OT: Sens Lounge - Golf season edition

[Nac Mac Feegle]

What ever happened to humans taking risks to advance society? The same was said to people trying to climb a mountain, fly a plane, contain electricity, got to space. Use at own risk used to be the motto.

Dude, that sub was all about getting rich fools to part with huge sums of money. Had nothing to do with advancing society. All about the almighty profit, and the celebrity status that goes with it for the new billionaire class.

To be brutally honest, when it comes to something like this where someone blatantly rejects even the most basic safety standards and protocols, there should be a mechanism to bill them (or their estate) for at least some of the costs of rescue/recovery.

 

[Ice-Tray]

If someone put a gun to my head and handed me a tomato I’d have some thinking to do.

Hahaha, too funny! They are my fave, especially fresh off the vine in the backyard

 

[Stylizer1]

Dude, that sub was all about getting rich fools to part with huge sums of money. Had nothing to do with advancing society. All about the almighty profit, and the celebrity status that goes with it for the new billionaire class.

To be brutally honest, when it comes to something like this where someone blatantly rejects even the most basic safety standards and protocols, there should be a mechanism to bill them (or their estate) for at least some of the costs of rescue/recovery.

I'm saying throughout history man has taken risk into consideration for advancement. What if this vessel did work, it may have revolutionized deep see exploration. The guy who built it went against grain, he even said so himself. He found people willing to take the risk and unfortunately it was the wrong decision. Driverless cars had to start somewhere. I agree though the company should be on the hook for the bill though.

 

[Tnuoc Alucard]

nothing is free, you know that..

when you have the means to venture out further and further, it means we have to go further and further to get you.

at some point, it becomes unfair to all of us..NO, do not just save the poor..Save the reasonable.

I was at Freshco..32 degrees outside...air conditioning blaring inside.. Doors open... Now you say, an issue for the owner.... Energy belongs to all of us,, as does the chemicals that run in the refrigeration/AC units..they pollute our air..

At some point, and I am paraphrasing a famous Jewish expression "the needs of the many, out weigh the needs of the few". If you can afford to buy 1,000,000 vials of insulin and throw it away, is it right?

At some point, we need to tell that Heli skier. If an avalanche or an accident.. we are not coming.

So if Energy and Chemicals belong to all of us, where are my dividends or share of the cut?

The majority of the gases used in refrigerants are hydrofluorocarbons, or HFCs, and are thousands of times more potent a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, also a greenhouse gas. HFCs and CO2 are not pollution, ever though many politicians have conflated the two, GHGs and pollution over the past decade or so, to help sell their Globalist Green agenda.

If the owner of the Freshco (Finley Creek?) is stupid enough to leave the doors open, and forcing his air conditioning to overwork and costing him more money, that’s just stupidity and he or she is paying for it.


Also, I’m pretty sure your “expression“ is Vulcan, rather than Jewish, unless you’re suggesting that Spock is capable of plagerism?

Spock’s Illogic: “The Needs of the Many Outweigh the Needs of the Few” - The Objective Standard

Now is a good time to evaluate or reevaluate Spock's oft-stated Star Trek claim, “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.”

theobjectivestandard.com

 

[Beech]

So if Energy and Chemicals belong to all of us, where are my dividends or share of the cut?

The majority of the gases used in refrigerants are hydrofluorocarbons, or HFCs, and are thousands of times more potent a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, also a greenhouse gas. HFCs and CO2 are not pollution, ever though many politicians have conflated the two, GHGs and pollution over the past decade or so, to help sell their Globalist Green agenda.

If the owner of the Freshco (Finley Creek?) is stupid enough to leave the doors open, and forcing his air conditioning to overwork and costing him more money, that’s just stupidity and he or she is paying for it.


Also, I’m pretty sure your “expression“ is Vulcan, rather than Jewish, unless you’re suggesting that Spock is capable of plagerism?

Spock’s Illogic: “The Needs of the Many Outweigh the Needs of the Few” - The Objective Standard

Now is a good time to evaluate or reevaluate Spock's oft-stated Star Trek claim, “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.”

theobjectivestandard.com

To whom much is given, much will be required (Luke 12:48). If you have heard that line of wisdom, you know it means we are held responsible for what we have. If we have been blessed with talents, wealth, knowledge, time, and the like, it is expected that we benefit others.

A good Jew

 

[Golden_Jet]

26 hours without power after April's ice storm. the temperature in my home 12 C.. In an area that has many retirees.. can you imagine 12 C on them.

Other people in the Ottawa area and Quebec endured a week or more. April was unusually cold.. 2-3 days when nighttime temperatures were hitting 0 means your home would hit 7-8 C in nothing flat.

f*** rich old bastards, pre-occupy yourself with the rest of us. Who do not want to freezer to death in our own homes.

Last month, I got an e-mail from my Doctor, wanting me to pre-pay $200 just in case, I need an over the phone prescription. Government has been cutting funds...So now some octogenarian, in her own home, not hurting anyone has to shell out $200. So that some dump f*** rich idiot, can see the bottom of the ocean floor.

And all of this, after the US navy told searchers, their sensors picked up an implosion!!!!!!

How many octogenarians had their lives shortened by the ice storm in April??? How many endured 1-3 days of freezing, which will put them 6 feet under way sooner than they like...

Must be nice, losing power in April, I wish.

My furnace died end of January, -35 out, on a Friday night, told me on Saturday I need a new one, new one came on Monday went 2 1/2 days before new furnace installed.

That was cold in the house.

Maybe get a generator, suggest an inverter one, works great.

If you’re referring to the Derecho that was May 21 long weekend not April.
(Edit: this year’s storm not last years, Mac is suggesting).

 

[Nac Mac Feegle]

Must be nice, losing power in April, I wish.

My furnace died end of January, -35 out, on a Friday night, told me on Saturday I need a new one, new one came on Monday went 2 1/2 days before new furnace installed.

That was cold in the house.

Maybe get a generator, Ive got an inverter one, works great.

If you’re referring to the Derecho that was May 21 long weekend not April.

Beech probably means the small ice storm this past spring. A lot of places lost power for several hours to a day with that one.

 

[Ice-Tray]

I'm saying throughout history man has taken risk into consideration for advancement. What if this vessel did work, it may have revolutionized deep see exploration. The guy who built it went against grain, he even said so himself. He found people willing to take the risk and unfortunately it was the wrong decision. Driverless cars had to start somewhere. I agree though the company should be on the hook for the bill though.

I’m not sure that not getting your vessel safety certified is really any kind of celebrated daring move.

Daring? Yes.
Dangerous? Yes.
Tech Advancement? Not really.

The reality is that we already have submersibles that can hit those depths that follow safety certification protocols. These guys opted not to, and their sub got crushed and killed everyone on board.

It doesn’t have the ring of “one small step for man….” Sounds a lot more like cost saving measures that cost paying customers dearly in the end.

 

[Stylizer1]

I’m not sure that not getting your vessel safety certified is really any kind of celebrated daring move.

Daring? Yes.
Dangerous? Yes.
Tech Advancement? Not really.

The reality is that we already have submersibles that can hit those depths that follow safety certification protocols. These guys opted not to, and their sub got crushed and killed everyone on board.

It doesn’t have the ring of “one small step for man….” Sounds a lot more like cost saving measures that cost paying customers dearly in the end.

how ever you define it risk is risk. Having it safety certified would be the smart move but it order to get to that level of confidence many tragedies had to occur first.

Automobiles where created in the late 1880's. It wasn't until the late 1970's that shoulder strap seatbelts where becoming the norm and law.

 

[Tnuoc Alucard]

To whom much is given, much will be required (Luke 12:48). If you have heard that line of wisdom, you know it means we are held responsible for what we have. If we have been blessed with talents, wealth, knowledge, time, and the like, it is expected that we benefit others.

A good Jew

Matthew 7:1-3

King James Version

Judge not, that ye be not judged.
For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?​

​

 

[Ice-Tray]

how ever you define it risk is risk. Having it safety certified would be the smart move but it order to get to that level of confidence many tragedies had to occur first.

Automobiles where created in the late 1880's. It wasn't until the late 1970's that shoulder strap seatbelts where becoming the norm and law.

I don’t disagree in general, but in this instance not adhering to all of those hard earned safety certifications seems like a waste doesn’t it? Rather than heroic, or pushing the boundaries of discovery.

 

[Beech]

I’m not sure that not getting your vessel safety certified is really any kind of celebrated daring move.

Daring? Yes.
Dangerous? Yes.
Tech Advancement? Not really.

The reality is that we already have submersibles that can hit those depths that follow safety certification protocols. These guys opted not to, and their sub got crushed and killed everyone on board.

It doesn’t have the ring of “one small step for man….” Sounds a lot more like cost saving measures that cost paying customers dearly in the end.

at 3800 M bellow the surface, the pressure is 5900 PSi (Pounds per square inch). In order for a structure to survive it, it must be spheroidal or a cylinder with spheroidal ends. That has been the bases for submarine design forever.

Deep sea, means that cylindrical with spheroidal ends. and in thick metal. As a result, as they grow in size, they grow in weight. That makes maneuvering, dropping to the bottom and floating at the surface of the water very difficult. Transporting the vessel to its intended dive spot, is hard. Hoisting it via cranes is hard and so on.

So, existing models are one or two persons. And they require the one or two crew men to lie down.

The designers of this vessel opted for Carbon fibre.. It is a weave in 1 K, 2 K, 3 K, 4 K, etc. and a resin that is poured around the weave and then cooked into dryness. The end result is a structure very strong, yet fairly light... most modern cars are now a heavy dose of carbon fibre.. as is a number of other products.

connecting to carbon fibre is difficult. Applying a tensile force is risky (pull force). Applying a moment is risky (bending).. It does not fatigue well, it is susceptible to bubbles and voids and so on. In many instances, metal has to be bonded to it, to further add pieces. In some ways carbon fibre/composites are magical, in other ways, they are a risk. Ocean water is brackish, salt.. that means Chloride ions (Cl- ion).. that can cause corrosion and pits. And dissimilar metals/materials will form a battery. Low cycle fatigue and fatigue loading is difficult to predict.

The choice of carbon fiber was to make a bigger vessel, that was still light. Allow for multiple passengers who are not lying on top of each other.

So many mistakes.. @Stylizer1 is correct. In time, it will be okay We will have accidents to learn from. Where I believe that Stylizer is wrong? it is un-necessary to learn from mistakes for indulgences and not true benefit.

 

[Ice-Tray]

at 3800 M bellow the surface, the pressure is 5900 PSi (Pounds per square inch). In order for a structure to survive it, it must be spheroidal or a cylinder with spheroidal ends. That has been the bases for submarine design forever.

Deep sea, means that cylindrical with spheroidal ends. and in thick metal. As a result, as they grow in size, they grow in weight. That makes maneuvering, dropping to the bottom and floating at the surface of the water very difficult. Transporting the vessel to its intended dive spot, is hard. Hoisting it via cranes is hard and so on.

So, existing models are one or two persons. And they require the one or two crew men to lie down.

The designers of this vessel opted for Carbon fibre.. It is a weave in 1 K, 2 K, 3 K, 4 K, etc. and a resin that is poured around the weave and then cooked into dryness. The end result is a structure very strong, yet fairly light... most modern cars are now a heavy dose of carbon fibre.. as is a number of other products.

connecting to carbon fibre is difficult. Applying a tensile force is risky (pull force). Applying a moment is risky (bending).. It does not fatigue well, it is susceptible to bubbles and voids and so on. In many instances, metal has to be bonded to it, to further add pieces. In some ways carbon fibre/composites are magical, in other ways, they are a risk. Ocean water is brackish, salt.. that means Chloride ions (Cl- ion).. that can cause corrosion and pits. And dissimilar metals/materials will form a battery. Low cycle fatigue and fatigue loading is difficult to predict.

The choice of carbon fiber was to make a bigger vessel, that was still light. Allow for multiple passengers who are not lying on top of each other.

So many mistakes.. @Stylizer1 is correct. In time, it will be okay We will have accidents to learn from. Where I believe that Stylizer is wrong? it is un-necessary to learn from mistakes for indulgences and not true benefit.

Nothing about it is correct In my opinion.

Either get certified, or trial your new tech extensively with test pilots and drones until certifiable.

Good idea to have your accidents with paid test humans and robots first.

 

[Nac Mac Feegle]

Nothing about it is correct In my opinion.

Either get certified, or trial your new tech extensively with test pilots and drones until certifiable.

Good idea to have your accidents with paid test humans and robots first.

Excellent point. We're living in the day of drones, RV submersibles and other technologies, that make a lot of this type of risk taking completely unnecessary.

 

[Beech]

Nothing about it is correct In my opinion.

Either get certified, or trial your new tech extensively with test pilots and drones until certifiable.

Good idea to have your accidents with paid test humans and robots first

sorry Ice-tray, I wasn't condoning it.

I was saying that we traditionally have learned via mistakes. And in this case, there is no justification.

In 1954, a deHaviland crashed. It was the earliest Jet era passenger planes.. From it, we learned about low cycle fatigue and a whole host of do and don'ts in that industry. Tragic, but it is how we have learned.

I had to watch tank and after tank of stainless steel water cauldrons, come in with pin holes, to learn about chlorides and stress corrosion cracking and Langilier index and so on. It is how I ended up with a patent on corrosion control!!! And tons of grey hair on a balding head. A few years later, low cycle fatigue due to thermal shock on rapidly heating and cooling tanks... that one cost me way more grey, but no hair loss. that was already gone.

 

[Ralph Malfredsson]

Can I ask you guys for job advice? (I realize this is the lounge thread on a hockey forum)

Job 1 - what I have now
I independently contract and primarily work with one organization. Am own boss. Have extreme autonomy on what I want to do - and really enjoy it. Work about 60 hours per week, including weekends and nights. I can walk to work. I take 4-6 weeks off per year. Only thing I've done for my career (14 years now)

Job 2 -
Executive management at a slightly larger organization at a less developed phase - it wants to become like the organization in job #1 and is recruiting me to make that happen. Costs are covered. What I will do will be quite different and in my sphere of skills/expertise, but I would enjoy it less. Will work 50 hours a week but no overnights/weekends. Will have to drive 45 minutes to work.

Job 2 makes about 20% net more than Job 1.

I'm mid career and this would be the job I would have for the rest of my career.

I am torn. Would appreciate opinions -- and thanks so much.

 

[StoicSensFan]

Can I ask you guys for job advice? (I realize this is the lounge thread on a hockey forum)

Job 1 - what I have now
I independently contract and primarily work with one organization. Am own boss. Have extreme autonomy on what I want to do - and really enjoy it. Work about 60 hours per week, including weekends and nights. I can walk to work. I take 4-6 weeks off per year. Only thing I've done for my career (14 years now)

Job 2 -
Executive management at a slightly larger organization at a less developed phase - it wants to become like the organization in job #1 and is recruiting me to make that happen. Costs are covered. What I will do will be quite different and in my sphere of skills/expertise, but I would enjoy it less. Will work 50 hours a week but no overnights/weekends. Will have to drive 45 minutes to work.

Job 2 makes about 20% net more than Job 1.

I'm mid career and this would be the job I would have for the rest of my career.

I am torn. Would appreciate opinions -- and thanks so much.

What makes you think you'd enjoy Job 2 less? Seems like the key to your decision, happiness in your work life is important for your mental health. Having more time for your family, friends, and personal interests with Job 2 - definitely important as well, depends what you care about most!

Also, would Job 1 match the offer of Job 2 to retain you?

 

[Beech]

Can I ask you guys for job advice? (I realize this is the lounge thread on a hockey forum)

Job 1 - what I have now
I independently contract and primarily work with one organization. Am own boss. Have extreme autonomy on what I want to do - and really enjoy it. Work about 60 hours per week, including weekends and nights. I can walk to work. I take 4-6 weeks off per year. Only thing I've done for my career (14 years now)

Job 2 -
Executive management at a slightly larger organization at a less developed phase - it wants to become like the organization in job #1 and is recruiting me to make that happen. Costs are covered. What I will do will be quite different and in my sphere of skills/expertise, but I would enjoy it less. Will work 50 hours a week but no overnights/weekends. Will have to drive 45 minutes to work.

Job 2 makes about 20% net more than Job 1.

I'm mid career and this would be the job I would have for the rest of my career.

I am torn. Would appreciate opinions -- and thanks so much.

1) examine happiness... be happy in what you do.. happy means productive. asses your happiness level and how you feel about where you are and what you think is waiting for you... #1 most important.

2) money can be overcome by life habits, penny pinch and 20% is easily overcome. Look after you pension, future, etc. And do not be overly obsessed with a few extra dollars to spend today.

3) risk assessment.. a bird in the hand versus two in the bush.. how safe do you feel where you are, versus where you are going... how safe will your job be as you age. no one is young forever, as we age, we become a liability and not an asset at private companies. No unions to protect us, no ombudsman.. we age, our salary goes up, they start looking at a younger cheaper.

There is no magic answer.. There is you and your family and discussions and a whole lot of thinking.

When we change jobs one of 3 obvious things happen,
1) we jump up onto a hill
2) we jump into a hole
3) we stay the same

 

[Nac Mac Feegle]

Can I ask you guys for job advice? (I realize this is the lounge thread on a hockey forum)

Job 1 - what I have now
I independently contract and primarily work with one organization. Am own boss. Have extreme autonomy on what I want to do - and really enjoy it. Work about 60 hours per week, including weekends and nights. I can walk to work. I take 4-6 weeks off per year. Only thing I've done for my career (14 years now)

Job 2 -
Executive management at a slightly larger organization at a less developed phase - it wants to become like the organization in job #1 and is recruiting me to make that happen. Costs are covered. What I will do will be quite different and in my sphere of skills/expertise, but I would enjoy it less. Will work 50 hours a week but no overnights/weekends. Will have to drive 45 minutes to work.

Job 2 makes about 20% net more than Job 1.

I'm mid career and this would be the job I would have for the rest of my career.

I am torn. Would appreciate opinions -- and thanks so much.

Driving in winter to work can be a royal pain in the butt. But...working 10 less hours per week is a nice tradeoff (especially no nights and weekends).

I wonder...how much autonomy would you have in Job 2, and how much can you negotiate your duties to make the job a bit more enjoyable? And after company B is more established, how would your position grow and change? That could be key...1-2 difficult years while the company gets a solid footing might be worth it if the years afterward are more enjoyable/tolerable. Then again, there's no guarantee the company reaches that level (and no guarantee the current company stays at it's present level, either).

Any way to have your current company offer you a better deal? Either cut hours and retain the same pay, or give you a pay boost or more vacation or something to entice you to stay?

 

[AchtzehnBaby]

Can I ask you guys for job advice? (I realize this is the lounge thread on a hockey forum)

Job 1 - what I have now
I independently contract and primarily work with one organization. Am own boss. Have extreme autonomy on what I want to do - and really enjoy it. Work about 60 hours per week, including weekends and nights. I can walk to work. I take 4-6 weeks off per year. Only thing I've done for my career (14 years now)

Job 2 -
Executive management at a slightly larger organization at a less developed phase - it wants to become like the organization in job #1 and is recruiting me to make that happen. Costs are covered. What I will do will be quite different and in my sphere of skills/expertise, but I would enjoy it less. Will work 50 hours a week but no overnights/weekends. Will have to drive 45 minutes to work.

Job 2 makes about 20% net more than Job 1.

I'm mid career and this would be the job I would have for the rest of my career.

I am torn. Would appreciate opinions -- and thanks so much.

If you are looking for something to get you less risk, it's the office job.

But I can guess you are better off on your own. Going from being your own boss to having to report in on everything can be a hard mountain to climb depending on your age.

 

[Ralph Malfredsson]

Also, would Job 1 match the offer of Job 2 to retain you?

Any way to have your current company offer you a better deal? Either cut hours and retain the same pay, or give you a pay boost or more vacation or something to entice you to stay?

I wish. That would have been great. The current organization isn't interested in anything except what I do already. Made it quite clear. Job hours may actually slightly worsen over the next few years. It's rewarding stuff though and I really do enjoy it (so high on the happiness scale Beech).

I wonder...how much autonomy would you have in Job 2, and how much can you negotiate your duties to make the job a bit more enjoyable? And after company B is more established, how would your position grow and change?

The job is an executive VP reporting to the CEO, so really not much room to go up. The work is operationalizing a strategy in 2 key areas of growth. The goals are set but I would have a lot of autonomy in process (could hire my own team, generate my own procedures etc). I would still enjoy it but not as much as what I do now. I think 10 years before it matches organization #1.

Thanks for the advice everyone. I really appreciate it.

 

[DrEasy]

Can I ask you guys for job advice? (I realize this is the lounge thread on a hockey forum)

Job 1 - what I have now
I independently contract and primarily work with one organization. Am own boss. Have extreme autonomy on what I want to do - and really enjoy it. Work about 60 hours per week, including weekends and nights. I can walk to work. I take 4-6 weeks off per year. Only thing I've done for my career (14 years now)

Job 2 -
Executive management at a slightly larger organization at a less developed phase - it wants to become like the organization in job #1 and is recruiting me to make that happen. Costs are covered. What I will do will be quite different and in my sphere of skills/expertise, but I would enjoy it less. Will work 50 hours a week but no overnights/weekends. Will have to drive 45 minutes to work.

Job 2 makes about 20% net more than Job 1.

I'm mid career and this would be the job I would have for the rest of my career.

I am torn. Would appreciate opinions -- and thanks so much.

My current job is similar to your Job 1: quite a bit of autonomy, work that is in my head all the time (except for when I read this forum of course!), pretty much the only thing I know how to do. Once, when I was in my mid-40s I was offered something similar to your Job 2 (better pay, different kind of skill required, interesting challenge, longer commute, and as it turned out MUCH less autonomy). I only lasted a few months and went happily back to Job 1 (thankfully I'd kept that possibility, but maybe that's also why I didn't last with Job 2?).

Depending on your age and the nature of your job, there may be a 3rd option: keep Job 1 but slow down, delegate more, find a way to continue earning admittedly less money based on your expertise, but without it dominating your life.

 

[StoicSensFan]

Another aspect I forgot to mention is challenge. If you're really good at your job, it can get stale because it's not challenging anymore. Personally I like to feel a little uncomfortable with what I'm doing, as it makes successes more rewarding in the end.

 

[Ice-Tray]

I wish. That would have been great. The current organization isn't interested in anything except what I do already. Made it quite clear. Job hours may actually slightly worsen over the next few years. It's rewarding stuff though and I really do enjoy it (so high on the happiness scale Beech).


The job is an executive VP reporting to the CEO, so really not much room to go up. The work is operationalizing a strategy in 2 key areas of growth. The goals are set but I would have a lot of autonomy in process (could hire my own team, generate my own procedures etc). I would still enjoy it but not as much as what I do now. I think 10 years before it matches organization #1.

Thanks for the advice everyone. I really appreciate it.

If Job 2 stemmed from job 1, consider that a cool job 3 could stem from your performance in job 2. Building things can be super fun And rewarding.

The fact that job 1 had no interest in matching job 2 to keep you, and plans on taxing your time even more going forward would be a massive red flag for me.

Happiness bonus can be had from less time
on the job for sure, along with more money to vacation or save or whatever. Yet unseen enjoyment can also be had by working with the team you build and the new relationships you create.

I’d probably leave based on the second paragraph above, bolstered by potential new opportunities presented in the other two paragraphs. Life is short, try new things and such!

 

[Beech]

Advancements are made everyday through risk. Someone else's risk is what provides you the luxury of being a keyboard warrior. You can agree or disagree with how he chose to do what he did but at the end of the day risk is risk.

within the realm of logic and sensibility
1) this was a God like Joy ride.. It made relatively little sense. What is so appealing about a sunken ship? There are hundreds if not thousands. One Hollywood director make s a movie and suddenly, we are all enchanted enough!!!!!
2) did he explained the risks to the passengers.. How may of these rich folk, would have climbed aboard? NONE

Everything about this was wrong.

I would love to see if the passengers signed waivers?

and how did the government grant him a license to operate out of Newfoundland, without an approved sea vessel!!!!

Can you imagine opening a restaurant here, without proper permits and health inspections, etc..