he had no relevant experience or qualifications - but people *liked* him. People were surprised Trump even got the R nomination. Trump is "tough", "says what he means without sugar-coating it", "asshole". That type occasionally rises to the top, but likeable is more often found on top.
It appears that the Uber CEO may understand that this is a weakness for him, that for him to continue as CEO and be successful, he needs to not be a prick in the future. Here's what he wrote on his email to all Uber employees:
Team -
By now I'm sure youâ(TM)ve seen the video where I treated an Uber driver disrespectfully. To say that I am ashamed is an extreme understatement. My job as your leader is to lead...and that starts with behaving in a way that makes us all proud. That is not what I did, and it cannot be explained away.
Itâ(TM)s clear this video is a reflection of meâ"and the criticism weâ(TM)ve received is a stark reminder that I must fundamentally change as a leader and grow up. This is the first time Iâ(TM)ve been willing to admit that I need leadership help and I intend to get it.
I want to profoundly apologize to Fawzi, as well as the driver and rider community, and to the Uber team.
> Of course there has to be a benefit to change. > If you can't explain to a non-spergin nerd clearly and succintly why doing a thing different is good
If that's what you got out of it, try reading it again. You might explain very clearly a huge benefit - perhaps it saves the company ten million dollars by making one small change that has virtually no risk. It probably won't happen, if that's all your focused on.
On the other hand, if I show my boss something that can save HIM two hours a week personally, he'll probably do it.
> I'd like to see wireless data buckets being large enough so that most people don't need home internet.
Unfortunately, the math and physics are such that won't happen. Not if people want to stream HD video for hours at a time. Basically the only way to make it appear as though you had that would be for the ISP to install a wifi access on each house (or two) and pretend it's not home internet service. The cost would still be the same, the only difference would be the ISP owns the access point - but they still have to run a cable to your house.
The issue is, to have sufficient range, the radio signals need to be below a certain frequency, around 1 Ghz or so. Higher frequencies such as 10 Ghz don't go through walls, etc. So wireless internet needs channels of say 1.0-1.1 Ghz. BUT that channel, 1 Ghz to 1.1 Ghz, is 0.1 Ghz wide. The "bandwidth" is 100 Mhz. The bandwidth in megahertz limits the bandwidth in bytes per second. We used to say that a channel with 100 Mhz bandwidth could carry no more than 100 Mbps of data (minus overhead of about 15%-20% means 80 Mbps in 100 Mhz). There's a trick that can triple that rate, and maybe a bit more, so figure 240 Mbps for everyone on that frequency range.
The frequency range of very roughly 1Ghz-2Ghz or so is the one that can go a reasonable distance, so it ALL of our medium to long range communication that needs decent bandwidth has to squeeze into that range. For example, GSM phones can operate at 900 Mhz, 1,800 Mhz, and 1,900 Mhz.
Voice-only radio and some other lower bandwidth uses can be at lower frequencies, but basically that 1-2Ghz band is where everyone wants to be, not just for wireless internet. So we can set aside the three GSM frequencies of 900/1,800/1,900 for wireless "phones". If each provider in an area gets one of those frequency ranges, and each frequency range has 100 Mbps of bandwidth, that means the provider has 100 Mbps to divide up between all of their customers in the area. In this respect, physics is a bitch.
* Yes I oversimplified things, but this post is long enough without going into more detail.
>> so pretending that getting hit by two pounds of plastic is the same as getting hit by a two-pound hammer is stupid.
> If I had claimed that it was, you would have a point.
You didn't, jandersen is the one who said that. Quoting jandersen: -- the weight of an average iron mallet, I'd say - more or less. Being hit on your head with a falling mallet could very easily kill you - it is only luck that saved this woman. Also, flying a drone is a deliberate act....
As it stands, this is not all that different from hurling a mallet or brick out over a crowd "just for a bit of fun"; --
jandersen's claim that flying a drone is 'not all that different from hurling a mallet or brick out over a crowd "just for a bit of fun";' is silly, and is based entirely on the *weight* of the object. Well, if he wants to pretend weight equals danger, the drone is half the weight of a pillow - which illustrates how ridiculous that reasoning is.
Ps, besides plastic and the materials you mentioned, foam is popular too. Two different types of foam are in common use. I have one made of the same type of foam used in packaging to protect things and prevent damage. (Think the big blocks of foam that have cutouts for the toy or whatever is in the package.) You could throw it at me with all your strength and it wouldn't hurt me a bit.
So yeah there are a variety of materials. The type in the stores, what 98% of people buy, is made primarily of semi-soft plastic for quads, rigid foam for planes.
I was glad the props on the mass-market drones are a fairly soft plastic two weeks ago when I snatched a quad out of the air and brought my hand *down* to the drone, fingers through the prop, rather than bringing my hand up to grab a leg. My finger hurt for a couple of minutes and a small dark bruise was visible for two weeks.
>> Two pounds is also half the weight of a pillow. > Oh yeah? What's a bullet weigh?
Or a car? How about a bouncy house? Is a bouncy house thousands times more dangerous than a bullet, because it weighs so much more? I think we've established that weight and danger are two very different things. So pretending that getting hit by two pounds of plastic is the same as getting hit by a two-pound hammer is stupid.
> Professional drones which carry cameras are sometimes made out of plastic, but they're sometimes...
The vast majority of drones are the Parrot / Syma etc type sold in stores. Once you move from toys to "professional", you can go all the way to the Reaper amd beyond.
If you ever visit Dallas, you're invited to come fly with us (North Texas Drone User Group). We have some good safe places to fly, and have a lot of fun.
The text doesn't say "at all sites used for flying on a regular basis" or any similar wording. Note however that "all flying sites" should have the line *established*, while competitions and exhibitions shall have the line *marked*. As I read it, I'm in compliance if I say "kids, stay on that side of the soccer field", while I fly in the other side of the field (preferably downwind).
Yes, what he did was careless and illegal. Yesterday, when the light turned yellow I didn't know if I could stop in time without slamming on brakes. I ended up ILLEGALLY going under a red light.
I'd be willing to bet that the last time you were on the freeway you ILLEGALLY drove faster than the speed limit. I know I did.
Before the recent rulemaking, you were allowed to fly under Section 336. Section 336 says you can fly if you follow the rules of the Association of Model Aeronautics (or similar body). AMA rules include: -- avoid flying directly over unprotected people, vessels, vehicles or structures
At all flying sites a safety line(s) must be established in front of which all flying takes place. (AMA Document #706.) (a) Only personnel associated with flying the model aircraft are allowed at or in front of the safety line.
Must be 100 feet downwind of spectators --
So before the new rules, operators were triple prohibited from flying over people.
It sounds like the guy was being reckless flying over people.
Drones are typically made from the same type of plastic that soda bottles are made from, they aren't iron. Two pounds is also half the weight of a pillow.
That's a good example, unlawfully riding your bike on the sidewalk and not being careful. 200 lbs of man and bike is much more likely to cause significant damage than 2 lbs of plastic. They guy did wrong by flying it over people - just like the guy next to him did wrong by running a stop sign.
A friend of mine shot at her ex-boyfriend with a shotgun. Because she didn't hit him, she did less than 30 days in jail.
> If anybody knows of a chain store in California or Nevada where I can buy potassium iodide supplements or tincture of iodine, over the counter, please let me know.
The very first place I tried was Walgreens. You didn't say what part of California, so at random I checked availability in San Francisco. Here's one brand:
Have a look at a franchise map and get back to us on that. The New York map is entertaining because there are so many places where one company is permitted to operate on one side of the street, amd another company on the other side of the street. Yes there are several companies in New York, each granted legally enforced monopolies in specific neighborhoods.
This is about the time someone pipes up and says "cities aren't allowed to grant monopolies anymore." Read that law and see what it actually says, or if you're in hurry just go to the New York City web site and look at the map of monopolies enforced by the city. To summarize the law in one sentence: Cities may not grant brand new legally enforced monopolies - unless they hold a hearing first.
Eighteen hours later, we have this announcement.;)
Bruce, kindly please post your estimate of the likelihood that Sofia Vergara will show up in my bedroom. I can't wait to see what happens tomorrow if you do!
I'm glad some competition from AMD is giving Intel a since of urgency about staying competitive. Certainly in the long run, Intel can see that most processors these days are ARM, so they can't rest on their laurels. AMD's apparent success lets Intel know they have to play their "A game" in the short run as well.
In the last few years, the fastest growing metro areas in the country have been Dallas/Fort Worth and Houston. Data that is seven years old is out of date.
Also, as you mentioned, there census areas are but one way to define a metro area. Other definitions have D/FW at 50% larger than the Bay Area.
The point being, it's by no means a podunk town in the middle of nowhere, it's one of the largest cities in the country - and I just bought a 3,500 square foot house here for $240K. At 3.8%, the Dallas unemployment rate is much lower than the national rate of 5%, meaning there are jobs here.
Yes, there are also specific policies and attitudes here that directly relate to having jobs - for example we think people *should* have a job, working is good. If that's a problem for you, you are welcome to stay in California and smoke weed all day under a bridge.
Certainly based just on the price drop, you wouldn't know if they ever made money. HP drastically dropped the price on their WebOS devices. Was that because they were making too much money at the original price? No, it's because they weren't making any money at the original price, they lost money on the whole project. They adjusted the price (downward) to minimize their losses.
In fact, Intel's gross profit margin was around 20% last year. Now they dropped their prices* by about 20%, meaning the new price would have been the break-even point for them. They wouldn't have made any money on the project if they hadn't sold any at the higher price.
* actually MICROCENTER reduced their price. The summary is misleading, as they normally are.
In my case, Dallas - which is much bigger than San Francisco. DFW is 50% more people than the Bay Area and Dallas itself is 50% larger than San Francisco.
Both the city itself and the metro area have about 50% more people than San Francisco.
Slashdot Mirror
More specifically, the US proceeded with what they had already planned before the events in Cuba - replacing Jupiter missiles in Cuba with Polaris nuclear ballistic missiles. The Politburo got rid of Kruschev soon after because despite the fact that they didn't know the Jupiters were going to be removed anyway, they still saw that the USSR got the worst of the deal.
Chief of Staff USAF General Curtis LeMay and others didn't want to make that deal - they strongly encouraged Kennedy to invade Cuba. In fact, there were several "accidents" that could have escalated the situation to full-scale war, such as dropping depth charges on a Soviet sub armed with nuclear missiles, and a U2 under LeMay's command "accidentally" flying over the Soviet Union. It's curious that while the military generals wanted war, the people under their command were accidentally doing things likely to trigger war.
> The US freaks out and want to sink ships legally sailing on international waters, bomb Cuba and a lot of other shit. ...
> The ones that could have caused WWIII was the USA leadership and military.
Absolutely, there were high-ranking leaders, military, intelligence, and civilian leaders, who very much wanted to escalate the situation. Air strikes on Cuba were favored by many of Kennedy's advisors. My understanding, both from open sources and personal conversations with my uncle, an air force colonel who was involved, is that the people who wanted to escalate the situation were stopped by President Kennedy, with the advice of his brother. Another president may well have allowed the Pentagon to escalate the situation. A particularly timid president might have allowed the missiles to stay. According to my uncle, and many people who have studied the situation, President Kennedy went against the advice of almost everyone (other than his brother) by ordering them (in no uncertain terms) not to bomb or otherwise escalate the situation. Kruschev's foreign minister, Andrei Gromyko, agrees with the general consensus that Kennedy amd his ambassador also expertly manipulated Kruschev into a situation where he had to remove the missiles and couldn't demand much in return. That's agreed by both Soviet and American leaders involved (though Kruschev himself didn't admit he was outfoxed).
>> may cause some investors to question whether he has the disposition to lead a $69 billion company with a footprint that spans the globe.
> "Pleasant temperament" doesn't seem to be a requirement for being CEO.
I think the issue here isn't pleasant or unpleasant, but losing his cool a bit in a situation that shouldn't get a mature leader riled up. There's a time when being a dick might be the right move, when a smart person might *decide* to be aggressive. It doesn't look like he *chose* that as a tactic in this case, rather he lost his cool, he let emotions dictate his actions in an immature way. That's not the guy you want handling a billion dollar business deal - someone who will screw up a major deal because it's annoyed about some inconsequential thing. I want the opposite in a leader - John F. Kennedy very much kept his cool during the Cuban missile crisis, and possibly prevented World War 3 by being cool, calm, and collected - though not at all wimpy.
Anyway, back to "pleasant disposition". It seems to me that being pleasant isn't a strict rrequirement, but it does help. There *is* a type of effective leader who might be described as "brutally honest", "clear", "no bullshit", or "tough". MOST CEOs who are successful over the long term aren't the tough type, though. MOST are very easy to get along with, they are the type of people that inspire loyalty in the people they work with, the kinds of people board members want to work with, and make friends with all different kinds of powerful people who can make deals happen. You don't make a billion dollar deal with Ford by being a dick to the Ford people and pissing off the Ford CEO. Contrast Obama and Trump - Obama is likeable (even though I disagree with him) and became CEO of the country. This a year after he himself said it would be irresponsible for him to run for president because he had no relevant experience or qualifications - but people *liked* him. People were surprised Trump even got the R nomination. Trump is "tough", "says what he means without sugar-coating it", "asshole". That type occasionally rises to the top, but likeable is more often found on top.
It appears that the Uber CEO may understand that this is a weakness for him, that for him to continue as CEO and be successful, he needs to not be a prick in the future. Here's what he wrote on his email to all Uber employees:
Team -
By now I'm sure youâ(TM)ve seen the video where I treated an Uber driver disrespectfully. To say that I am ashamed is an extreme understatement. My job as your leader is to lead...and that starts with behaving in a way that makes us all proud. That is not what I did, and it cannot be explained away.
Itâ(TM)s clear this video is a reflection of meâ"and the criticism weâ(TM)ve received is a stark reminder that I must fundamentally change as a leader and grow up. This is the first time Iâ(TM)ve been willing to admit that I need leadership help and I intend to get it.
I want to profoundly apologize to Fawzi, as well as the driver and rider community, and to the Uber team.
> Of course there has to be a benefit to change.
> If you can't explain to a non-spergin nerd clearly and succintly why doing a thing different is good
If that's what you got out of it, try reading it again. You might explain very clearly a huge benefit - perhaps it saves the company ten million dollars by making one small change that has virtually no risk. It probably won't happen, if that's all your focused on.
On the other hand, if I show my boss something that can save HIM two hours a week personally, he'll probably do it.
> I'd like to see wireless data buckets being large enough so that most people don't need home internet.
Unfortunately, the math and physics are such that won't happen. Not if people want to stream HD video for hours at a time. Basically the only way to make it appear as though you had that would be for the ISP to install a wifi access on each house (or two) and pretend it's not home internet service. The cost would still be the same, the only difference would be the ISP owns the access point - but they still have to run a cable to your house.
The issue is, to have sufficient range, the radio signals need to be below a certain frequency, around 1 Ghz or so. Higher frequencies such as 10 Ghz don't go through walls, etc. So wireless internet needs channels of say 1.0-1.1 Ghz. BUT that channel, 1 Ghz to 1.1 Ghz, is 0.1 Ghz wide. The "bandwidth" is 100 Mhz. The bandwidth in megahertz limits the bandwidth in bytes per second. We used to say that a channel with 100 Mhz bandwidth could carry no more than 100 Mbps of data (minus overhead of about 15%-20% means 80 Mbps in 100 Mhz). There's a trick that can triple that rate, and maybe a bit more, so figure 240 Mbps for everyone on that frequency range.
The frequency range of very roughly 1Ghz-2Ghz or so is the one that can go a reasonable distance, so it ALL of our medium to long range communication that needs decent bandwidth has to squeeze into that range. For example, GSM phones can operate at 900 Mhz, 1,800 Mhz, and 1,900 Mhz.
Voice-only radio and some other lower bandwidth uses can be at lower frequencies, but basically that 1-2Ghz band is where everyone wants to be, not just for wireless internet. So we can set aside the three GSM frequencies of 900/1,800/1,900 for wireless "phones". If each provider in an area gets one of those frequency ranges, and each frequency range has 100 Mbps of bandwidth, that means the provider has 100 Mbps to divide up between all of their customers in the area. In this respect, physics is a bitch.
* Yes I oversimplified things, but this post is long enough without going into more detail.
Do you like surprises? If you have a scale, you can enjoy a surprise.
If you don't own a scale, most shopping sites list the weight of the items they sell.
Speaking of "smashing itself to bits", if you liked that video, you'll probably appreciate this one too.
https://youtu.be/uowIviSx8nI
>> so pretending that getting hit by two pounds of plastic is the same as getting hit by a two-pound hammer is stupid.
> If I had claimed that it was, you would have a point.
You didn't, jandersen is the one who said that. Quoting jandersen: ...
--
the weight of an average iron mallet, I'd say - more or less. Being hit on your head with a falling mallet could very easily kill you - it is only luck that saved this woman. Also, flying a drone is a deliberate act.
As it stands, this is not all that different from hurling a mallet or brick out over a crowd "just for a bit of fun";
--
jandersen's claim that flying a drone is 'not all that different from hurling a mallet or brick out over a crowd "just for a bit of fun";' is silly, and is based entirely on the *weight* of the object. Well, if he wants to pretend weight equals danger, the drone is half the weight of a pillow - which illustrates how ridiculous that reasoning is.
Ps, besides plastic and the materials you mentioned, foam is popular too. Two different types of foam are in common use. I have one made of the same type of foam used in packaging to protect things and prevent damage. (Think the big blocks of foam that have cutouts for the toy or whatever is in the package.) You could throw it at me with all your strength and it wouldn't hurt me a bit.
So yeah there are a variety of materials. The type in the stores, what 98% of people buy, is made primarily of semi-soft plastic for quads, rigid foam for planes.
I was glad the props on the mass-market drones are a fairly soft plastic two weeks ago when I snatched a quad out of the air and brought my hand *down* to the drone, fingers through the prop, rather than bringing my hand up to grab a leg. My finger hurt for a couple of minutes and a small dark bruise was visible for two weeks.
>> Two pounds is also half the weight of a pillow.
> Oh yeah? What's a bullet weigh?
Or a car? How about a bouncy house? Is a bouncy house thousands times more dangerous than a bullet, because it weighs so much more? I think we've established that weight and danger are two very different things. So pretending that getting hit by two pounds of plastic is the same as getting hit by a two-pound hammer is stupid.
> Professional drones which carry cameras are sometimes made out of plastic, but they're sometimes ...
Sometimes the professional models carry four Hellfire missiles. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...
The vast majority of drones are the Parrot / Syma etc type sold in stores. Once you move from toys to "professional", you can go all the way to the Reaper amd beyond.
If you ever visit Dallas, you're invited to come fly with us (North Texas Drone User Group). We have some good safe places to fly, and have a lot of fun.
The text doesn't say "at all sites used for flying on a regular basis" or any similar wording. Note however that "all flying sites" should have the line *established*, while competitions and exhibitions shall have the line *marked*. As I read it, I'm in compliance if I say "kids, stay on that side of the soccer field", while I fly in the other side of the field (preferably downwind).
Yes, what he did was careless and illegal. Yesterday, when the light turned yellow I didn't know if I could stop in time without slamming on brakes. I ended up ILLEGALLY going under a red light.
I'd be willing to bet that the last time you were on the freeway you ILLEGALLY drove faster than the speed limit. I know I did.
Before the recent rulemaking, you were allowed to fly under Section 336. Section 336 says you can fly if you follow the rules of the Association of Model Aeronautics (or similar body). AMA rules include:
--
avoid flying directly over unprotected people, vessels, vehicles or structures
At all flying sites a safety line(s) must be established in front of which all flying takes place. (AMA Document #706.)
(a) Only personnel associated with flying the model aircraft are allowed at or in front of the safety line.
Must be 100 feet downwind of spectators
--
So before the new rules, operators were triple prohibited from flying over people.
It sounds like the guy was being reckless flying over people.
Drones are typically made from the same type of plastic that soda bottles are made from, they aren't iron. Two pounds is also half the weight of a pillow.
That's a good example, unlawfully riding your bike on the sidewalk and not being careful. 200 lbs of man and bike is much more likely to cause significant damage than 2 lbs of plastic. They guy did wrong by flying it over people - just like the guy next to him did wrong by running a stop sign.
A friend of mine shot at her ex-boyfriend with a shotgun. Because she didn't hit him, she did less than 30 days in jail.
What do you get of you put Sofia Vergara, Elma Hayek, and Penelope Cruz in a room together?
A boner!
> If anybody knows of a chain store in California or Nevada where I can buy potassium iodide supplements or tincture of iodine, over the counter, please let me know.
The very first place I tried was Walgreens. You didn't say what part of California, so at random I checked availability in San Francisco. Here's one brand:
https://www.walgreens.com/stor...
Of course Amazon will deliver it right to your door.
Your difficulty finding it may indeed have something to do with illegal drugs. Not quite in the way you were thinking, it seems.
Have a look at a franchise map and get back to us on that. The New York map is entertaining because there are so many places where one company is permitted to operate on one side of the street, amd another company on the other side of the street. Yes there are several companies in New York, each granted legally enforced monopolies in specific neighborhoods.
This is about the time someone pipes up and says "cities aren't allowed to grant monopolies anymore." Read that law and see what it actually says, or if you're in hurry just go to the New York City web site and look at the map of monopolies enforced by the city. To summarize the law in one sentence:
Cities may not grant brand new legally enforced monopolies - unless they hold a hearing first.
> good luck getting Elon Musk to focus on the practical and eminently desirable target of the Moon. He isn't interested. It's only Mars for Elon.
And 18 hours later: :)
https://science.slashdot.org/s...
Bruce, would you please post whether you think Sofia Vergara will show up in my bedroom? I'd sure appreciate it.
Yesterday Bruce wrote:
> But good luck getting Elon Musk to focus on the practical and eminently desirable target of the Moon. He isn't interested. It's only Mars for Elon.
https://science.slashdot.org/c...
Eighteen hours later, we have this announcement. ;)
Bruce, kindly please post your estimate of the likelihood that Sofia Vergara will show up in my bedroom. I can't wait to see what happens tomorrow if you do!
I'm glad some competition from AMD is giving Intel a since of urgency about staying competitive. Certainly in the long run, Intel can see that most processors these days are ARM, so they can't rest on their laurels. AMD's apparent success lets Intel know they have to play their "A game" in the short run as well.
In the last few years, the fastest growing metro areas in the country have been Dallas/Fort Worth and Houston. Data that is seven years old is out of date.
Also, as you mentioned, there census areas are but one way to define a metro area. Other definitions have D/FW at 50% larger than the Bay Area.
The point being, it's by no means a podunk town in the middle of nowhere, it's one of the largest cities in the country - and I just bought a 3,500 square foot house here for $240K. At 3.8%, the Dallas unemployment rate is much lower than the national rate of 5%, meaning there are jobs here.
Yes, there are also specific policies and attitudes here that directly relate to having jobs - for example we think people *should* have a job, working is good. If that's a problem for you, you are welcome to stay in California and smoke weed all day under a bridge.
Certainly based just on the price drop, you wouldn't know if they ever made money. HP drastically dropped the price on their WebOS devices. Was that because they were making too much money at the original price? No, it's because they weren't making any money at the original price, they lost money on the whole project. They adjusted the price (downward) to minimize their losses.
In fact, Intel's gross profit margin was around 20% last year. Now they dropped their prices* by about 20%, meaning the new price would have been the break-even point for them. They wouldn't have made any money on the project if they hadn't sold any at the higher price.
* actually MICROCENTER reduced their price. The summary is misleading, as they normally are.
In my case, Dallas - which is much bigger than San Francisco. DFW is 50% more people than the Bay Area and Dallas itself is 50% larger than San Francisco.
Both the city itself and the metro area have about 50% more people than San Francisco.
If a house in X costs more than you can afford, don't get a house there. It's really that simple.
I recently paid $240,000 for a 3,500 square foot, five bedroom house with a pool, just outside a major city. So clearly there are other options.