I have no idea what it takes to be a VC, but having looked at the tweet author's linkedin profile, he has a Master's in CS from one of the top schools in India and a PhD in CS from a US university, also has a solid work experience. People usually do not magically reach positions of power in an industry.
How are the points you have mentioned in your post relevant to the MCAS fault, which the article is supposed to be about?
It is explicitly mentioned in the article that the Indian companies DID NOT work on the faulty MCAS system -
Boeing said the company did not rely on engineers from HCL and Cyient for the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System, which has been linked to the Lion Air crash last October and the Ethiopian Airlines disaster in March. The Chicago-based planemaker also said it didn’t rely on either firm for another software issue disclosed after the crashes: a cockpit warning light that wasn’t working for most buyers.
This looks like a misleading article trying to shift blame away from Boeing management. Yes, there are problems with outsourcing, which the article brings up trying to show as reason for the problems with 737 Max.
If you cannot take a convincing photo of the moon, you should stop talking about UFOs and instead focus on learning to take a convincing photo of the moon. I hope you get the point. This is not an attempt to ridicule you, just pointing out the amount of ridiculousness in your post.
Ok, so I've taken one crisp clear photo of the moon through a friends telescope they let me borrow and I did it with my iPhone. It took 30 minutes to set up and calibrate, I had to position it on the moon, and keep adjusting the tracking. I'm sure 99% of the population has never done this. When I say I can't take a convincing photo of the moon I mean that if I had to capture an event that only lasted 7 seconds and it was the size of the moon; the photo would be a white dot on a black background. You sound like you need to diagnosed if you think I'm not allowed to talk about an experience because I didn't take a picture for you.
Examples and procedures to take a convincing photo of the moon - you need google and some money for the equipment.
Examples and procedures to take a convincing photo of an erratically moving UFO - I don't claim I have the know-how. All I know is the evidence has to be high quality and irrefutable to make such a claim.
My point is, people should not be talking about phenomena they don't understand as if they are true, if they have no skills to gather required evidence.
> the evidence has to be high quality and irrefutable
Please provide an annotated list of irrefutable evidence that others have created so I can see what you are talking about...
Edit: actually if I were to meet you in real life you could just ask my wife about the incident. She hates the fact that she saw it too: I used to talk about this stuff but backed off in recent years. Because she was there it validated the fact that there is some type of conspiracy in the world. We don't know the exact details of the conspiracy but something is definitely not as it seems when a silent triangle rips across the night sky.
Edit2: a simple google search and the second video appears to be what I saw. It's going much slower but the light pattern and altitude are what I remember. Watch the whole video - the first lights are just a plane https://youtu.be/RoR0izkByAI
Again: For it to be conspiracy, there must be violation of law. A "conspiracy theory" needs a law violated, at least in theory. Keeping or sharing secrets does not violate law -- unless the secrets are about violations of law.
Is this really difficult? Nixon had a conspiracy both to violate laws, and to cover up violating laws, making at least three violations. Trump's people probably conspired to violate laws against foreign influence on elections. Clinton didn't conspire to perjure, because it was just him.
Why would anyone controlling such an aircraft deliberately take it to a hovering position above 100 feet of people who have never seen it before? Aren't these flight tests supposed to happen away from public's view? It looks as if on one hand, the government wants to keep a tight lid on these things, on the other hand, they want to give it all away so easily (based on stories such as yours), which makes no sense. I will be a skeptic until the day I can get to lick the surface of such a craft.
It seems like tech so incredible as this would make eyewitness testimony quite literally “unbelievable” and “incredible”. If you had tech like that, you could pretty much show yourself to any group of people less than the population of an entire city, and nobody would believe them.
It doesn’t necessarily need to be intentional. Perhaps they had some other business to fly to that airport, and simply don’t care if there are people there or not due to the “unbelievability effect” which they’d be well aware of.
(Obviously I’m just speculating, and I’m not assigning belief either way to any of this; I just enjoy thinking about the possibilities here.)
I had a bitter experience while pursuing my master's thesis at a pretty big firm. The people responsible for advising me were shameless in accepting that no one really cares about how well I have done my thesis (they were trying to defend as to why no one cared enough to spend time and guide me), all that matters is finishing it and moving on. If you happen to be a perfectionist, such experiences break you.
That's a great video, but I think it's from 2011. I recently came across another video from 2016 which is a bit more technical and sheds some light on the results of recent research. People interested should definitely give it a watch - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZbunmaU-60
Jordan Peterson might have defended well compared to an average person, but I was still surprised too see him uncomfortable and expending extra energy to answer the questions than what I expected. Those were hard questions, but he would have surely expected those kind of questions before going to the interview. He did not look well prepared, and some of his answers lacked the clarity and punch which we can usually see in his youtube lectures.
How could anyone not expend extra energy when faced with that sort of interview "technique". I thought he handled it very well. How did he not look prepared? Some of here questions were so off the point of what they were discussing it'd be hard not to react aggressively. I think that's what you're seeing, him holding back. I mean, we should organise our society like "the lobsters"?? WTF?
>>Addressing the true causes of productivity requires understanding how our thoughts lead to feelings of energy and motivation.
According to psychologist Jordan Peterson, moving towards a goal that you value while seeing things working out during the journey is what produces positive emotions. Positive emotions are not a result of attaining things. Infact there is evidence that people sometimes get depressed once they reach the destination.
