Did you watch the video? He also says, “we don’t know what’s on the back side of the moon”
I guess we have decided to elect political representatives are just egotistical camera whores, but why should the top decision maker at a technical agency be a complete idiot who is ignorant about many things the agency he runs has done? It would be like the head of the air force saying airplanes fly because of flubber
Uh, no.
The ONLY time we see a new moon is during an eclipse. Other times the moon is above or below the sun and is too dim to see. A lunar eclipse is when the moon passes into the earth’s shadow and they happens during full moons
IDK why 81 year old Poli-sci major, attorney, and ultimate NASA executive decision maker Bill Nelson wasn't forced out of office after he incorrectly explained to Congress that the far side of the moon is always dark
Or imagine the CEO says, "Safety is everyone's job, we will accept no lapses in safety"
Instead the CEO said "increase monthly production 10% this quarter"
There is no trick needed here, just the proper leadership. The current Boeing CEO is an accountant who made a fortune running the private equity playbook of squeezing out costs:
Boeing would lock non-conforming parts in a cage so there is no chance they will be accidentally used. Unfortunately, managers would overrule an inspector and get the parts released for use
"We are confident in the safety of the 737 MAX and in the work of the men and women who design and build it," Boeing Chief Executive Officer Dennis Muilenburg March 2019
Tell me you have never worked in a publicly traded without saying it.
This is EXACTLY what late stage "political" companies are like. There is no rational way to decide who gets the window office vs. the internal office. Everything is "political"
Very nice intro. I like how you introduce networking layers. It seems you are starting to go down the path of explaining how computers and servers work - and that is certainly daunting. Maybe just stick with networking and introduce more of that and how real world systems (T1 and Ethernet) are just changing voltages at some point - and can be swapped in or out because of network layers. Then build up packet switched messages TCP, Telnet, HTTP
Thanks for the thorough research, not just on-line, but including calling people.
I occasionally go down rabbit holes like this and I have not gotten the helpful responses from officials I have contacted in the New England area. I don't know if I was telegraphing some agenda the officials did not want to further, or if it was because you were dealing with "Minnesota nice" people. I first heard of Minnesota nice when a curmudgeonly co-worker was grumbling about calling Anderson Window, "I hate calling them, they are so effing nice!"
I agree that design patents should not have a compulsory license. Interesting that Birkins patent expires in 3 years. I will set a calendar reminder to look into knocking them off in a couple years :)
I appreciate your thoughtful disagreement with my assertion that it is possible to set a compulsory license fee that would be "value neutral" between patents as issued today, and patents with a compulsory license. I think there is something that could be done to reform patents along these lines, but it is a harder argument to make and that argument DOES start going into the "value to society" area and is therefore purely political.
Now I understand what you are saying. The only way I see individuals deriving value from scarcity is with brands - not functional patents. Even with technical luxury goods like watches and cars, which may also include patents, the real customer scarcity value comes from showing others they are rich enough to buy and flaunt those goods. Can you think of an example where something purely functional is only valuable because it is scarce? Maybe private jets? If jets dropped in price 50x, private airports would become crowded and destroy much of their benefit. But then the gating luxury good would switch to being a member of a private airport network or something.
I am talking about a change to patents, not copyright and trademarks which are exclusive essentially forever. You can still strut around with a $20k Birkin bag (If they deem you a worthy buyer of course) that delivers the same functionality as a $100 purse. No one will be allowed to make fake Birkins and destroy their exclusivity. But if Hermes patents some new zipper, you would be able to duplicate their zipper and pay them a license fee. You would NOT be allowed to mention their brand. Patents are about function, not color, size, style or ornamentation.
So you are saying price==value? That is not true. The price a company extracts from a customer is de-coupled from the value a customer receives.
If I walk into a store to buy a shirt I saw online only to discover it is on sale for 20% off, I am getting the exact same value as buying it online, but the company captured less of the value they delivered.
If there is one shirt left in the store and the store holds an auction for it that I win for a price 20% higher, again I get the exact same value, but the store captured 20% more of the value.
The goal of any sane economy should be to deliver the most value to the people in it - including the people who own companies.
I have been following Simon Wardley on Twitter and read most of his blog posts about mapping and maybe kind of worked through his examples - so I am not any kind of expert and had never used them before. I was introduced by a client to the roof truss industry. Here is a link to one corner of an entire ecosystem:
https://www.tpinst.org/
Just to help me make sense of an industry that I was completely unfamiliar with, I mapped it from lumber producers all the way to home owners. I showed the map to my client and just briefly explained what the axis were. He was able to clarify my understanding and point out where other players fit in that he had not mentioned before. By realizing that different players will fight commodification, we could see their likely moves. Time will tell if we are correct.
So my take-away is that it is useful. I went from complete ignorance of an industry that has a new technology being introduced, to making reasonable guesses about the likely moves of incumbents in just 2-3 hours.
Of course I do not know, but he should have come clean. "Hey, I can't find this case in WestLaw, but chatGPT found it and produced it". Instead he just submitted it as-is right out of chatGPT. Alarm bells had to be going off in his mind that a federal court decision in a lawsuit was less than 5 pages
Thanks for the great context. The lawyer should be disbarred. He doubled down when he was caught, and then blamed chatGPT. What do you bet he was trying to settle really quickly to make this all go away.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Reconnaissance_Orbiter
I don’t see how any NASA employee, who ultimately work for him, could have any respect for his ability to make strategic decisions for NASA