by Max Barry

Latest Forum Topics

Advertisement

The Wolf Clan Board

Search

Search

[+] Advanced...

Author:

Region:

Sort:

«12. . .708709710711

Gothic Vandelia wrote:Yay, Just got a new job after 5 weeks as a LEET living on saved money. Even got $400 extra a month.

So maybe everything about 2020 isn't sucking after all. :D

Heck yes, definitely a blessing in disguise.

Alpha Wolf wrote:Heck yes, definitely a blessing in disguise.

Well, I can't be sure of that until I worked a month or 2 at the place but it is looking good. The difference between a good and a bad job is often who you work with after all.

But I do feel rather happy about it, with the pandemic unemployment is up all over the world so getting a new job isn't easy.
My kind of job isn't super common but there isn't much people with the knowledge and experience for it either so if there are a couple around I had pretty good chances. In fact I was interviewed at 2 different places recently but the other guys seems either slower or didn't bother to inform me they picked someone else (but they didn't sound like they were in a hurry, so I guess their loss).

I know some people in NS who had it worse them me though, a friend worked for a traveling agency in the Philippines and he got laid of in early Mars and haven't been around NS since April, I hope he is fine. And there are a few others from NA and EU as well.

Work might suck sometimes but being unemployed is horrible, particularly if you are so for a long time. Plenty of spare time and no money is a really bad combination. It wasn't so bad for me since it was 5 weeks, that is more like a vacation even if the uncertainty was tough. And I did have enough money for 4 months or so if worst have came to worst (took a slight dip in my "buy a Mustang account") it wouldn't be that terrible but many people live from paycheck to paycheck.

Gothic Vandelia wrote:Well, I can't be sure of that until I worked a month or 2 at the place but it is looking good. The difference between a good and a bad job is often who you work with after all.

But I do feel rather happy about it, with the pandemic unemployment is up all over the world so getting a new job isn't easy.
My kind of job isn't super common but there isn't much people with the knowledge and experience for it either so if there are a couple around I had pretty good chances. In fact I was interviewed at 2 different places recently but the other guys seems either slower or didn't bother to inform me they picked someone else (but they didn't sound like they were in a hurry, so I guess their loss).

I know some people in NS who had it worse them me though, a friend worked for a traveling agency in the Philippines and he got laid of in early Mars and haven't been around NS since April, I hope he is fine. And there are a few others from NA and EU as well.

Work might suck sometimes but being unemployed is horrible, particularly if you are so for a long time. Plenty of spare time and no money is a really bad combination. It wasn't so bad for me since it was 5 weeks, that is more like a vacation even if the uncertainty was tough. And I did have enough money for 4 months or so if worst have came to worst (took a slight dip in my "buy a Mustang account") it wouldn't be that terrible but many people live from paycheck to paycheck.

Luckily I have been blessed to stay steadily employed if not getting overtime in the beginning of Covid.

Wow, scientists have figured out that smoking weeds when pregnant is bad for the kid... I could have told them that, seems like a waste of resources to me.
I think we already are pretty sure that drugs and booze are bad during pregnancy, and that includes tobacco. Now, Coffee could be worth researching, it could have some effect and certainly more on different prescription drugs but this study seems more useless then the guys who made alligators breath helium.

Makes one wonder who decides to fund certain projects. Science is important, but funds are limited so it seems smarter to put those money on something like a cure for cancer, solide batteries or maybe those windfarms that doesn't require huge propellers (no noice, no dead birds and can be put on high buildings without being ugly).

Just saying, what is next? A study if breathing in water might make you start drowning?

Gothic Vandelia wrote:Wow, scientists have figured out that smoking weeds when pregnant is bad for the kid... I could have told them that, seems like a waste of resources to me.
I think we already are pretty sure that drugs and booze are bad during pregnancy, and that includes tobacco. Now, Coffee could be worth researching, it could have some effect and certainly more on different prescription drugs but this study seems more useless then the guys who made alligators breath helium.

Makes one wonder who decides to fund certain projects. Science is important, but funds are limited so it seems smarter to put those money on something like a cure for cancer, solide batteries or maybe those windfarms that doesn't require huge propellers (no noice, no dead birds and can be put on high buildings without being ugly).

Just saying, what is next? A study if breathing in water might make you start drowning?

Ivory tower morons care more about answering stupid questions than benefiting mankind, which is the point of all science I should hope!

Apostate wrote:Ivory tower morons care more about answering stupid questions than benefiting mankind, which is the point of all science I should hope!

Agreed, but there are some exceptions. The Japanese 60 feet robot based on the Gundam anime they just completed is fine in my book even if the benefits to mankind there is a bit doubtful.

It at least is awesome. :) And who knows, maybe it eventually leads to something useful. Military science is getting a lot of funding and you can make the same argument there, much military technology have become useful for civilians too, like jet engines for instance. The first "real" planes using the technology were the Me 262 but now they mean we can travel faster. The Manhattan project lead to us getting carbon neutral energy for an acceptable price. And so on.

More studies of things we already know is another matter. With a finite funding it is important to focus on things that is actually useful.

In some cases private industry shows the way. Space X certainly have shown us a few things the last few years, particularly if you compare their progress on Starship compared to NASA's Artemis project. NASA have spent over 10 years and an insane amount of money on their new rocket who is designed to get to the moon, while Space X have passed them in just a couple of years with a far more modest budget. Heck, NASA spent a lot of money to modify rocket engines meant for the space shuttle, which made them cost more then building new ones from scratch. That said, it might still be useful to NASA to have alternatives to Space X's Mars rocket, but SLS huge cost compared to Starship even though Starship is way more powerful makes one wonder if they shouldn't consider how they develop things like it.

But there are certainly things private companies have no interest in researching that is still worth learning. Like the fact that smoking leads to cancer for instance. I ain't complaining about research like that.

Just more government pork.

Ephiny wrote:Just more government pork.

In SLS case, it is a bit more strange. The rocket is far less powerful then the Saturn rocket, it is slightly cheaper (counting Saturn in today's money) but not much at all and it have actually already taken longer to build.

You could argue that NASA had better budget during the space race but the Artemis project is using a lot of Apollos infra structure like launchpads, spaceport, factories and so on (I am not counting that in for the price comparison between rockets) but I don't think that is relevant here.

SLS will (hopefully) be a lot safer though.

Starship in comparison is low budget but it has stats close to Saturn.

So the question is why NASA bothered too create a new rocket that in many ways are worse then one they already are familiar with. The Lunar landar is a very different matter, the new one will be way better and the crew capsule are also a step forward. I feel that they either should have gone bigger or just used a slightly updated Saturn instead.

I am guessing it has to do with politics though. The cheapest solution would have been to throw some extra money on Elon Musk but I am saying that with a knowledge NASA and the politicians lacked 10 years ago. Few people believed Space X would accomplish what they already done and people were laughing at Starship just 2 years ago. In fact, we are still laughing at Musk's claims of sending a manned expedition to Mars in 2024... And now NASA have put a lot of money on SLS so they might as well finish the project.

(Yeah, I might have spent a bit too much time watching youtube the 5 weeks I was temporary unemployed learning all this and far more).

Gothic Vandelia wrote:In SLS case, it is a bit more strange. The rocket is far less powerful then the Saturn rocket, it is slightly cheaper (counting Saturn in today's money) but not much at all and it have actually already taken longer to build.

You could argue that NASA had better budget during the space race but the Artemis project is using a lot of Apollos infra structure like launchpads, spaceport, factories and so on (I am not counting that in for the price comparison between rockets) but I don't think that is relevant here.

SLS will (hopefully) be a lot safer though.

Starship in comparison is low budget but it has stats close to Saturn.

So the question is why NASA bothered too create a new rocket that in many ways are worse then one they already are familiar with. The Lunar landar is a very different matter, the new one will be way better and the crew capsule are also a step forward. I feel that they either should have gone bigger or just used a slightly updated Saturn instead.

I am guessing it has to do with politics though. The cheapest solution would have been to throw some extra money on Elon Musk but I am saying that with a knowledge NASA and the politicians lacked 10 years ago. Few people believed Space X would accomplish what they already done and people were laughing at Starship just 2 years ago. In fact, we are still laughing at Musk's claims of sending a manned expedition to Mars in 2024... And now NASA have put a lot of money on SLS so they might as well finish the project.

(Yeah, I might have spent a bit too much time watching youtube the 5 weeks I was temporary unemployed learning all this and far more).

Nothing wrong with that, I like watching documentaries on various subjects.

Gothic Vandelia wrote:In SLS case, it is a bit more strange. The rocket is far less powerful then the Saturn rocket, it is slightly cheaper (counting Saturn in today's money) but not much at all and it have actually already taken longer to build.

You could argue that NASA had better budget during the space race but the Artemis project is using a lot of Apollos infra structure like launchpads, spaceport, factories and so on (I am not counting that in for the price comparison between rockets) but I don't think that is relevant here.

SLS will (hopefully) be a lot safer though.

Starship in comparison is low budget but it has stats close to Saturn.

So the question is why NASA bothered too create a new rocket that in many ways are worse then one they already are familiar with. The Lunar landar is a very different matter, the new one will be way better and the crew capsule are also a step forward. I feel that they either should have gone bigger or just used a slightly updated Saturn instead.

I am guessing it has to do with politics though. The cheapest solution would have been to throw some extra money on Elon Musk but I am saying that with a knowledge NASA and the politicians lacked 10 years ago. Few people believed Space X would accomplish what they already done and people were laughing at Starship just 2 years ago. In fact, we are still laughing at Musk's claims of sending a manned expedition to Mars in 2024... And now NASA have put a lot of money on SLS so they might as well finish the project.

(Yeah, I might have spent a bit too much time watching youtube the 5 weeks I was temporary unemployed learning all this and far more).

I wa sin my pool this summer at night floating and looking at the sky. I saw a string of satellites go but, I thought they were aliens. I googled it right quick and it turned out Spacex had just deployed 60 satellites and they were spreading out. It was shocking but also awe inspiring to see what private industry can do. 60 at a time!

Alpha Wolf wrote:Nothing wrong with that, I like watching documentaries on various subjects.

Me too.
History, science, religion, military, geology, archaeology... and more.

But I get annoyed when something they say seem a bit odd so I factcheck it and it is wrong. I can buy that our knowledge of things improve so old documentaries rely information that might be dated but it is often laziness.

If you want to make an historical documentary for instance you might want to read up on the last few years of archaeology. Saying things like the Clovis culture were the first humans in America when even the conservative Smithsonian agree with most archaeologists and genetics that there were people there far earlier (exactly how much earlier is still up to debate but even the most conservative historians agree that there is clear evidence for at least 5000 years).

It is even worse when they state "facts" I know is wrong (I still fact check them, so I ain't wrong). If you are bothering to make a documentary at least get your facts straight. I am way less hard on youtube channels then Discovery, History channel and BC there, but surprisingly are those usually worse. If someone like Skallagrim or Shad say something wrong that isn't really shocking since they make their own research and try to make it entertaining.

I guess I shouldn't be surprising the "History channel" tend to be the worst of them, but one would think a channel with that name should do it's research.

The Youtube channels often surprise me how well made and researched they are. Even watching a program of something I know a lot about have a lot of new things to learn. :)

Of course others are pretty awful but you can't win them all. Like I was watching this pretty well done show examining if the Australian aboriginals actually arrived far earlier then expected, when it was made the official date was 45 000 years ago but it have been moved to 55 000 since, much due to evidence in the show and they made some interesting arguments for 75 000 years too. But suddenly after an hour they showed this strange 40 000 year old artifact and claimed it was made by aliens. He sounded so professional and well researched until that moment only to spend the last 15 minutes in foil hat territory. He might or might not be right about that 75 000 year old shelter but he kinda burnt all my confidence in anything he said earlier there. And it was really sad since it is an interesting subject that require more fieldwork, just like we don't know when humans first arrived in America we aren't really sure and it is likely it was earlier then we expect in both cases.

Sorry, I seem to be ranting...

Gothic Vandelia wrote:Me too.
History, science, religion, military, geology, archaeology... and more.

But I get annoyed when something they say seem a bit odd so I factcheck it and it is wrong. I can buy that our knowledge of things improve so old documentaries rely information that might be dated but it is often laziness.

If you want to make an historical documentary for instance you might want to read up on the last few years of archaeology. Saying things like the Clovis culture were the first humans in America when even the conservative Smithsonian agree with most archaeologists and genetics that there were people there far earlier (exactly how much earlier is still up to debate but even the most conservative historians agree that there is clear evidence for at least 5000 years).

It is even worse when they state "facts" I know is wrong (I still fact check them, so I ain't wrong). If you are bothering to make a documentary at least get your facts straight. I am way less hard on youtube channels then Discovery, History channel and BC there, but surprisingly are those usually worse. If someone like Skallagrim or Shad say something wrong that isn't really shocking since they make their own research and try to make it entertaining.

I guess I shouldn't be surprising the "History channel" tend to be the worst of them, but one would think a channel with that name should do it's research.

The Youtube channels often surprise me how well made and researched they are. Even watching a program of something I know a lot about have a lot of new things to learn. :)

Of course others are pretty awful but you can't win them all. Like I was watching this pretty well done show examining if the Australian aboriginals actually arrived far earlier then expected, when it was made the official date was 45 000 years ago but it have been moved to 55 000 since, much due to evidence in the show and they made some interesting arguments for 75 000 years too. But suddenly after an hour they showed this strange 40 000 year old artifact and claimed it was made by aliens. He sounded so professional and well researched until that moment only to spend the last 15 minutes in foil hat territory. He might or might not be right about that 75 000 year old shelter but he kinda burnt all my confidence in anything he said earlier there. And it was really sad since it is an interesting subject that require more fieldwork, just like we don't know when humans first arrived in America we aren't really sure and it is likely it was earlier then we expect in both cases.

Sorry, I seem to be ranting...

No not at all. What you say is right on.

Dang it, my card value slipped, I'm down to 160th again. 😐

Alpha Wolf wrote:No not at all. What you say is right on.

Dang it, my card value slipped, I'm down to 160th again. 😐

I know that feeling, my arms manufacturing is jumping between 76 and 79 all the time. So much of those values are depending on other nations after all.

I am surprised that nations who have been around for 10 years aren't more competitive. With the cards that is logical since they are relatively new and there is a rather high amount of luck involved. I think my Frisbeteria card is more worth then all my other cards combined and that was just pure dumb luck. I been working the market a little but not really that much.

Strangely is the card probably the toughest to get into the top 100 in besides population and influence who is rather impossible unless you been around for a long time. I been playing NS for 3 years and I been in the top 100 AM for 6 months and top 100 for manufacturing the last month (which I honestly didn't even try for). 2 1/2 years to get in the top 100 might sound a lot but I didn't actually care about the stat att all the first 6 months, focusing on trout fishing instead back then so it wasn't as hard as I thought to get there even if getting below 50 seems tough.

I have a number of nations in the World Top Ten for random things. Try and find them.

Ephiny wrote:I have a number of nations in the World Top Ten for random things. Try and find them.

That is close to impossible. I tried to find similar nations to yours with a similar flag (there was one in most conservative but they had a Dutch sounding coinage so that was a dud) in things you are top 10% in, assuming at least one other nation have a similar playstyle. No luck, and going through every stat would take me hours (and that is hours I don't have tonight, my GF is on the way over and will be here within an hour as long as she avoids all boars, moose, deer and other wildlife around here. She lives on the west coast and they don't have as much wildlife there).

«12. . .708709710711

Advertisement