Isn't this need already met by the Bell V280 that the army already selected for it's Blackhawk replacement? What is the big innovation they are going for here?
+50% top speed over the V280. Bell offered it as an alternative to the V280 in the early stage of the contract, but it was judged too experimental (and probably too expensive). Apparently DARPA is funding further development of the concept.
Same, but also for the opposite reason: a new account gives me a chance to do better. If I post lame comments, I accept the lameness of the posts attached to a particular user name and the hesitation I feel to post more lame comments decreases. With a fresh identity, I am more likely to avoid lame posting sort of like how you avoid going out in the mud in brand new sneakers. A sort of repentance; being born again in the digital realm.
Do people really think like that? I see the other people at my company as human beings solving complex problems whether they are an engineer, a manager, an exec, or HR.
I think a big reason is that, just like dating apps, they don’t want you to get a job. They want you to stay on the site and load ads/pay a subscription.
Recruiters are the opposite; they're often incentivized to get you the job. But in the case of recruiter bonuses, the hirer is biased to hiring a slightly worse applicant that doesn't cost the recruiter fee.
I understand your reasoning, but in practicality, I don't think this is true. This would be true if companies though with a coherent set of incentives. Instead, individual incentives are at-play here.
If a company is paying for a recruiter, it usually means:
- It isn't highly cash constrained
- Values the time of its IC's, managers and HR more than the fee
- Valuation for the role is not cost-based, but value-based
- Only at the penny pinching startup stage is the recruiter fee a real factor in a multi-year investment that should be yielding a high return. Beyond that, the bias evaporates and the real incentives lie with individual incentives, and available budgets.
I had fun with those because they only care about the quality of the writing not the content so I would make sure that none of my facts or references were real.
The worst thing you can do is fixate on it. To avoid that, you want to make it so that you never hear it. Play some noise whenever you need it especially when sleeping. Then, over time, learn to accept it. And then the craziest thing happens: it does actually get better. You don’t just get used to it, it actually improves. It’s a profound connection of mind and body.
I know and love the Acoup Blog, and the premise of the story does not contradict what Acoup says. In fact, if you look carefully, there is an Easter egg hidden somewhere in the story about the Acoup Blog.
I'm not sure that's really the case. The fundamental issue with the idea of a Roman Industrial Revolution isn't that Rome didn't have the technical antecedents (although that's still a big issue), but rather that the Industrial Revolution only solves problems that Rome didn't have.
One of the big, if easy, mistakes to make about history is to assume that a historical society is just like modern society at a lower tech level. Bret Devereaux is fond of dunking on George R. R. Martin's question "but what was Aragon's tax policy like?" as malformed because Gondor is a polity that doesn't really have the capacity to have a tax policy in the first place (it's pretty clearly modeled off of something like the Byzantine state). Not that Tolkien is immune from this either--the Shire suffers from being a Victorian-era English countryside being transplanted to a ~15th century tech level.
I don’t think Iran ever thought their defenses would do jack in a full on invasion. They thought (rightfully) that their defenses would force the US to go all in if they wanted to do anything significant.
This is like /r/wallstreetbets loss porn. Why is he posting his own idiocy for clout? I can only guess it's fake and he's trying to gin up rage engagement. It's certainly working on here.
reply