Not quite true! Modern airplanes are way more complex. First of all, all modern airplanes have supercritical airfoils which go back to the 60s and 70s. Secondly, the airfoil of the wing root is typically different than the wing tip. Finally, new composite wings are adaptive during flight. They change their shape slightly to maximize efficiency.
I believe the main reason is that the skillset in this domain has a small overlap with what is needed at FAANG. This is done mostly in academia and as such the salaries are in line with the salaries at universities.
I’m a bit apprehensive since I don’t know SW personally, but what my friend described sounded like a borderline abusive behavior. Basically he treated people like they were stupid and shouted at them when they made mistakes.
I had a friend who worked there. A very smart Ivy League-educated math PhD. He was very critical of the work culture at Wolfram Research. Apparently in his experience Stephen Wolfram treated people badly.
Because there is no other plane in the market other than Airbus 320 that is in the same class as 737. The only other manufacturer is Embraer with their 175 which is a much smaller aircraft.
I don’t think Einstein could have come up with general relativity if he had to rely on any other language than math. So I suspect math is not “just” another language.
Except water is H2O where the oxygen comes from plants and plants get it from water and the hydrogen comes from hydrocarbon fuels where the hydrogen comes from water again. So technically you can never create new water on Earth but you can bring in more from the space.
File a chargeback to your CC company. Don’t waste your time with Amazon reps after the first call. Chances are they’ll ban you from Amazon which makes it easier to transition to other services.
Parallel programming is not hard; state management is hard. And for problems that are not embarrassingly parallel, unfortunately there is no silver bullet.
It wasn’t a complete failure. SpaceX will learn a lot from this launch. But I believe this design is not super reliable. Synchronizing 32 rocket engine is not easy. Perhaps this will be a great cargo ship. As for carrying astronauts to Mars, I’m not so sure. Only time will tell.
Easy to look up! By current estimates Earth cooled enough to have liquid water about 4.46B years ago and the first RNA emerged around 4.35B years ago. So it took just over 100 million years for simple forms of life to emerge.
Then you need to explain how life on Earth started a short period after it cooled down. Yes, it took a long time for complex life forms to emerge but life itself started right off the bat.
I know some people involved in Boom. They simply have no understanding of the physical limitations of supersonic flight. Surprise, they’re all software engineers.
Good luck to them but it sounds like an expensive solution. I’d be super excited to see a scramjet startup but scramjet is always decades away like the fusion reactor.
I don’t know much about their long term business strategy but what bothers me is that they’re vague about how they intend to achieve the flight mission objectives. This is very different than SpaceX which focused on reusable rockets and landing them.
As for materials, the main advantage of composites is the strength to weight ratio but they’re more challenging to work with compared to aluminum and titanium. Heat is one aspect but there are many more challenges. It’s been done though for example B787 and A350 are mostly composite. So Boom has a genuine advance here over Concorde. But supersonic flight is inherently fuel inefficient due to wave drag so the economy doesn’t make sense.
Sadly Boom is doomed and it’s been a writing on the wall all along. They never had a good engine option. The military engines are not safe enough and developing a new civilian engine makes sense only if you make hundreds of them.
Their net-zero emission claim is also bogus. Their pricing model doesn’t make much sense either unless they’re willing to lose money for a decade or so. There is not much innovation in aerodynamics and shock wave shaping either. Their only innovation compared to Concorde is the use of composite materials which is just not enough to hit their targets.
I was speaking with one the top managers of Airbus and asked him about Boom Supersonic and the Overture. He was skeptical of the idea mostly because of fuel consumption. He said based on their research, the future of flight is slower not faster. Open fan, hydrogen, and electrical planes all point to a slower and more efficient aviation.
Many years ago I used this as the textbook in a technical writing class: Booth, Colomb, and Williams, The craft of research, University of Chicago Press.
The two big CAD kernels are Parasolid, owned by Siemens, and Acis, owned by Dassault. Both of them are proprietary, quite pricey, and light years ahead of OpenCascade in capability and stability. The current state of open-source CAD is very sad.
Yes, I thought about both possibilities (discrimination and insecurity) but I want to remain positive and not attribute ulterior motives to the interviewer. It was an ironic experience though because, I believe, had my code been a bit slower I would have had a better shot at the interview.
I went through a similar experience with a radically different outcome. I was given a coding assignment and one week to finish it. I spent more than 30 hours on it and came up with a solution that was supposedly 500 times faster that what they'd ever seen (they told me this later). But things took a wrong turn at that point. In the followup meeting the interviewer turned out to be rude, disruptive, and combative. He tried to grill me on every little thing I said and finally rejected me. I have no idea how it happened but I suspect they simply thought my solution to the take-home assignment was too good to be mine.