Well, there's consistently and there's consistently.
In 2016 Waymo reported their safety drivers intervening once for every 5,100 miles driven [1] - which implies to me that 99% of journeys nobody touched the wheel or pedals.
The problem is 99% isn't enough, as there are tremendous numbers of cars out there, and a busy bit of freeway would get a disengagement per minute.
It might be missing a few logging roads, private driveways and carpark lanes - but it shows Google is entirely capable of mapping streets in detail all over the world.
It is a kind of rolling shutter effect, but you're misunderstanding the finish camera's design - they capture a single column of pixels and the horizontal axis is actually time. This is why the background of photofinishes is a bunch of streaks.
I agree that 1880-1915 was certainly a period of radical change, but aviation in 1915 was way less mature than you are suggesting, and would not become so for several decades.
The SPT Airboat Line [1] was the closest to an airline in the US at the time. It operated 20 mile flights across Tampa bay for 6 months in 1914 before ceasing operations.
Flying from NY to LA was not happening on any regular basis, and took much more than a couple of hours. The first transcontinental flight in 1911 [2] took 80+ flight hours over more than a month. Fast forward to 1933, transcontinental passenger flights took 20+ hours [3]. Nonstops finally became available in the late 40s and early 50s.
True, they are not cheap tools, but SawStop makes high quality equipment. Their prices are a bit cheaper than Powermatic [1], and the saws compare favorably in performance-oriented reviews.
SawStop isn't really a homeowner tool, but it is certainly within an accessible price range for enthusiasts, schools, and professionals.
With 35 years experience, I expect that you have a pretty wide professional network - consider whether you're using those connections to get warm introductions and pointed to good-fit jobs to the greatest degree possible.
My apologies if this is stating the obvious, but if your applications are starting with just a resume, you're already at a disadvantage at any age. And I suppose that effect only increases with years of experience and seniority of positions applied to.
Also, consider this from the manager's perspective. They have to ask themselves: if this person has 35 years of experience, they must have a substantial network, so why aren't they just tapping that resource? Not a single person from this applicant's past wants to give them an interview?
Do you know many developers who hang out with management? Most of the engineers I've worked with over my career have not transitioned into management and have no sway as far as the interview process goes.
A company where "I worked with this person in the past and they were good" coming from a run-of-the-mill employee isn't enough to get someone an interview is a company with stupid recruiting practices.
Finding good candidates is expensive and time-consuming. If someone is serving up qualified leads to you on a silver platter, you take them.
Referrals from existing employees are the single highest quality source of candidates for most companies. Many companies even incentivize employees to refer candidates by giving them bonuses if they refer someone who ends up being hired.
Really? I have on many occasions weld a lot of sway on tech hires as senior and lead developer at several companies. It's generally the tech lead/lead developer who has the most say on hiring programmers from my experience.
Yeah, at this point in my career the idea of doing a cold interview is nearly unthinkable. When I am looking for work, I just reach out to the people I have worked with before that I like and let them know I am in the market.
Cold interviews should probably only happen for your first job.
I think from your comment you may be from Europe, so in that case for added context, you may be underestimating how uncommon Pozidriv screws and screwdrivers are in the United States. I have never seen a Pozidriv screw on any manufactured product other than Ikea furniture in the US. You cannot buy Pozidriv screws or drivers at major hardware stores (try searching "Pozidriv" on Lowes, Home Depot, or Ace Hardware), with the exception of one or two drivers that are in stock online only.
So consider that this is an extremely rare fastener format in the US market, and which looks almost identical to Phillips (the most common US screwdriver). I think many people like myself who are interested in tools and hardware are aware of Pozidriv and can identify it easily, but I can completely see why the average US consumer mistakes it for Phillips.
Interesting, I did not realize square drive was uncommon in the UK. It's a really nice screw head to work with, and as someone mentioned elsewhere in the thread, becoming more common in certain woodworking applications in the US.
It's a Canadian invention, and to this day quite localized to Canada, where it's nearly the standard for carpentry (at least, every deck screw I've ever seen here is Robertson drive). It's good that it's catching on, it has a few distinct advantages over Phillips, my favourite being that you can mount a screw on the driver and it will stay on the driver due to an interference fit, freeing your other hand to secure, support, or stabilize.
You're not wrong, but it is more complicated than that. Lidar gives you an array of 3D points and intensity, corresponding to where the lasers bounced back, and how strong the reflection was. Roughly speaking, from there you have to decide 1) which sets of points belong to the same object, 2) what those objects are, and 3) what those objects intend to do in the future.
So yes, a lidar-equipped AV completely not sensing a pedestrian would be surprising, but you can see how it might have incorrectly classified the pedestrian, or misunderstood the pedestrian's intent.
In the consumer/household space, sure. 3D printing is huge in prototyping and hardware R&D though. High-end printers are even good enough for mass production runs now.
Basically, I'm an epidemiologist, and I work on mathematical and computational models of disease spread, usually trying to respond to either clinical or policy questions.
I was a member at TechShop RDU for a couple years. It started as an independent makerspace, got acquired by TechShop in 2011, then closed in 2013. It was a really cool place and I miss it. A lot of interesting characters there.
As others have said in this thread, I think TS had a tough value proposition to build a business model around. Classes were a pain and a fairly big start-up cost for new members, but inevitable to satisfy insurance requirements. The monthly membership fee was fairly cheap considering the awesome equipment they had, but expensive if you could only manage to go a few days a month. Plus whatever storage fees for larger projects and/or the hassle of carting your stuff around.
On top of that, management at both locations I used (RDU and Arlington) seemed a bit chaotic. Sad to see them go out of business either way.
The point is with a rocket, if you can't land at your original destination, you probably don't have the capability to safely land anywhere else. Maybe I'm overlooking a scenario you have in mind, but IMO you're looking at two classes of problems:
1) Problem during launch. There's been one successful use of a launch escape system in rocketry history[1], and such a system has never been developed for a shuttle type craft.
2) Problem after entering orbit. Cutting your orbital flight short isn't going to change the fact that you still have to survive re-entry stresses and have a working vertical landing system.
> 1) Problem during launch. There's been one successful use of a launch escape system in rocketry history[1], and such a system has never been developed for a shuttle type craft.
I'm not sure if you're aware, but this is a feature of the latest version of SpaceX's capsules. I'm sure it would exist for their larger vehicles.
edit: although I'm just not sure what you'd do during an abort with all that fuel that larger vehicle holds...
I'm not so sure. The Dragon 2 integrates a launch escape system by using the same engines that are also intended for propulsive landing (which is now probably off the table for good, but that was the idea). The BFR ship won't have near enough TWR when fully loaded for its landing engines to double as launch escape engines, and I see no evidence of any other engines.
The fact that the BFR ship serves as both second stage and capsule combined, whereas the Dragon 2 is just a capsule with a separate second stage to put it into orbit, makes the problem a lot harder. I bet that the system for the BFR will consist of "don't explode."
The reason seems to be a combination of NASA not being interested in propulsive landing (and they're funding most of Dragon 2) and deciding to go all-out on BFR instead of refining Dragon 2 further.
Can you give an example? I'm not aware of anything in 2016 that would consistently pass this test.