Just that Jobs turned a company from the brink of failure to the most successful tech company pretty quickly. But since Apple is an outlier, I was interested in hearing about any other examples of CEOs who have caused big improvements in short amounts of time.
It took Jobs a while to turn Apple around. He was brought back on in 1997 and profits were relatively minimal for almost a decade. It wasn't until the release of the iPhone that they really started to soar.
I can think of a few faster turnarounds: Lee Iacocca at Chrysler or Gerstner at IBM. Howard Schulz is another example of a founder returning to the company to turn it around.
Some of these have done a better job than others of lasting through the turnaround CEO (and others it's too soon to tell).
Have a look at Good to Great. It's basically breaking down the qualities that make for the best CEO's, and the results are as research based as they could get, and also deliver some interesting conclusions.
"The future is always hard to predict, and understanding the past is valuable; on the other hand, the implicit message of these business books is that the principles that these companies use not only have made them good in the past, but position them for continued success."
> It's interesting to think I can throw an f/1.8 lens on my DSLR and take a very shallow depth of field photo, which is OK, even though it's not very representative of what my eyes saw
I beg to differ. Pictures with a shallow depth of field feel more real because that is how the eyes work naturally. Hold up your hand at full arms length, and focus on it with your eyes. Everything else around it is blurred.
You’re both right, to some degree. While you are correct that the eyes focus at a certain depth, much like a camera, the difference is that we can chose to focus at any depth (assuming good eyesight). This is not true of a photograph if it has no depth. (It’s also true that, if the photograph has both fore and background in focus, edges may be harder to pick out and depth harder to discern, even though we would have no trouble with our own eyes. That’s the basis of much trick photography, after all!)
All photos are unnatural. To quote the artist (and, dare I say, photographer) David Hockney: “I mean, photography is all right if you don’t mind looking at the world from the point of view of a paralyzed cyclops—for a split second.”
At risk of this becoming too long-winded, allow me to point out another “normal” variable of photography that is wholly unnatural (beyond the issue of focus and the fact that one moment is extended to infinity): Shutter speeds faster than 1/150s or slower than 0.5s. Our own eyes will never see the individual blade of a helicopter so clearly as a simple iPhone camera will when shot against a bright sky. Nor will naked eye see a waterfall as a blurry, peaceful average the way a long exposure portrays it.
Dynamic range too. Modern digital sensors are just now approaching dynamic range similar to that of the "instantaneous" dynamic range of human eyes, but as you mentioned we don't really see images instantaneous as a camera does and what we "see" (when you include brain processing) is really essentially a stack of everything we've seen up to as much as the previous 15 seconds; and when you take that into account even the best cameras are still way off on DR.
I talk with a lot of people about getting started with standing desks, and I usually recommend throwing a small cheap table (ikea) on top of your existing desk and getting a drafting chair (tall). This way you don't have to pay for a variable height desk, and you keep it on the cheap side to see if you actually like it. Also, be sure to start slow and stand for maybe an hour or two a day for a few weeks. Then gradually stand more and more.
This new tech is not in general as strong as fiber woven in sheets. The claim they make is that it's "1/3 the strength of the best carbon fiber composites made today" and that to test this they measured resistance to bending "in the preferred fiber orientation" Their process lays down continuous strands along each layer but by its nature can't lay strands on the Z axis. So if you have a part that needs to be strong in every direction, this may not entirely solve your problem. It solves some of the problem, for some use cases.
(It also looks like it ought to be ridiculously slow.)
This is an important point. The direction of the fibers makes a big difference. The basic method of strengthening carbon fiber weave (which is weaved at 90degree angles) is to alternate the layers so that they are 45 degrees apart, if laying up a normal flat part. When I created a longboard (similar to Boosted Boards in length) it was still very flexible, even with this method. The small part shown in the video is hard to bend, but so would a wooden part that small.
If they add a second arm with a second carbon fiber spool, they will be able to do some amount of weaving. That would boost the applications of their product significantly, IMHO.
Two problems. The software for that is hard - it would take it out of the realm of "existing software modified for our machine" to "new algorithms". Second problem - it still wouldn't be able to do the standard carbon fiber weave (or the twill weave, for that matter).
Ever since I started using Simple, I haven't worried too much about my card info getting stolen and used without me realizing. I instantly get a push notification whenever my card is charged, so I am mentally confirming every time I spend.
Not that I don't like what Simple is doing, but American Express, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, etc.. all have the capability to receive an email when your card is charged either by swipe or electronically.