It has to do with the culture of the company you're working for.
Professional companies are stereotyped to suits and ties, and company attire is often part of company dress code.
Tech companies are stereotyped to kids and what they wear, and company dress code (if it exists) is often super-lax except for executives -- because the executives need to interact with Professional companies and look the part.
There's a lot of in-between, and it really depends on what company you work for and somewhat to what company you want to work for.
> I’ve worked with hundreds of startups over the last 20 years.
That's averaging 5 startups every year. How can you get good experience, or even truly understand a business, if you're averaging just around two months at a company or multiple companies in the same period?
He said "worked with" not "worked at." Likely as a contractor. And if so it's not uncommon for some projects to be very short while others might take 10-20% of your time for 2-3 years. Plenty of time to gather domain knowledge especially if clients are clustered in the same industry.
I think there's high value in understanding and experiencing zero gravity in a relatively low-risk mission.
Forget Mars. I'd love to live in space. Having people in space would solve a lot of Earthly problems (and yes create a whole bunch of new ones). But it'd be cool.
Is there a problem with things being cool even if perhaps low-valued by other measures of value?
How is living in space meaningfully different from living in a submersible in the ocean (apart from the view)?
You would think we would get really good at the latter before going after the former, and yet I see no interest from people wanting to live in a (shallowly submersed) submarine. It would also be an order of magnitude less expensive and dangerous.
Heck, we can barely build permanent settlements in many places on Earth like Antarctica and deep inside many deserts. And, here we have 1G gravity, 1bar breathable air pressure, a magnetic field and shielding from radiation. We don't have any of that outside of Earth.
If we can't build, say, a 10K-person inhabited city on the south pole, how can we even imagine we can build it on the moon or Mars?
Can't agree more. There needs to be something like, a Manhattan sized building in the middle of Africa, with an air-cooled nuke in the center, and a fully self contained modern city, complete with suburban forests, inside. If that isn't going to work for any reasons other than for environmental protection, so wouldn't a Mars settlement.
> How is living in space meaningfully different from living in a submersible in the ocean (apart from the view)?
Just off the top of my head:
- different ability to re-stock
You could re-stock your submersible just about anywhere. You're going to have to do a lot more planning for your groceries when you go in space though.
- access to microgravity
This simply isn't available in a submersible. Microgravity provides some interesting manufacturing and biological capabilities.
- completely different pressure profiles
Combining different pressure environments in microgravity is particularly interesting to me.
- different instrumentation capabilities
It's not just the view -- the atmosphere plays merry hell with instruments when measuring the cosmos. And it does so in ways that just aren't relevant to underwater environments.
Have you seen what happens to people who live in zero gravity for long periods of time? It doesn't sound fun. I do get the appeal of wanting to experience it for a short period of time, though.
I would also say that scuba diving is probably the closest you can get to experiencing anything close to zero gravity on Earth.
Any space colony intended for long term habitation would create artificial gravity through centrifugal force. It's completely doable using materials sourced from the Moon and near-Earth asteroids; there are design studies dating back over fifty years.
Global population growth is still measured in the tens of millions. We're a ways off from launching anywhere near a meaningful number of people into space in terms of current terrestrial population.
> People don't want to be cycling their batteries and reducing their life.
More battery cycles just costs money. For the right price, I'd do it.
But more than that: I don't want to be stranded without power in my vehicle because someone in the electric grid made poor power management decisions and decided to offload that decision to consumers.
as with anything, it's not just money. Losing battery capacity in an EV is a hassle. A hassle because you charge more frequently, a hassle because you will eventually need a battery change, and so on. What is the price of all that hassle?
That said, most EV incentive programs use around 10% (often less) of an EV battery capacity so the actual effects are barely noticeable.
And since lots of EV batteries seem to lose capacity very slowly after the first 10-15%, and you can keep your battery trading in the happiest range, there's a lot of potential for the extra hassle to be worth the paycheck.
A few years ago, T-Mobile's website actively blocked Firefox in Private Browsing mode. I filed an FCC complaint about that because I could not pay online and was being charged $5 to pay over the phone.
> Gunfire is insanely loud. Even a little .22 is louder than the apparent volume of heavier rounds in most film and TV. It's one of those things people can have entirely the wrong idea about if their only exposure to it is media.
Part of that is because the sound volume is just so drastically different compared to normally talking; microphones have trouble with it, audio amplifiers end up clipping [0], and most speakers would blow out if the amp didn't clip (especially for the larger guns). And, assuming none of that happened then, just as you would have on a gun deck, your listeners' ears would be damaged. So the sound of gunfire in media is quieted.
Most people simply aren't around guns in the first place, let alone firing guns (eg, going to a gun range with friends/family/etc even if you don't own a gun), to understand just how much media misrepresents it.
I was working as a janitor, moonlighting as an IT director, in 2010. Back then I told the business that laptops for the past five years (roughly since Nehalem) have plenty of horsepower to run spreadsheets (which is basically all they do) with two cores, 16 GB of RAM, and a 500GB SATA SSD. A couple of users in marketing did need something a little (not much) beefier. Saved a bunch of money by not buying the latest-and-greatest laptops.
I don't work there any more. Today I am convinced that's true today: those computers should still be great for spreadsheets. Their workflow hasn't seriously changed. It's the software that has. If they've continued with updates (can it even "run" MS Windows 10 or 11 today? No idea, I've since moved on to Linux) then there's a solid chance that the amount of bloat and especially move to online-only spreadsheets would tank their productivity.
Further, the internet at that place was terrible. The only offerings were ~16Mbit asynchronous DSL (for $300/mo just because it's a "business", when I could get the same speed for $80/mo at home), or Comcast cable 120Mbit for $500/mo. 120Mbit is barely enough to get by with an online-only spreadsheet, and 16Mbit definitely not. But worse: if internet goes down, then the business ceases to function.
This is the real theft that another commenter [0] mentioned that I wholeheartedly agree with. There's no reason whatsoever that a laptop running spreadsheets in an office environment should require internet to edit and update spreadsheets, or crazy amounts of compute/storage, or even huge amounts of bandwidth.
Computers today have zero excuse for terrible performance except only to offload costs onto customers - private persons and businesses alike.
Professional companies are stereotyped to suits and ties, and company attire is often part of company dress code.
Tech companies are stereotyped to kids and what they wear, and company dress code (if it exists) is often super-lax except for executives -- because the executives need to interact with Professional companies and look the part.
There's a lot of in-between, and it really depends on what company you work for and somewhat to what company you want to work for.
reply