I have just started trying to cold email/linked in message people who have the relevant job titles on linked in. I just started yesterday so I can't tell you how its going yet. But I'm looking for people at companies large enough to have people dedicated to a specific subsets of mechanical engineering.
I think its just the nature of innovation. It takes 1/4 the effort to copy as to create new and this is true in marketing as well as engineering. Call it the second mover advantage, where someone else has already paid the cost of innovation, risk reduction and marketing (convincing people that they want x) and the second mover capitalizes on the new zeitgeist that they created but with lower overhead.
That is in fact exactly what I called it when I wrote about this on my blog. It's definitely a part of how things happen "naturally" but that's also why I think VCs should act to counter it instead of magnifying it.
If you had a million you could also get a loan with interest less than "risk free" assets. E.g. The stock market makes 7-10% but you can get a loan for 1-3%. So 1.5x your returns then become 12-16%.
Perhaps you can invest in lower risk dividend stocks which will pay out your interest + a little and 3x. If we assume those stocks only make 4% but also pay out 3% then you are looking at 16% returns. Moreover when those dividends get raised you are doing even better.
something like 60% of people can’t reach 1 million let alone 2, given their position in the lifetime income distribution. i’d be all for changing policies with the sole focus of giving everyone the opportunity, but not the right, to reach $2 million in wealth by retirement age. that would require some wealth redistribution to start, and radical shifts in how we allocate income. since that disfavors the already wealthy, it’s hard to effectuate without sustained, concerted effort by the 99%.
I don't want to be too combative because you do have a point that, especially with kids, its hard to not live paycheck to paycheck. But if you start early all you have to do is bust your butt and live cheaply for a couple of years and wait for compound returns to kick in.
Back of the hand says that if you invest 10,000/yr from 20 to 30 you'll have saved ~$100,000. And then 7% and with the rule of 72 is then:
30: 100,000
40: 200,000
50: 400,000
60: 800,000
70: 1,600,000.
S&P is closer to 12% than 7% which means you might be able to get away with saving less aggressively or earlier retirement. If you are able bodied and willing to learn a trade you should be able to make atleast 20/hr. I made 19/hr right out of college as a manufacturing technician and saved ~1000 month. You have to sacrifice to do this e.g. live with roommates in a cheap area, rarely go out to drink/eat etc., but if you start early, don't have kids and save aggressively its very doable. I didn't completely live like a monk, I bought a canoe and went canoeing most weekends and had a rock gym membership for one year while doing this and a martial arts membership the other year. I also lived one block from the projects in a 3-1 with 3 other people so rent was tiny and ate rice and beans + chicken thighs or eggs 3-4 times a week for dinner to keep the cost of food down. Its straight forward on median salary, but you have to sacrifice. The budget is straight forward too: The budget is simple, you get 400 for rent, 400 for food, 400 for transportation, 400 for bills (internet, electric, water, sewage), 200 for health care expenses, 100 float and 100 for fun. You can even do it in SF if you do two people to a room (just like dorms in college) in a large house--transportation will goes down, rent might go up and food probably goes up as well.
You could also work 50 hours a week and save that extra 25% of salary which again at entry level in the trades would yield you close to 10,000/year (minus taxes but hello IRA). The Dave Ramsey retirement calculator says that if you save 1500/month from 22-25 you with 10% returns and no savings after that you'll become a millionaire at about age 53. You can make that happen as an entry level mechanic who lives like I did who works an average 10 hours of overtime a week.
don't wanna be overly combative either, and i didn't double-check the math, but that's an awful lot of constraints and assumptions built into that docket.
one i'll question immediately is 12% returns, which is quite high given historical means and a figure you'd expect a reversion to sooner rather than later. you'd also need to have a brokerage/retirement account of some sort and have enough financial literacy to know to invest in the s&p vs the thousands of other options available. you'd also have to be lucky enough not to hit a severe recession/depression too early or at another inopportune time in your life, like while having a serious medical condition.
with that said, yes, you can totally live off of $2000/mo and save $1000/mo (i've done it for a short time) if those stars do line up (like being young, having no kids, and finding $400/mo rent) for some number of months, but i'm not sure it's feasible longer term for most people most of the time. circumstances and people change.
> Back of the hand says that if you invest 10,000/yr from 20 to 30 you'll have saved ~$100,000.
So you're telling me that all most Americans have to do is put at least 1/3rd of their paycheck into savings in order to have a chance to retire well? I'm sure they will get right on that sound financial advice.
But you can define multiplication based on abstracting repeated addition. That how we did it my analysis class, although I forget some of the details. So if you say multiplication is repeated addition, it really isn't a lie.
Yep and how to construct, the naturals from set theory, the integers from the naturals, the rationals from the integers and the reals from the rational. I've forgotten the details at this point, but I remember the conclusions.
I think the issue is that many of us are poor communicators (myself being number 1) so we say nothing I can do will help you instead of I can't teach linear algebra, numerical analysis and do the code review in an hour. Therefore putting a junior engineer who has a weak math background on a code review for my new algorithm which uses spectral sparsification for approximating matrix inverses in n log(n) isn't a good idea.
But a junior can still ask question like: "why isn't there a test for this code", "why are the business logic and algorithm code mixed together" or "why doesn't this align with the design documentation we wrote last week, does it need updating?".
And the junior will learn which things to learn. I certainly think you should allow juniors to code review senior coders work if for nothing more than mentoring, but I am sensitive as to why an overloaded senior would balk at the idea.
You assume that Apple is telling the truth. The cynic in me thinks that they narrowed the definition of tracking and follow in a legal sense but not in the way we would think of it. Or they are outright lying. It is also possible that it isn't apple doing it but a third party doing it on Apples behalf.
The burden of proof would be on you to prove Apple is using third parties to track its users in that case. Without proof it's just a goofy conspiracy theory.
My first question would be... why? What's their motivation?
Facebook has to track users to make money, it's their entire business model.
The same is not true of Apple, who make almost all their profits from hardware sales and are worth over $2 trillion.
Going out of their way to get a third party to secretly spy on users on their behalf sounds like far more effort and risk than it's worth to me. It's not like they're desperate for extra cash.
And it's not like it'd be impossible to find out if it was indeed the case. iOS gets reverse engineered all the time. I can see all the traffic my iPhone sends through my DNS logs. If this hypothetical third party was embedded in iOS spying on user activity, it'd be spotted quite easily and quickly.
So I ask again, why would Apple do that? Aside from being a total PR nightmare it'd be straight up illegal.
I trust Apple because I don't see what reason they have to lie when they've built a multi-trillion dollar business without tracking their users already.
It's possible they're lying, that's true, but I think it's unlikely a secret like that could be kept long term. Employees have no reason to remain loyal when no longer employed by Apple and partner company employees would have to know about it too. The reputation damage would be catastrophic, so IMHO it seems unlikely they would take such a reckless risk.
So it's a matter of making a call between using vendors we know for a fact are tracking you, some of which have lied about it (see, hard to keep these things secret), or one that at least claims not to and has a lot to lose if caught out.
It seems unlikely Apple is going to outright lie about something like that considering it could open them up to serious legal liability (CCPA, GDPR, etc).
I would saw that copy.ai is a low but not zero stakes application. It develops a draft of copy for ads, landing pages etc. which you can review before taking live.
I am familiar with it in the aerospace industry. Digital Twin implies a higher degree of fidelity in terms of importing data from sensors and modeling of physics than just model or simulation might apply, even though it is a model and simulation.
For GE's digital twins in the jet engines, they will build a high fidelity representation of the each individual engine based on as built parts, and then they will simulate every flight based on accelerometers, force sensors, humidity sensors, temperature and pressure sensors which they have placed in the engine. This is different from a general model or simulation which will build a model from CAD and then have a series of expected flight simulations and use that to predict life of the engine.
They also cap profits based on the original bid size. So you bid 20 million for the F35 program you get 1.5 million profit. When you overrun the 20 million to 30 million you still only get 1.5 million "profit". Typically you also have to go ask for that 10 million in piecemeal as well. I need 500k to do this and 500k to do that and the program office approves or disapproves.
Of course, the contractors probably skim a little bit off the top of the 20 million back to themselves. They might for example bill for machine team on the CNC or charge $200/hr per an employee and only pay $60 (note that they have expenses for training, downtime, office space, equipment and management which that 200/hour needs to account for so the employee isn't getting screwed that badly.
Less moral contractors might build projects which intentionally fail but meet the specifications so that the gov't needs to execute a change order at which point they would get additional fee as part of the change order, however with the DOD you can get your company put on a blacklist which will mean you cannot win any more DOD contracts. But I have heard of a California construction company doing that repeatedly over the course of 30 years successfully. In the dod world, most companies try to propose improvements to the original contract. Typically they will have yearly goals associated with submitting and winning change orders as its an easier source of revenue than bidding and winning new contracts which typically have a 30% win rate.
