bezalmighty

“Completely exchangeable” Obviously people are not fungible, replacing one person with another will never provide the exact same results. The question in each case then is how different would the results be, and would the replacement be better or worse? For a very simple job, perhaps pressing a single button, the results may only be subtly different. But what happens when it’s a complex job with no right and wrong answers, where work input is affected by output (like a chaotic system), spanning multiple areas of influence? The work output of the individual changes drastically, and just like in a chaotic system, the results to the organization vary increasingly over time. Nobody is fungible, but of all people, decision makers like politicians, CEOs etc are the butterfly wings flapping in New York that causes a cyclone in Japan. The only real way to evaluate if their impact is likely to be positive is looking at previous results. Due to rarity of top performers and importance to systems, they have negotiation power.

Dependable leaders really do have that much value to their organizations. This is similar to why in critical areas like medicine, old-and-dependable things are valued over new and shiny. The older things have lower risk, and a strong track record. That added dependability is more important than being the newer “better” but riskier option. Back to this topic, how many CEOs with track records managing 80 billion revenue AI organizations are ready to replace Altman? Because Open AI is well ahead in the field, they don’t need big risky changes, they need to reliably stay the course.

When calculating energy requirements on a flat plane of travel, the weight of the load is only relevant* when accelerating. On a flat plane, once the load is up to speed, it doesn’t take any significant increase of energy to maintain speed, regardless of load weight. The main reason fuel is required to maintain speed on a flat surface is overcoming air resistance. At the speeds that road traffic travels, only the front and back shapes of the vehicle contributes substantially to air resistance, not “air friction” from an elongated middle body. This means that on a flat plane like a highway, doubling the length of a vehicle to accommodate double the load, does not require anywhere near double the energy to maintain speed. It does however provide much more space to capture solar energy.

By the way, you can take advantage of this yourself on long highways by driving close (but safe) to large trucks, driving in their slip stream. It cuts fuel requirements substantially because the truck is doing some of the work of moving the air for you.

One puzzling thing is why trucks aren’t designed to be more aerodynamic, instead of a giant box shape. Anyone got any thoughts on this?

*aside from small things like added friction on bearings, changed tire geometry etc.

1) It appears to me that the document you provided actually refutes what you are saying. It supports fractional reserve banking. Here is a quote from the conclusion: "Most of the money in circulation is created, not by the printing presses of the Bank of England, but by the commercial banks themselves: banks create money whenever they lend to someone in the economy or buy an asset from consumers. "

2) "infinite money" without a legal limit to reserve ratios would only occur if every single bank actually had exactly 0% reserves, and it would take infinite time and infinite transactions for that to occur.

FYI using the observed absence of 'infinity' as a proof is generally poor logic as there is lots of mechanisms blocking infinity from occurring in reality.

In the macro economic sense, fiat money isn't 'used up' or 'locked away' when you buy something like crypto, it's transferred from your account to someone else's bank account. Worse, it goes through the process of fractional reserve banking and multiplies about ~10x after changing hands repeatedly.

Try and break the problem down with systems thinking. Here's an example of this:

  ━━1=> The output effect you're trying to eliminate/reduce is pain and swelling in respiratory tract.
    ┗━━2=> Hypothesis (needs testing): This is caused by physical irritation of the tube
       ┗━━3=> Hypothesis (needs testing): That irritation is caused by A) friction and B) physical pressure
          ┣━━4a=> How can we reduce friction?
          ┃  ┗━━5a=> Would a lubricant on the tube meet engineering constraints and reduce friction?
          ┃     ┗━━6a=> Would the use of lubricant in practice create added risks or difficulties in the operating room?
          ┃         ┗━━7a=> Hypothesis: Yes, due to the application of lubricant necessitating a glove-change afterwards.
          ┃           ┗━━8a=> How can we overcome problems with lubricant application to the intubation tube?
          ┃              ┗━━9a=> Would passing the intubation tube through a no-mess, easy-to-use "self lubricating ring" mitigate added risks or difficulties in the operating room?
          ┗━━4b=> How can we reduce physical pressure?
             ┗━━5b=> Would reducing the diameter meet engineering constraints and reduce pressure?
                ┗━━6b=> If there is a minimum diameter requirement needed to deliver oxygen, would dynamically changing the diameter of the tube (e.g. inflating it) after insertion create a reduction in pressure?

So that's a very simplified example of how to solve problems with systems thinking (although in reality it would be WAY more detailed and actually test each hypothesis).

The problem is very rarely "money" in medical fields, the problem is someone actually identifying the root problem/s, i.e. the "problem behind the problem behind the problem", and applying engineering to solve that, which solves the problem one level above it, etc.

If you're interested in this, read up on things like "the five whys", a systems approach to problem solving invented at Toyota.

Location: Melbourne Australia

Remote: Yes

Willing to relocate: Within Australia

Roles interested in: Technical Product Management, or fullstack rails development with product management

Technologies: Ruby on Rails (RoR), Full stack (html, css, js), SQL + much more.

Résumé/CV: 8 years experience. Resume on request.

Email: [email protected]

“I love working here, and because of that I need to let you know that other opportunities are becoming financially better alternatives. Would you reconsider the maximum salary that you think I’m worth here, so that we can keep working together?”