Heh... I worked in the building that prompted the anti-cafeterias legislation in San Francisco (working for previous owner/tenant). Some people like to eat in the office and some find it to be extremely depressing, even if you enjoy hanging out with your co-workers. The food was fine, but I only ate there a handful of times in the four years I worked there.
But, not everyone works well in a private office. Great for introverts, miserable for extroverts. Great for experienced people, hard for people that need to learn from others... especially introverts.
There are no "perfect" solutions, so most companies go for "flexible" solutions. I will say though that having hundreds of private offices can make for a very depressing space.
I am surprised there hasn't been more analysis as well, but it is important to categorize by specific job function and nature of work and nature of interaction with co-workers, along with individual personalities. There are so many different variables that it is quite a challenge.
Lot of hipster bashing in the comments (damnit, i have and like my standing desk!), but not much real insight for the article. I was expecting some insight into coworking space or at least some trends that aren’t adecade old.
To me, the interesting trend is in trying to actually look at job functions to define office needs, rather than just rank. Better workstation design for huge, multiple monitor setups are on my wish list. Nice acoustical solutions, space flexibility, better accommodation of paperless workflows are all important too.
To a degree; OP's point is that you have multiple grades of needs, and the central supply shouldn't really treat all water to the highest requirement. There is also the lead pipe issue in places and a host of other things that really make it a good idea.
Only downside is you waste a lot of water with RO; nice if you can pipe the concentrate stream for something like laundry or at least toilet flushing.
You are very wrong relative to rooftop solar. The benefits of local generation are huge. Energy storage a little less so, but it reduces the home’s dependence on the grid.
For wind, scale is huge. For retrofit, scale has a place, but maximum benefit is grid-connected homes that can take advantage of diversity in generation and demand.
Doing it wrong. Slope to the south and take advantage of the shading from the PV panels. Add an extra inch of insulation and you are good. Bonus: add earth pipes to leverage diurnal temperatures with natural ventilation.
If you insist on a north slope, build a south-sloping rack on top, or go wild and crazy and use a ground-mount 2-a is tracker. It isn’t that hard.
I am double to triple long on TSLA and AMZN, and have some dividend stocks in T, VZ, HD. SBUX dividends pay my habit there. Other than that I have LULU, IRBT, UBNT, and a few smaller holdings. I contemplate BRK, WM, and GS. Wife's (solo) 401k has SIEN and BA, which I am considering adding to my portfolio.
Basically, I want to limit to about 5-10% of my portfolio to any of the stocks I hold for diversification purposes. I still see TSLA and AMZN as having growth opportunity, which will hopefully help reduce the AAPL percentage with growth.
Had; it was a strategy that served me well at the time. It is closer to 75-80% right now. Diversifying in absolute terms is hard when the stock you need to sell is going up and the ones you want to buy are staying flat. I sold calls to establish a divestment strategy though, which gets me down to about 50% in a couple years. If my case for investing in Apple changes I will divest more.
The problem is that I don't see many better investments.
They might be pushing up against a boundary though. Most of my net worth is tied up in Apple stock, and between my wife and myself I have five Apple computers in use, two iphones, two ipads, two 2nd generation Apple Watches, and a handful of ipods and Apple TVs.
While I did upgrade my iMac last year, as well as an iPhone X, everything else I am stretching out the life on, and looking at alternatives (with limited success). I should upgrade my iPad; it is five years old now and will likely fail soon, but a few of the apps I use a lot haven't been updated in years and losing them would reduce the value of an iPad to me, and the premium for adequate storage is way too high. I upgraded my iMac Air's SSD rather than replace it, because the value proposition just really wasn't there. My Mac mini is looking like it will be replaced by a Pine64, as VNC is good enough for what I really use it for. I would love to get a 4th generation Apple Watch, but I went for the Edition on the 2nd generation and don't really want to take the step back.
But, the bottom line is price per spec is comparable with the competitors. A ChromeBook that has reasonable specs ends up costing the same as a MacBook Air. It isn't just an Apple thing, it is a market condition. Dropping the prices for increased specifications will reduce the long-term value proposition to the point where there will likely be a bigger crash.
But, as a stockholder I am not really worried. Apple is pivoting much more towards services and likely is seeing the next big thing already. The only thing it has changed is that instead of it being 90% of my portfolio, in 3 years it will only be 50-60% as I continue to diversify.
Yes, it would. Good thing that after taxes are deducted that puts you around $15/bbl.
Gas will have its place for a long while-- I am surprised to not see much in the series hybrid (range extender) truck space for towing applications. But, it will be niche applications.
Expect some streets to be re-striped with angled parking on one side rather than parallel parking on both for a block, with EV chargers. The good thing about city driving is fewer miles per day, so even a slow Level 2 charger can get you on your way in an hour. Add faster chargers, and you can charge for several days in an hour.
Installing a network of 350kW chargers will have significant local grid impact, even if they are fully buffered with local storage (25% assumed utilization, 50% off-peak recharge) still puts you around 100kW daytime average load. This is comparable to 100 homes or an office of 85 people for a single charging station.
That charger is (in theory) adequate to support the needs of either the homes or the offices (assuming 40-mile average commute and 300Wh/mile), so essentially what you end up with is a doubling of demand. When the chargers are unbuffered then it can easily be a quadroupling of circuit demand. Most utility distribution circuits are loaded around 70% nominally, and substations are closer to 80% nominal.
With the next generation platform coming out in 2026, and a likely life of 15-20 years, I think your point is well understood. This is likely the most logical timeline any manufacturer could offer, where they won't fully destroy themselves in the process.
Cars today seem to have an average life of about 12-15 years, but let's say 20 years for shits and giggles. That means we have little under 50 years before the last generation of ICE vehicles times out, and a whole lot of time for the world to prepare for EVs in a rational way.
Compare and contrast with Ford. They are essentially ditching their car platforms today, and will focus on the truck platforms. They are likely not that far behind VW on their planning/investment horizon for ICEs (maybe another 5 years)-- but haven't committed to anything yet. They have no serious EV plans. They are the ones who will likely shoot themselves with their lack of planning.
There is actually an increase in enterprise value— as separate companies, entities that compete with one portion but not the other are discouraged from working with both components. There are also the soft issues of disliking the practices of the retail component, and using that as motivation to not work with the AWS component.
It might only be a 10% delta, but that is a number with a lot of zeros. I imagine the AWS component would take on a big chunk of debt to keep the remainder healthy, but it should have a big boost for both.
I would love to see the logistics component broken out as well, but that will never happen.
In my specific industry, “paying more” really is t an option when we compete with companies with much higher margins (we are at about 60% gross and 10% net margin). Our competitors for the exceptional people have 100-300% gross margins, and we can’t get by on slightly above average.
Sponsorship for a permanent visa takes years, which is why companies like our use H1B as a bridge for a candidate. Your info about transferring visa types might be out of date with more recent policy changes.
My company has about 50 employees, and 4 are Indian nationals that finished masters of electrical engineering degrees in the US. We are sponsoring two this year, and at least the third next year. Salary is at worst competitive with a US citizen, and given the visa requirements is likely to actually be higher.
Of the four, one is exceptional, one above average, and the other two it is too early to tell. After spending 12-18 months training them, in what way is it rational for them to be pushed out of the country? FWIW, these are power systems engineers, and not software developers, and while we do get ~5-10 similar applicants for each US-born applicant, we simply don’t get enough us-born applicants to meet our hiring needs.
Agree. Have walked out of restaurants for being too loud. No sense not being able to talk to each other while paying $200/person for a meal. While table density plays a role, the biggest issue is architects simply not caring about acoustics. It is a shame too, as it isn’t that hard to make a space functional without disrupting the “look.” A good acoustical consultant can do wonders for making a space bearable.
It is entirely under a public road. The only concern is people in Brentwood (ironically where Musk lives when he isn't sleeping on a factory floor somewhere) are concerned that dump truck might be going up and down streets somewhere.
Musk was willing to cancel because he has another idea for a proof-of-concept tunnel (Dodgers), and the Sepulveda tunnel likely only made sense if he could get it moving quickly. He needs a second tunnel to dig to try out his next generation TBM. He might just have to experiment with Chicago instead.
Personally, I am disappointed despite it being a half-baked route map. Anything that can get people off the 405 is a win in LA.
Get a refurb unit for $99. While you can bit-bang a serial modem, it is a heck of a lot more painless for something that abstracts links and addresses for you. Just depends on scale though. One light that you want on at dusk and off at dawn is no big deal to script on a Pi.
I used to feel the same way, but so many little things are so much simpler. It pissed me off to pay $50 for the functional equivalent of 'curl' in a network license... but after a month of dealing with stupid issues on the Pi, I broke down.
Slashdot Mirror
Heh... I worked in the building that prompted the anti-cafeterias legislation in San Francisco (working for previous owner/tenant). Some people like to eat in the office and some find it to be extremely depressing, even if you enjoy hanging out with your co-workers. The food was fine, but I only ate there a handful of times in the four years I worked there.
But, not everyone works well in a private office. Great for introverts, miserable for extroverts. Great for experienced people, hard for people that need to learn from others... especially introverts.
There are no "perfect" solutions, so most companies go for "flexible" solutions. I will say though that having hundreds of private offices can make for a very depressing space.
I am surprised there hasn't been more analysis as well, but it is important to categorize by specific job function and nature of work and nature of interaction with co-workers, along with individual personalities. There are so many different variables that it is quite a challenge.
Lot of hipster bashing in the comments (damnit, i have and like my standing desk!), but not much real insight for the article. I was expecting some insight into coworking space or at least some trends that aren’t adecade old.
To me, the interesting trend is in trying to actually look at job functions to define office needs, rather than just rank. Better workstation design for huge, multiple monitor setups are on my wish list. Nice acoustical solutions, space flexibility, better accommodation of paperless workflows are all important too.
To a degree; OP's point is that you have multiple grades of needs, and the central supply shouldn't really treat all water to the highest requirement. There is also the lead pipe issue in places and a host of other things that really make it a good idea.
Only downside is you waste a lot of water with RO; nice if you can pipe the concentrate stream for something like laundry or at least toilet flushing.
Main benefit today in tracking is reducing battery requirements rather than raw kWh. Plus, for a ground mount they look cooler... ;)
You are very wrong relative to rooftop solar. The benefits of local generation are huge. Energy storage a little less so, but it reduces the home’s dependence on the grid.
For wind, scale is huge. For retrofit, scale has a place, but maximum benefit is grid-connected homes that can take advantage of diversity in generation and demand.
Doing it wrong. Slope to the south and take advantage of the shading from the PV panels. Add an extra inch of insulation and you are good. Bonus: add earth pipes to leverage diurnal temperatures with natural ventilation.
If you insist on a north slope, build a south-sloping rack on top, or go wild and crazy and use a ground-mount 2-a is tracker. It isn’t that hard.
I am double to triple long on TSLA and AMZN, and have some dividend stocks in T, VZ, HD. SBUX dividends pay my habit there. Other than that I have LULU, IRBT, UBNT, and a few smaller holdings. I contemplate BRK, WM, and GS. Wife's (solo) 401k has SIEN and BA, which I am considering adding to my portfolio.
Basically, I want to limit to about 5-10% of my portfolio to any of the stocks I hold for diversification purposes. I still see TSLA and AMZN as having growth opportunity, which will hopefully help reduce the AAPL percentage with growth.
Had; it was a strategy that served me well at the time. It is closer to 75-80% right now. Diversifying in absolute terms is hard when the stock you need to sell is going up and the ones you want to buy are staying flat. I sold calls to establish a divestment strategy though, which gets me down to about 50% in a couple years. If my case for investing in Apple changes I will divest more.
The problem is that I don't see many better investments.
They might be pushing up against a boundary though. Most of my net worth is tied up in Apple stock, and between my wife and myself I have five Apple computers in use, two iphones, two ipads, two 2nd generation Apple Watches, and a handful of ipods and Apple TVs.
While I did upgrade my iMac last year, as well as an iPhone X, everything else I am stretching out the life on, and looking at alternatives (with limited success). I should upgrade my iPad; it is five years old now and will likely fail soon, but a few of the apps I use a lot haven't been updated in years and losing them would reduce the value of an iPad to me, and the premium for adequate storage is way too high. I upgraded my iMac Air's SSD rather than replace it, because the value proposition just really wasn't there. My Mac mini is looking like it will be replaced by a Pine64, as VNC is good enough for what I really use it for. I would love to get a 4th generation Apple Watch, but I went for the Edition on the 2nd generation and don't really want to take the step back.
But, the bottom line is price per spec is comparable with the competitors. A ChromeBook that has reasonable specs ends up costing the same as a MacBook Air. It isn't just an Apple thing, it is a market condition. Dropping the prices for increased specifications will reduce the long-term value proposition to the point where there will likely be a bigger crash.
But, as a stockholder I am not really worried. Apple is pivoting much more towards services and likely is seeing the next big thing already. The only thing it has changed is that instead of it being 90% of my portfolio, in 3 years it will only be 50-60% as I continue to diversify.
Yes, it would. Good thing that after taxes are deducted that puts you around $15/bbl.
Gas will have its place for a long while-- I am surprised to not see much in the series hybrid (range extender) truck space for towing applications. But, it will be niche applications.
Expect some streets to be re-striped with angled parking on one side rather than parallel parking on both for a block, with EV chargers. The good thing about city driving is fewer miles per day, so even a slow Level 2 charger can get you on your way in an hour. Add faster chargers, and you can charge for several days in an hour.
Installing a network of 350kW chargers will have significant local grid impact, even if they are fully buffered with local storage (25% assumed utilization, 50% off-peak recharge) still puts you around 100kW daytime average load. This is comparable to 100 homes or an office of 85 people for a single charging station.
That charger is (in theory) adequate to support the needs of either the homes or the offices (assuming 40-mile average commute and 300Wh/mile), so essentially what you end up with is a doubling of demand. When the chargers are unbuffered then it can easily be a quadroupling of circuit demand. Most utility distribution circuits are loaded around 70% nominally, and substations are closer to 80% nominal.
With the next generation platform coming out in 2026, and a likely life of 15-20 years, I think your point is well understood. This is likely the most logical timeline any manufacturer could offer, where they won't fully destroy themselves in the process.
Cars today seem to have an average life of about 12-15 years, but let's say 20 years for shits and giggles. That means we have little under 50 years before the last generation of ICE vehicles times out, and a whole lot of time for the world to prepare for EVs in a rational way.
Compare and contrast with Ford. They are essentially ditching their car platforms today, and will focus on the truck platforms. They are likely not that far behind VW on their planning/investment horizon for ICEs (maybe another 5 years)-- but haven't committed to anything yet. They have no serious EV plans. They are the ones who will likely shoot themselves with their lack of planning.
There is actually an increase in enterprise value— as separate companies, entities that compete with one portion but not the other are discouraged from working with both components. There are also the soft issues of disliking the practices of the retail component, and using that as motivation to not work with the AWS component.
It might only be a 10% delta, but that is a number with a lot of zeros. I imagine the AWS component would take on a big chunk of debt to keep the remainder healthy, but it should have a big boost for both.
I would love to see the logistics component broken out as well, but that will never happen.
Self-imposed death though. There were better solutions available to cater to their core customers, and they decided to not rock the boat.
It's ok... competitors are bracing to take over. Great waste of money, ATT.
Commenting to undo fat finger mod...
Yeah... nothing new here.
New information that transfer applications are being rejected— that is not what our lawyers are saying.
In my specific industry, “paying more” really is t an option when we compete with companies with much higher margins (we are at about 60% gross and 10% net margin). Our competitors for the exceptional people have 100-300% gross margins, and we can’t get by on slightly above average.
Sponsorship for a permanent visa takes years, which is why companies like our use H1B as a bridge for a candidate. Your info about transferring visa types might be out of date with more recent policy changes.
The article mentions one vendor... but all this is really just an RFP...
That isn’t true— while the company has a tiny bit of power, the employee has full freedom of movement.
My company has about 50 employees, and 4 are Indian nationals that finished masters of electrical engineering degrees in the US. We are sponsoring two this year, and at least the third next year. Salary is at worst competitive with a US citizen, and given the visa requirements is likely to actually be higher.
Of the four, one is exceptional, one above average, and the other two it is too early to tell. After spending 12-18 months training them, in what way is it rational for them to be pushed out of the country? FWIW, these are power systems engineers, and not software developers, and while we do get ~5-10 similar applicants for each US-born applicant, we simply don’t get enough us-born applicants to meet our hiring needs.
Agree. Have walked out of restaurants for being too loud. No sense not being able to talk to each other while paying $200/person for a meal. While table density plays a role, the biggest issue is architects simply not caring about acoustics. It is a shame too, as it isn’t that hard to make a space functional without disrupting the “look.” A good acoustical consultant can do wonders for making a space bearable.
It is entirely under a public road. The only concern is people in Brentwood (ironically where Musk lives when he isn't sleeping on a factory floor somewhere) are concerned that dump truck might be going up and down streets somewhere.
Musk was willing to cancel because he has another idea for a proof-of-concept tunnel (Dodgers), and the Sepulveda tunnel likely only made sense if he could get it moving quickly. He needs a second tunnel to dig to try out his next generation TBM. He might just have to experiment with Chicago instead.
Personally, I am disappointed despite it being a half-baked route map. Anything that can get people off the 405 is a win in LA.
Get a refurb unit for $99. While you can bit-bang a serial modem, it is a heck of a lot more painless for something that abstracts links and addresses for you. Just depends on scale though. One light that you want on at dusk and off at dawn is no big deal to script on a Pi.
I used to feel the same way, but so many little things are so much simpler. It pissed me off to pay $50 for the functional equivalent of 'curl' in a network license... but after a month of dealing with stupid issues on the Pi, I broke down.