After doing moderate strength training in these areas along with core exercises as part of a cross training class (2x a week) my back pain that I’ve had for over a decade dissapeared.
I read a letter in the Financial Times over the weekend...
> Forty years ago, when studying for my engineering degree, I learnt a rule of thumb that said that nuclear fusion is always 20 years away. I was therefore reassured by the date given in the report (“Sites sought for Step change in energy supply”, December 3) for the Step nuclear fusion plant — 2040.
Whenever I see this graph, I wonder what’s supposed to represent. Total world investment in fusion, total world government spending, only US spending, or maybe only the part of the US Department of Energy earmarked for fusion research?
It probably is the last one, considering that the enacted 2012 budget of the US DOE for Fusion Energy Sciences was $401 MM ([1], p 16).
But then, why is only the US DOE supposed to invest in fusion?
In any case, as of 2020, this budget was increased to $671 MM [2].
That graph was for a crash program under the assumption that tokamaks work better than it turns out they do.
So, if that money had been allocated, it would have been a failure. There was also not the appreciation then of the grave nature of the engineering challenges facing fusion, even if the plasma physics worked wonderfully.
The implication that we'd have had fusion if that money had been spent is not supported by the evidence.
Yeap. This is the real answer. I guarantee you, if every government of the world came together and everyone said, "Okay, we're all going to pitch in 1% of GDP until we crack this thing," we'd have nuclear fusion in under 10 years.
Turns out doing cutting edge science is expensive... Jesus Christ, who knew?!
Both ITER is scheduled to be done and SPARC are trying to make net energy in 5 years. They probably won't hit those dates, but we aren't really talking about 20 years anymore. (I agree with several commenters on this thread that any project with a 20 years to completion timeline should be shelved for things with <10 year timelines).
We used Hired to great success 4-5 years ago in Austin but overtime the quality of candidate went down. At a dinner with our account rep early on he said they spent $20k to acquire each candidate. Their pricing structure at the time was more like $25k/yr for 20 introductions/mo. My best guess is that over time they blew through all of their cash and had to spend a lot less on acquiring and vetting talent. At some point in the last two years they priced their product similarly to what a retained recruiter would (I don’t remember exactly but it was either 20k per hired candidate or 20% or first years salary), and they weren’t competitive
I can't remember the source, but I learned this in a management class in college about 10 years ago. It was a general statement about learning something new. You don't know what your don't know (so you are optimistic) -> You realize you know nothing (so you are negative) -> Then you get better with practice -> Mastery
We use Keen a lot on our engineering team. In our case we send them a lot of a events, but only query a few dozen times a month. However those queries are done in times when we need to quickly query data. Saved our ass a few times since started using it. They have libs on all of the languages we use. There is no excuse for a frontend dev or backend dev on any team to just log as much data as they can. That's the key...the barrier is low enough where there really is no excuse AND you don't have dev ops screaming at you sending too much data.
Most of our non technical people can't use the dashboard (I think this is from lack of effort rather than something wrong on Keen's side), but it is powerful and easy to use. Someone doesn't have to know SQL or Hadoop to get what they want.
Anyways YMMV but we have really liked using it.
EDIT: like others have posted want to also say that they have great customer service. Have had no issues but feel like they have made sure I could get in touch if I needed to
It's an equality vs liberty issue. Either my free speech is violated because you have more money to voice your side, or my speech is violated because the government isn't letting me express my views by buying an advertisement. My point is that there is a tradeoff. Surrounding any different issue you have different people on different sides of the scale. i.e. you don't like the person buying the advertisement so it is undemocratic OR I am very passionate about the issue but the government won't let me spend money to advocate my position.
This is how the WTO is able to enforce its regulations. Because the WTO can't actually forced a country to pay another for unfair trade practices (the WTO doesn't have an army), the WTO is allowed to permit winning plaintiffs to break agreements or enact retaliatory tarrifs to recoup losses[1]
It comes down to comparative advantage[2]: Countries are better off by opening up free trade and thus have an incentive to keep things relatively open. The WTO acts as intermediary to prevent an arms race of tariffs and retaliatory actions that end up hurting countries in the long run. It seems ironic because the WTO is letting another country enact a retaliatory tariff but for the most part the WTO is one of the more effective global institutions at enforcing its principal.
There is a lot more nuance but I hope this helps explain this a little more.
After doing moderate strength training in these areas along with core exercises as part of a cross training class (2x a week) my back pain that I’ve had for over a decade dissapeared.