Hyperloop startup Arrivo is shutting down as workers are laid off(theverge.com)
theverge.com
Hyperloop startup Arrivo is shutting down as workers are laid off
https://www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2018/12/14/18128848/hyperloop-arrivo-furloughs-layoffs-money-trouble
98 comments
I don't know if BamBrogan is an "unstable guy" or not. But I'm not at all sure your summary "who was ousted form Hyperloop one by the whole board and officers" is accurate based on what was reported at the time.
For example, from an article in Wired [1]:
> The lawsuit against Hyperloop One includes a security camera image of a man, apparently Afshin Pishevar, holding rope and walking through the office. BamBrogan allegedly found a noose on his desk after complaining about company operations.
The axe is the only thing that seems weird, everything else you quoted can easily be explained by the fact that they'd failed to secure more funding and had to shut down even though they didn't want to. Many of us on Hacker News have no doubt experienced this kind of situation first hand.
Also I should mention that although Arrivo was started by ex-Hyperloop One people they were definitely not doing a hyperloop system.
[1] https://www.wired.com/2016/07/hyperloop-lawsuit-brogan-bambr...
For example, from an article in Wired [1]:
> The lawsuit against Hyperloop One includes a security camera image of a man, apparently Afshin Pishevar, holding rope and walking through the office. BamBrogan allegedly found a noose on his desk after complaining about company operations.
The axe is the only thing that seems weird, everything else you quoted can easily be explained by the fact that they'd failed to secure more funding and had to shut down even though they didn't want to. Many of us on Hacker News have no doubt experienced this kind of situation first hand.
Also I should mention that although Arrivo was started by ex-Hyperloop One people they were definitely not doing a hyperloop system.
[1] https://www.wired.com/2016/07/hyperloop-lawsuit-brogan-bambr...
I total get the stress of getting funding or not - been there myself this past year.
But axes and nooses are not normal. What kind of passive-aggressive childish behavior is this? How about sitting down and talk business like adults, state and TALK about each person's perspective of things, and not go psycho? Ousting maybe normal, but if things were normal, the usual news wouldn't be "ousted" - the worse language is usually "parted ways with disagreement".
But axes and nooses are not normal. What kind of passive-aggressive childish behavior is this? How about sitting down and talk business like adults, state and TALK about each person's perspective of things, and not go psycho? Ousting maybe normal, but if things were normal, the usual news wouldn't be "ousted" - the worse language is usually "parted ways with disagreement".
Neither of them are normal, but they're not the same thing. The allegation is that BamBrogan was the target in the noose incident, and there is some security footage which seems to corroborate it. In the axe incident BamBrogan allegedly took the axe to the office wall. That's pretty crazy but so far nobody has claimed he was trying to intimidate somebody else. In this case it's maybe interesting to note that it wasn't just any axe, but rather "The CEO [BamBrogan] had built the axe at Jeff Bezos’ MARS conference this past spring." [1]
The guy definitely seems flamboyant, but that's not the same as unstable. I mean he might be unstable too, but I don't think one can draw that conclusion from the reporting.
[1] https://www.theverge.com/2018/12/14/18128848/hyperloop-arriv...
The guy definitely seems flamboyant, but that's not the same as unstable. I mean he might be unstable too, but I don't think one can draw that conclusion from the reporting.
[1] https://www.theverge.com/2018/12/14/18128848/hyperloop-arriv...
Hyper loop tech is something that I simply don't understand. Is maintaining a vacuum inside a close loop really cheaper than electrifying a rail system? I would imagine it takes a lot more energy to decompress and maintain a vacuum in a loop at significant distances than just electrify the rail network.
Arrivo weren't really a vacuum system, at least for the last year or so.
But the thing is that electrified rail networks doesn't address the quadratically increasing losses from drag at high speeds. There's a reason you don't see railroads operating at airline speeds: drag at sea level is a killer. In fact, at high enough speeds, the energy of air travel is actually LOWER than that of a sea level train.\
Altitude gives you a lot of efficiency. The idea of the vacuum train is to bring that efficiency down to sea level. And I think it's a good idea, but a real engineering challenge. In principle, you can keep a vacuum pretty easily. Vacuum tubes remain sealed and evacuated for decades without energy consumption, for instance.
It's just at the interfaces you have to worry about leakage, and there it's a matter of careful sealing. It's possible to get really good at it. The International Space Station is full of interfaces (and thermal cycling every 90 minutes) and would quickly run out of air if we didn't know how to maintain a vacuum well at interfaces.
But the thing is that electrified rail networks doesn't address the quadratically increasing losses from drag at high speeds. There's a reason you don't see railroads operating at airline speeds: drag at sea level is a killer. In fact, at high enough speeds, the energy of air travel is actually LOWER than that of a sea level train.\
Altitude gives you a lot of efficiency. The idea of the vacuum train is to bring that efficiency down to sea level. And I think it's a good idea, but a real engineering challenge. In principle, you can keep a vacuum pretty easily. Vacuum tubes remain sealed and evacuated for decades without energy consumption, for instance.
It's just at the interfaces you have to worry about leakage, and there it's a matter of careful sealing. It's possible to get really good at it. The International Space Station is full of interfaces (and thermal cycling every 90 minutes) and would quickly run out of air if we didn't know how to maintain a vacuum well at interfaces.
> drag at sea level is a killer.
Yes. Apparently when jet turbines came along they were discounted as ever being useful for commercial/passenger airplanes because they were so incredibly inefficient. I mean, really incredibly inefficient.
What they didn't take into account is that the turbines allow you to fly at much, much higher altitudes. The reduced drag there more than makes up for the lower efficiency. And gets you a smoother ride and higher speeds as well.
Modern turbofan engines are much more efficient, but that's basically because they really are turbo-props with enclosed propellers, though we call them "high bypass turbofans".
And of course if jets have to drop to a lower altitude, for example because their cabin has become depressurised, range is drastically reduced.
Yes. Apparently when jet turbines came along they were discounted as ever being useful for commercial/passenger airplanes because they were so incredibly inefficient. I mean, really incredibly inefficient.
What they didn't take into account is that the turbines allow you to fly at much, much higher altitudes. The reduced drag there more than makes up for the lower efficiency. And gets you a smoother ride and higher speeds as well.
Modern turbofan engines are much more efficient, but that's basically because they really are turbo-props with enclosed propellers, though we call them "high bypass turbofans".
And of course if jets have to drop to a lower altitude, for example because their cabin has become depressurised, range is drastically reduced.
They're turboprops, but they're turboprops that don't have the speed limit imposed by the need to keep propeller blade tips from exceeding the speed of sound.
>In principle, you can keep a vacuum pretty easily.
Keeping a vacuum over a length of hundreds of km is pretty hard, and in fact, has never been done.
Keeping a vacuum over a length of hundreds of km is pretty hard, and in fact, has never been done.
But it has been done at a length of 26.7km, for the LHC.
We also maintain very high pressure pipelines over even longer distances. So, that part is really not a huge leap.
High vacuum like the LHC would be hard, but that’s vast overkill. Even the equivalent of just 100,000 feet would be enough for super sonic trains.
High vacuum like the LHC would be hard, but that’s vast overkill. Even the equivalent of just 100,000 feet would be enough for super sonic trains.
Depends on the train-to-tunnel area ratio surely? If it's a close fit like the London underground you'll get a lot more drag on a train at 100k feet than you would on a plan at 100k feet.
You would need some clearance but not that much.
Commercial aircraft fly at ~30,000 feet which is ~30% atm vs ~1% atm at 100,000 feet. That’s edge of space territory, but sill a long way from LHC style vacuums.
https://www.avs.org/AVS/files/c7/c7edaedb-95b2-438f-adfb-36d...
PS: In terms of force it makes little difference as you go to ever lower fractions, but it’s much harder to maintain and pump down the pressure as you keep going lower.
Commercial aircraft fly at ~30,000 feet which is ~30% atm vs ~1% atm at 100,000 feet. That’s edge of space territory, but sill a long way from LHC style vacuums.
https://www.avs.org/AVS/files/c7/c7edaedb-95b2-438f-adfb-36d...
PS: In terms of force it makes little difference as you go to ever lower fractions, but it’s much harder to maintain and pump down the pressure as you keep going lower.
I think they were referring to the fact the air has to move out of the way, and in a tunnel there's less space for the air to move to, thus the drag is higher especially if the cross section of the vehicle is near the cross section of the tunnel.
It’s something to consider, but you need actual numbers to do so. Are we taking 1/3 Atmospheric pressure and 3 inches of clearance vs 1/300th atmospheric pressure and 3 feet of clearance.
Really, nobody is going to build a system where this is a significant issue past the design stage. So, IMO it’s a consideration but a non issue.
Really, nobody is going to build a system where this is a significant issue past the design stage. So, IMO it’s a consideration but a non issue.
You're making a good point, but: What's the effect of leakage in both systems? And don't you need a bit larger pipes for a hyperloop? Other than that I do think the tech is applicable.
It’s mostly a question of cost. High pressure systems are only economic if they transport far more material than they leak, but some minor leaks are fairly trivial. If you talking coarse aka 7,600 micron aka 7.6 torr aka 1% atmospheric pressure you gain most of the value moving a train through an evacuated tube while still being able to use cheap and very fast pump systems to deal is lots of slow leaks. Making that kind of a vaccum tube even easier to maintain.
The LHC however deals with high vacuume becase they need particles to travel hundreds of miles without encountering any atmospheric particles. That would let trains reach orbital velocity without issue, but would be horrifically expensive.
Basicly 100% to 1% vacuume is considered rough/coarse and it cheap. 1% to 1 micron is the middle ground which is increasingly difficult but still not that bad. Under 1 micron aka High vacuume is expensive and mostly the realm of science experiments.
https://www.hydraulicspneumatics.com/200/TechZone/Vacuum/Art...
The LHC however deals with high vacuume becase they need particles to travel hundreds of miles without encountering any atmospheric particles. That would let trains reach orbital velocity without issue, but would be horrifically expensive.
Basicly 100% to 1% vacuume is considered rough/coarse and it cheap. 1% to 1 micron is the middle ground which is increasingly difficult but still not that bad. Under 1 micron aka High vacuume is expensive and mostly the realm of science experiments.
https://www.hydraulicspneumatics.com/200/TechZone/Vacuum/Art...
According to the cern website it is actually 50km but on a much smaller pipe. The total volume 15000 cubic meter. For a 11 feet wide tunnel it would be about 1.7 km long.
So the tunnel the LHC is in has a circumference of 26.7 km. But the LHC has two parallel beam lines running in opposite directions. I assume that’s where the discrepancy between our numbers came from. But both beam lines are in the same vacuum vessel.
[deleted]
Key point: at high speed.
If want to go 1000km in 3-4 hrs then you are the kind of problem hyperloop might solve.
If want to go 1000km in 3-4 hrs then you are the kind of problem hyperloop might solve.
You can do 1305km in 4h30 today:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beijing–Shanghai_high-speed_...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beijing–Shanghai_high-speed_...
Well, you've got some pretty good answers, but I'll give it a go as well.
No. There is no way that a similarly capable system will be remotely close in price to conventional rail. Musk's estimates were wildly optimistic at best, and the system he proposed would have a small fraction of the capacity of HSR, for example.
The advantage of a vacuum train (let's not pretend it is Musk's invention) is top speed. In some scenarios, this may be worthwhile, but it's natural comparison would be short haul flights, not passenger rail.
No. There is no way that a similarly capable system will be remotely close in price to conventional rail. Musk's estimates were wildly optimistic at best, and the system he proposed would have a small fraction of the capacity of HSR, for example.
The advantage of a vacuum train (let's not pretend it is Musk's invention) is top speed. In some scenarios, this may be worthwhile, but it's natural comparison would be short haul flights, not passenger rail.
I believe the plan was not total vacuum but only partial to avoid having to pull so far down. Also Hyperloop if it was built/buildable as designed is kind of the step beyond high speed rail.
There's no practical difference between a 'total vacuum' and 'partial vacuum' in this case.
God, what even is a "total vacuum"?
I don't understand it either. The difficult thing in any transport system like this is clearly the land and land rights. If you can't make that cheaper and easier to manage from a legal perspective than I don't see how a slightly better mode of transportation would offset it.
A high speed train can cause really nasty buffeting and acoustic pollution, extending the amount of landing buffer you need. This gets worse at high speed. A vacuum train eliminates that.
That's why tunneling would probably be a better choice than going overland, certainly cheaper at Japan's costs than California's.
Yeah except tunnelling is extremely expensive. It sounds cheap in theory - just buy a TBM, run it for a while right?
In practice it is so much more complicated. You have different soils, some that are water permeable - in Boston (I think) they solved that by literally freezing the ground. Does that sound cheap?
Then you have issues going under buildings (which you always are - otherwise why bother tunnelling?). All tunnelling disturbs the ground. When they built the Jubilee line extension under the houses of parliament they had to monitor how far Big Ben started leaning, and do something call "compensation grouting" to tip it back upright (basically you drill horizontal holes under it and pump concrete under it).
Tunnelling is just expensive. That's why it only happens where the alternative - building on land is very expensive.
In practice it is so much more complicated. You have different soils, some that are water permeable - in Boston (I think) they solved that by literally freezing the ground. Does that sound cheap?
Then you have issues going under buildings (which you always are - otherwise why bother tunnelling?). All tunnelling disturbs the ground. When they built the Jubilee line extension under the houses of parliament they had to monitor how far Big Ben started leaning, and do something call "compensation grouting" to tip it back upright (basically you drill horizontal holes under it and pump concrete under it).
Tunnelling is just expensive. That's why it only happens where the alternative - building on land is very expensive.
The vacuum lets you travel much faster, potentially much faster than planes.
The problem isn't keeping the vacuum, it's making the whole thing safe and relatively cheap at the same time.
It seems like it's almost impossible to do that above ground with thermal expansion issues and very easy terrorism. But doing it in a tunnel solves some problems. The evacuation is still a big problem.
The problem isn't keeping the vacuum, it's making the whole thing safe and relatively cheap at the same time.
It seems like it's almost impossible to do that above ground with thermal expansion issues and very easy terrorism. But doing it in a tunnel solves some problems. The evacuation is still a big problem.
Evacuation isn't a problem at all. This is what happens to a failing vacuum tube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0N17tEW_WEU
(note that the hyperloop will be a significantly higher vacuum. There would actually be little point in depressurizing a pipe to the level shown in the video. I hear this was done on mythbusters as well)
I think you'll agree after seeing the video: attempts to let people get out of that ... there's just no point. They'll be folded into an accordion before you can say cappuccino. Literally. Failures will propagate along such a pipe at close to the speed of sound. You wouldn't get through the first "c" of cappuccino.
You should restate the problem: the problem is the same as with trailer vs car crashes: pulling the various flattened and crushed together pieces of different people apart in a way that you'd be reasonably certain the right liter of goop recovered goes into the right casket, ideally with as little pieces of the pipe in there with them as possible.
An extra issue is that every way you might recover also fails given the forces involved. Let's say you let air in ? Well that's going to form a wall of air that'll hit with a speed, force and acceleration that is guaranteed to kill every passenger, just from the acceleration. More likely that too will fold them into an accordion.
This problem is like attempting to keep a plane intact during a crash. It can't be done, and even if you should succeed, there's no point: everyone inside will be dead from the acceleration.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0N17tEW_WEU
(note that the hyperloop will be a significantly higher vacuum. There would actually be little point in depressurizing a pipe to the level shown in the video. I hear this was done on mythbusters as well)
I think you'll agree after seeing the video: attempts to let people get out of that ... there's just no point. They'll be folded into an accordion before you can say cappuccino. Literally. Failures will propagate along such a pipe at close to the speed of sound. You wouldn't get through the first "c" of cappuccino.
You should restate the problem: the problem is the same as with trailer vs car crashes: pulling the various flattened and crushed together pieces of different people apart in a way that you'd be reasonably certain the right liter of goop recovered goes into the right casket, ideally with as little pieces of the pipe in there with them as possible.
An extra issue is that every way you might recover also fails given the forces involved. Let's say you let air in ? Well that's going to form a wall of air that'll hit with a speed, force and acceleration that is guaranteed to kill every passenger, just from the acceleration. More likely that too will fold them into an accordion.
This problem is like attempting to keep a plane intact during a crash. It can't be done, and even if you should succeed, there's no point: everyone inside will be dead from the acceleration.
I think they were using evacuation here to mean removing all the air from the tunnel in order to create the vacuum in the first place.
In theory cheaper to build (laying a dumb pre-manufactured pipe versus electrified rail) and cheaper to operate (build redundant vacuum stations). But yes, the main value prop is for areas with cheap (free?) electricity.
> laying a dumb pre-manufactured pipe
Which is extremely expensive because it has to withstand huge forces trying to crush it like a an empty coke can..
Hyperloop is neighter "cheap" or "easy" to create. Its approx. 10 times as expensive to operate than "Mad-Lev" trains and 100000x as deadly if something goes wrong.
Malfunction in electric train means that it has to stop.
Malfunction in Hyperloop means all passangers are dead.
---
Watch Thunderf00t rant about hyperloop and read his sources. This project is nothing more than a scam to fetch investors money.
Which is extremely expensive because it has to withstand huge forces trying to crush it like a an empty coke can..
Hyperloop is neighter "cheap" or "easy" to create. Its approx. 10 times as expensive to operate than "Mad-Lev" trains and 100000x as deadly if something goes wrong.
Malfunction in electric train means that it has to stop.
Malfunction in Hyperloop means all passangers are dead.
---
Watch Thunderf00t rant about hyperloop and read his sources. This project is nothing more than a scam to fetch investors money.
>>This project is nothing more than a scam to fetch investors money.
I'm unaware of Musk asking for any particular investment in a Hyperloop project. Most Hyperloop projects are independent parties working on the idea on their own volition. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
I'm unaware of Musk asking for any particular investment in a Hyperloop project. Most Hyperloop projects are independent parties working on the idea on their own volition. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
You're wrong when you assumed it is Musk' scam, it is not. But the idea of hyperloop is used by many as a bait to scam away investors money.
Any investor should know what they're getting into when investing in a high risk experiment like "Hyperloop". I'm just calling B.S. on it's some sort of scam.
Not to mention we have a working real world implementation of Maglev running at 550 - 600Km/hr in Japan. Not as fast as the theoretical 1000Km/Hr in hyperloop, but one is still in R&D while the other is actually running.
That is until Elon can proof he can manufacture the Tube much cheaper than layering the Mag-Lev track.
That is until Elon can proof he can manufacture the Tube much cheaper than layering the Mag-Lev track.
> Hyperloop is neighter "cheap" or "easy" to create. Its approx. 10 times as expensive to operate than "Mad-Lev" trains
Is this across the board? I'd imagine the cost estimates would differ depending on where the line would be located - on raised platforms, below ground, or at ground level e.g. a highway divider lane? Or is Hyperloop impractical for pretty much all of the use cases?
Is this across the board? I'd imagine the cost estimates would differ depending on where the line would be located - on raised platforms, below ground, or at ground level e.g. a highway divider lane? Or is Hyperloop impractical for pretty much all of the use cases?
Well hyperloop will be more expensive any place maglev is more expensive. If maglev costs $x to build above ground, and $5x to build underground, then hyperloop would cost $10x and $50x, would it not? (disregarding what the actual scaling factor is)
Thunderf00t is not a good source for hyperloop.
Thunderf00t is not a good source for a great deal of things.
IIRC his field is chemistry, yet he explained the batteries vs fuel problem in a wilfully ignorant way.
IIRC his field is chemistry, yet he explained the batteries vs fuel problem in a wilfully ignorant way.
Where did he go wrong in his criticism of Hyperloop?
All of the recent Elon Musk companies have been economically questionable if not for government subsidies.
I think it may make more sense for high speed package delivery, for example between FedEx hubs. Smaller diameter, no need to keep passengers live, and possibly much higher acceleration tolerance.
It's not about the motive power; it's about speed.
They may have shut down, but the hype is stil up.[1]
This wasn't a "hyperloop" at all. It was a private freeway toll lane scheme with self-driving in the toll lane. Like CALTRANS demonstrated with Demo 97 back in 1997.[2] They had self-driving in dedicated lanes working back then.
[1] https://www.arrivo-loop.com/ [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlZEeIC_2lI
This wasn't a "hyperloop" at all. It was a private freeway toll lane scheme with self-driving in the toll lane. Like CALTRANS demonstrated with Demo 97 back in 1997.[2] They had self-driving in dedicated lanes working back then.
[1] https://www.arrivo-loop.com/ [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlZEeIC_2lI
I hadn't seen this before, really cool. Found more information on Wikipedia:
> In 1991, the United States Congress passed the ISTEA Transportation Authorization bill, which instructed USDOT to "demonstrate an automated vehicle and highway system by 1997." The Federal Highway Administration took on this task, first with a series of Precursor Systems Analyses and then by establishing the National Automated Highway System Consortium (NAHSC). This cost-shared project was led by FHWA and General Motors, with Caltrans, Delco, Parsons Brinkerhoff, Bechtel, UC-Berkeley, Carnegie Mellon University, and Lockheed Martin as additional partners. Extensive systems engineering work and research culminated in Demo '97 on I-15 in San Diego, California, in which about 20 automated vehicles, including cars, buses, and trucks, were demonstrated to thousands of onlookers, attracting extensive media coverage. The demonstrations involved close-headway platooning intended to operate in segregated traffic, as well as "free agent" vehicles intended to operate in mixed traffic. Other carmakers were invited to demonstrate their systems, such that Toyota and Honda also participated. While the subsequent aim was to produce a system design to aid commercialization, the program was cancelled in the late 1990s due to tightening research budgets at USDOT. Overall funding for the program was in the range of $90 million. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_self-driving_cars)
7 years later there was the first DARPA Grand Challenge, where no cars completed successfully. There's a great episode of startup podcast with interviews of the original competitors: https://www.gimletmedia.com/startup/grand-challenge-season-6....
It's interesting to wonder whether and how much farther we'd be with self driving cars and computer vision in general if the government had continued to put its resources behind this project.
> In 1991, the United States Congress passed the ISTEA Transportation Authorization bill, which instructed USDOT to "demonstrate an automated vehicle and highway system by 1997." The Federal Highway Administration took on this task, first with a series of Precursor Systems Analyses and then by establishing the National Automated Highway System Consortium (NAHSC). This cost-shared project was led by FHWA and General Motors, with Caltrans, Delco, Parsons Brinkerhoff, Bechtel, UC-Berkeley, Carnegie Mellon University, and Lockheed Martin as additional partners. Extensive systems engineering work and research culminated in Demo '97 on I-15 in San Diego, California, in which about 20 automated vehicles, including cars, buses, and trucks, were demonstrated to thousands of onlookers, attracting extensive media coverage. The demonstrations involved close-headway platooning intended to operate in segregated traffic, as well as "free agent" vehicles intended to operate in mixed traffic. Other carmakers were invited to demonstrate their systems, such that Toyota and Honda also participated. While the subsequent aim was to produce a system design to aid commercialization, the program was cancelled in the late 1990s due to tightening research budgets at USDOT. Overall funding for the program was in the range of $90 million. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_self-driving_cars)
7 years later there was the first DARPA Grand Challenge, where no cars completed successfully. There's a great episode of startup podcast with interviews of the original competitors: https://www.gimletmedia.com/startup/grand-challenge-season-6....
It's interesting to wonder whether and how much farther we'd be with self driving cars and computer vision in general if the government had continued to put its resources behind this project.
With even minimal cooperation from the road, self-driving is far easier. Volvo wanted to drive magnetized nails into the pavement for better navigation in heavy snow.
Looking at it, CMU was involved (as well as Cal Berkeley), among academia, but required embedded transponders. This system is still very viable given that it would be cost effective on freeways where most of the miles are driven. It could have been a great transitional technology but DARPA went and distracted everyone with the great challenge and everyone wanted full autonomous navigation in unpredictable terrain...
> "Remaining employees were informed Friday via text messages"
What a rotten way to tell an employee that they just lost their job!
What a rotten way to tell an employee that they just lost their job!
It's a terrible way to learn that you are out of a job. But it's fairly common in the startup scene - especially for startups that fail. Sometimes, they don't even bother sending you the text. You just show up one day to work to see the lights are out and office equipment is gone.
i came back from a meeting at 3pm.
3:07 - guy in the cube next to me said "wtf, my email to you just bounced back?"
3:09 someone came with a box to escort me out of the building.
3:19 main client calls me on my mobile asking why emails to me are bouncing. i was the only contact and worker on the client's project. HR person wanted me out so bad they just cut me off without transitioning the client services to someone else.
3:07 - guy in the cube next to me said "wtf, my email to you just bounced back?"
3:09 someone came with a box to escort me out of the building.
3:19 main client calls me on my mobile asking why emails to me are bouncing. i was the only contact and worker on the client's project. HR person wanted me out so bad they just cut me off without transitioning the client services to someone else.
Well, did you take the client with you?
Basically yes. They contacted me after I left and brought their business to me.
Why, from the article, it seems like everybody knew the company was struggling? What is the advantage of delivering in person? In fact, getting such news in person can be more awkward as you have to mask your emotion and pretend in front of them that it is not big deal. What hurts is the fact that they are losing their job, not the fact that the news came by text message.
It is awkward to fire people and should be. The point of doing it in person is to let the employee know that they’re a human being who is worth the effort of spending 10 min in-person to talk about the lay-off.
Believe it or not, some people care whether they were thought of as a person or just a “human resource” on a spreadsheet.
Believe it or not, some people care whether they were thought of as a person or just a “human resource” on a spreadsheet.
Yes, shutting down a company with 30 employees shouldn't just be some abstract financial transaction to the founders. They should understand that it has significant implications for the people involved.
Believe it or not some people would prefer to be let go in a text message
I would rather not have the Face to Face conversation, I would rather not have to drive all way into the office just for them to tell me I no longer have a job, I would rather save that time.
Of course I also view employment different than most people as I do not have an attachment to it, I trade my labor for money, that is all. I do not have personal effects in my office, nor do I intermingle personal things with work things (i.e having personal emails sent to my work address, or signing up for personal accounts with my work address, or using work computers to store personal files)
If I am let go this week, I have ample savings to carry me until my next job, and I have nothing at the office I need or want to retrieve.
I was looking for a job when I found my current job, and if they no longer desire my labor some other company will.
Send me a email detailing any Severance Package, and any other details, and save me the trouble and awkwardness of having to talk to you in person.... Of course Introverted personality with almost no emotions
I would rather not have the Face to Face conversation, I would rather not have to drive all way into the office just for them to tell me I no longer have a job, I would rather save that time.
Of course I also view employment different than most people as I do not have an attachment to it, I trade my labor for money, that is all. I do not have personal effects in my office, nor do I intermingle personal things with work things (i.e having personal emails sent to my work address, or signing up for personal accounts with my work address, or using work computers to store personal files)
If I am let go this week, I have ample savings to carry me until my next job, and I have nothing at the office I need or want to retrieve.
I was looking for a job when I found my current job, and if they no longer desire my labor some other company will.
Send me a email detailing any Severance Package, and any other details, and save me the trouble and awkwardness of having to talk to you in person.... Of course Introverted personality with almost no emotions
That's the ideal scenario - you have enough money to be unemployed for a while, you get a severance package, and you're in high demand so people readily hire you. Many people don't have that.
I understand that not everyone can, but I also understand that people commonly over extend themselves by attempting to "keep up with the jones" or to project their status as a "high earner" but getting that large home, or brand new luxury car.
I also attempt to make myself very marketable by being a generalist instead of specializing in any one area, I have a wide range of skills that can be applied to a large number of industries.
I also live a somewhat minimalist life style so if needed I could massively downsize my expenses, currently my "Must have to live" expenses total about 60% of my income (and that is high because in the last year I acquired some new assets normally I run less than 50%) , that is my mortgage, utilities, auto expenses, food, etc. I could in theory take a 35% pay cut, it would impact my ability to save for retirement, and my hobbies but not my everyday life.
I think most people could have that level of security as well, with proper budgeting and self control, most people however want the nicest home that they pay 5-10x their annual salary for (my home is under 2x my annual salary), most want the fancy new car, I drive a reasonable used car cheap to maintain, and insure. I do not eat out often, I grow some of my own food, in fact for 2019 my goal is to get down to a food budget of less than $7 per day, I am much higher than that right now.
the point is, having a rainy day fund for job loss should be a higher priority than it is for people, i wish I would have learned that less in my 20's instead of in my mid 30's it would have saved me lost of pain.
Anything less than 6mos of expenses should be alarming to people. 3mos being the absolute bare minimum, and should be kept in a high yield cash savings account.
I also attempt to make myself very marketable by being a generalist instead of specializing in any one area, I have a wide range of skills that can be applied to a large number of industries.
I also live a somewhat minimalist life style so if needed I could massively downsize my expenses, currently my "Must have to live" expenses total about 60% of my income (and that is high because in the last year I acquired some new assets normally I run less than 50%) , that is my mortgage, utilities, auto expenses, food, etc. I could in theory take a 35% pay cut, it would impact my ability to save for retirement, and my hobbies but not my everyday life.
I think most people could have that level of security as well, with proper budgeting and self control, most people however want the nicest home that they pay 5-10x their annual salary for (my home is under 2x my annual salary), most want the fancy new car, I drive a reasonable used car cheap to maintain, and insure. I do not eat out often, I grow some of my own food, in fact for 2019 my goal is to get down to a food budget of less than $7 per day, I am much higher than that right now.
the point is, having a rainy day fund for job loss should be a higher priority than it is for people, i wish I would have learned that less in my 20's instead of in my mid 30's it would have saved me lost of pain.
Anything less than 6mos of expenses should be alarming to people. 3mos being the absolute bare minimum, and should be kept in a high yield cash savings account.
> Of course Introverted personality with almost no emotions
I know that people like you exist and understand your position. However, people running companies should use an approach that works for the lowest common denominator. People like you are somewhat rare.
I know that people like you exist and understand your position. However, people running companies should use an approach that works for the lowest common denominator. People like you are somewhat rare.
It's not just about introverted people with less emotions. There are people who have more emotions that would rather deal with it through text e.g. because they can't stop themselves from shedding tears even though they know it doesn't really matter, and would like to save themselves from the awkwardness.
> people running companies should use an approach that works for the lowest common denominator.
No. They should use the best approach for that particular person. If they don't know what that is then IMO a respectful e-mail is the best way.
> people running companies should use an approach that works for the lowest common denominator.
No. They should use the best approach for that particular person. If they don't know what that is then IMO a respectful e-mail is the best way.
> People like you are somewhat rare.
Data needed.
Data needed.
I need data that people with "almost no emotions" are less common than people with emotions?
I think you're implying the less orthodox scenario and the burden of proof is on you.
I think you're implying the less orthodox scenario and the burden of proof is on you.
I'm not defending this startup specifically. But, in general, I dislike this attitude because:
The first point is that it wastes everybody's time. This also applies when a recruiter letting us know the interview result. The recruiters love to make us feel like we are human. I actually feel the opposite.
When a recruiter wanted to let me know the interview result, they would send an email to schedule a call. Then, the call would have to happen in the next few days instead. This occurred during the time I was interviewing with 7 companies and trying to juggling deadlines and offers. Just fcking tell me the result.
Another point is that this kind of attitude doesn't account for "diversity" of preferences. I admit that different people would want prefer different things. But why do we default to the way that wastes the most time? Just send an email that I am fired and offer to schedule a time to talk. If I want to talk, I'll schedule the time.
Please don't see me as a "human resource". But, more importantly, please do NOT waste my time.
The first point is that it wastes everybody's time. This also applies when a recruiter letting us know the interview result. The recruiters love to make us feel like we are human. I actually feel the opposite.
When a recruiter wanted to let me know the interview result, they would send an email to schedule a call. Then, the call would have to happen in the next few days instead. This occurred during the time I was interviewing with 7 companies and trying to juggling deadlines and offers. Just fcking tell me the result.
Another point is that this kind of attitude doesn't account for "diversity" of preferences. I admit that different people would want prefer different things. But why do we default to the way that wastes the most time? Just send an email that I am fired and offer to schedule a time to talk. If I want to talk, I'll schedule the time.
Please don't see me as a "human resource". But, more importantly, please do NOT waste my time.
Disgruntled (ex-)employees are occasionally a hazard to company assets, and execs are afraid of mass disgruntlement :-)
It is an AMP page, bad taste, why not the normal link ?
https://www.theverge.com/2018/12/14/18128848/hyperloop-arriv...
https://www.theverge.com/2018/12/14/18128848/hyperloop-arriv...
I personally prefer AMP. it's smoother, cleaner , faster. I know that some in HN community are against AMP (rightly so) but I don't think it's in bad taste for anyone to post a AMP link.
Can we just get trains even half as good as in Japan here in the US. A high speed train (not hyperloop speeds) connecting the east coast cities together all the way down to Miami, for example would be huge. Doing Boston to DC in just ~3 hours would be amazing. And would beat the airports easily.
Maybe in hindsight I'll be eating my words when they figure out how to actually build these hyper loops and we will all be traveling really fast with them, but I'm a bit more skeptical than that, and a good solution seems to exist already.
Maybe in hindsight I'll be eating my words when they figure out how to actually build these hyper loops and we will all be traveling really fast with them, but I'm a bit more skeptical than that, and a good solution seems to exist already.
Need to buy it its own track since the cargo rails actually pay for themselves and have a lot of other infrastructure tied to them. I get the feeling it would actually be easier to get the land for a hyperloop (cool new thing, quieter, and no chance of hitting someone).
You could have no chance of hitting someone by using fences along track like in the U.K. plus platform edge doors (so that nobody is ever exposed to the railway in any legitimate circumstance), or raised/tunnelled track where maintained fences aren’t a possibility. You could even use drones to monitor your fence, for another cool factor.
People would have similar concerns about the visual pollution of Hyperloop vs fencing, and auditory pollution can be solved by correctly maintained sound barriers (even trees!).
People would have similar concerns about the visual pollution of Hyperloop vs fencing, and auditory pollution can be solved by correctly maintained sound barriers (even trees!).
You could have no chance of hitting someone by using fences along track like in the U.K.
Those aren't exactly 100% effective through lack of maintenance, stupidity, or just plain malice. Plus, train tracks need snow removal. A closed system is a big win for weather.
Those aren't exactly 100% effective through lack of maintenance, stupidity, or just plain malice. Plus, train tracks need snow removal. A closed system is a big win for weather.
Hyperloops are trains.
A major part of the infrastructure needed, land, is the same. So it's not inconceivable to convert between the two.
A major part of the infrastructure needed, land, is the same. So it's not inconceivable to convert between the two.
Even better, if we can just upgrade the bullet trains later! Mayyyybe the idea is it'll be easier to hype a new fancy train to sell to the public, but I think it's foolish. We should start building bullet trains yesterday.
The problems of long distance rail transport today: Construction permissions, construction cost, operational cost, global vulnerability in case of local operational problems.
A Hyperloop solves NONE of these. In fact it would intensify almost all of them.
One thing that’s not a problem with rail transport today: Max Speed.
A Hyperloop solves NONE of these. In fact it would intensify almost all of them.
One thing that’s not a problem with rail transport today: Max Speed.
The thing with hyperloop that I've not seen solved yet: points/switches. How do you divert the vehicles between two different paths?
“The ethos of the company is trying to switch the paradigm,” BamBrogan told The Verge in 2017. “Mobility and transportation are both words that talk about the ‘getting there.’ And we want to make it so seamless. I don’t want to get to dinner with my friend, I want to be at dinner with my friend.”
It seems that anyone who would fund this kind of garbage talk might have more money than sense.
It seems that anyone who would fund this kind of garbage talk might have more money than sense.
>The company, started by former Hyperloop One executives, furloughed all employees in November while it sought new funding
Slightly off topic: I am seeing a lot more "Startup" having difficulties getting funding than usual. What is happening to VCs and Silicon Valley?
Slightly off topic: I am seeing a lot more "Startup" having difficulties getting funding than usual. What is happening to VCs and Silicon Valley?
When the Federal reserve lowered interest rates investors had to look for places to invest their money to make a larger return. Now that rates have risen there is not as much money flowing to VCs because there are safer - albeit less profitable - investments
It seems they’re actually doing due diligence again.
Is the drag on a high speed trains mainly inertial or skin (parasitic) or is it pretty even? I would expect it to be mainly inertial since it's moving at such a fast speed. If that's the case, isn't there a lot of different techniques to reduce drag actively and dynamically that they can explore instead of drawing vacuum?
Would it be feasible to build a system of propellers to take advantage of the non vacuum on the train itself?
Honest question... idea was based on Elon Musk's papers, who pre-engineer the thing and even gave it a name. How come he couldn't found it? Last I checked Musk is worth north of $22 Billion dollars, did the Arrivo management try to talk him into investment ??
His net worth is entirely wrapped up in Tesla and SpaceX. And it's leveraged, too.
The exception is now The Boring Company, which long-term is going to try doing Hyperloop.
The exception is now The Boring Company, which long-term is going to try doing Hyperloop.
Someone might have an idea they think is “good” without wanting to invest in it. “Good idea” is only one part of the recipe. Timing is another huge part. So is having access to the right talent, the right geographical area, etc.
I think it’s unrealistic to expect Musk to invest in any hyperloop startup without considering the timing and the team involved.
I think it’s unrealistic to expect Musk to invest in any hyperloop startup without considering the timing and the team involved.
Elon Musk never just invests money into other peoples business. If he were to do hyperloop, he would run the engineering himsef - and does he really need another project to drive?
That said, there was some talk about Musk looking into Hyperloop himself in the context of one of the Boring companys projects, so we will see.
That said, there was some talk about Musk looking into Hyperloop himself in the context of one of the Boring companys projects, so we will see.
A few reasons.
For one, Elon Musk has a tendency of overextending himself. Right now he's the CEO of at least three companies. Maybe that makes it even a better question why he didn't look into building this himself.
The Hyperloop tubes could run underground, and if there is some sort of revolution in the cost-efficiency of tunnel boring, that would make it an even better option. Which is probably one of the reasons that Elon Musk founded The Boring Company.
Also, Hyperloop was floated as an alternative to the California high speed rail project--partly out of frustration that the California high speed rail line would be both the most expensive high speed rail line in the world and the lowest speed high speed rail line in the world, but also partly because Elon Musk owns a car company and has a vested interest in discouraging future investment in other forms of transportation. What's the best way to torpedo public support for building rail right here and now? Promising something even better, that no one will actually fund and build because it's a huge unknown.
The thing about Tesla is that Tesla's success relies upon long term growth and success, and the biggest risk to that strategy is a long-term decline in car ownership and usage. And Musk is famously defensive about Tesla.
Most of Musk's wild flights of fancy, if they do succeed, go through multiple stages of revision before an actual product emerges. With Hyperloop, Musk basically dumped the first draft of one of his flights of fancy on the world and said, "I'm too busy building electric cars and going to Mars to do this myself". And that's perfectly fair by itself!
But the first stage of revision for Musk tends to be taking an obvious, cost-effective if not profitable first step. Launching satellites and resupplying ISS was the obvious first step to going to Mars, and licensing a Lotus roadster body and building an electric supercar with it was the obvious first step to electrifying the automobile industry. Maybe Musk thinks The Boring Company is a good first step towards building Hyperloop.
For one, Elon Musk has a tendency of overextending himself. Right now he's the CEO of at least three companies. Maybe that makes it even a better question why he didn't look into building this himself.
The Hyperloop tubes could run underground, and if there is some sort of revolution in the cost-efficiency of tunnel boring, that would make it an even better option. Which is probably one of the reasons that Elon Musk founded The Boring Company.
Also, Hyperloop was floated as an alternative to the California high speed rail project--partly out of frustration that the California high speed rail line would be both the most expensive high speed rail line in the world and the lowest speed high speed rail line in the world, but also partly because Elon Musk owns a car company and has a vested interest in discouraging future investment in other forms of transportation. What's the best way to torpedo public support for building rail right here and now? Promising something even better, that no one will actually fund and build because it's a huge unknown.
The thing about Tesla is that Tesla's success relies upon long term growth and success, and the biggest risk to that strategy is a long-term decline in car ownership and usage. And Musk is famously defensive about Tesla.
Most of Musk's wild flights of fancy, if they do succeed, go through multiple stages of revision before an actual product emerges. With Hyperloop, Musk basically dumped the first draft of one of his flights of fancy on the world and said, "I'm too busy building electric cars and going to Mars to do this myself". And that's perfectly fair by itself!
But the first stage of revision for Musk tends to be taking an obvious, cost-effective if not profitable first step. Launching satellites and resupplying ISS was the obvious first step to going to Mars, and licensing a Lotus roadster body and building an electric supercar with it was the obvious first step to electrifying the automobile industry. Maybe Musk thinks The Boring Company is a good first step towards building Hyperloop.
His net worth of $22 billion is in the shares of SpaceX and Tesla he owns, not cash lying around that he can invest. He actually takes loans against his shares to pay for his living expenses.
>He actually takes loans against his shares to pay for his living expenses.
That's how you want to do it, and that's how everyone with the level of net worth of Musk does it. You don't think, for example, Zuckerberg, sells his FB shares everytime he buys a house in Hawaii.
That's how you want to do it, and that's how everyone with the level of net worth of Musk does it. You don't think, for example, Zuckerberg, sells his FB shares everytime he buys a house in Hawaii.
[deleted]
What if there is a crash ? In Hyperloop it means vacuum all around, and even on minor accidents you'll die horrible death :D
[deleted]
Basically, unstable guy who was ousted form Hyperloop one by the whole board and officers started another, similar company, and trouble again.
Except this time, trouble is in charge.