I actually just did this. Started a new job in June last year, ended up moving across the country in Dec, but really liked my job and wanted to keep it and work remote full time.
Here's what I did:
1) In the months leading up to my move I worked my ass off and always volunteered to help out wherever my boss needed me most. This gave me experience on a lot of our different projects and made me less replaceable.
2) I told my employer one month before my move, and made sure they knew how much I enjoyed working for the company and how I really wanted to continue working for them remotely. However, I also made it clear that I was fully committed to moving with or without my job (in fact the following weekend I was flying out to find an apt).
It seems somewhat selfish and counter intuitive, but I believe that it's better to give less notice time than more. This creates more of a sense of urgency for your employer. A friend of mine tried the same thing but gave five months notice and was told that he couldn't work remote, but "come talk to us in five months before doing anything drastic (aka quitting)".
However, regardless of when you tell your employer, the most important thing is that you must be 100% committed to your move and willing to lose your job and start over in your new location.
To answer your other two questions:
Working remotely has it's pros and cons, which I won't go into detail on, since this post is already getting rather long :) But you can find lots of info in other places about this. Overall though, it has worked out very well for both me and my employer.
So far in four months of working remote I haven't been back to the office yet (it's a four hour flight). But from what we've discussed I'll probably be back in the office for one week per year.
Wow this is great and thanks for sharing. I had the same feeling that if I let them know too early, it might not work out in my favor; however, I won't know until I try.
As for moving and sticking to it, that's definitely my plan. This move is actually out of my control, so at least when I let them know I'm moving, there's nothing that'll change my mind and I'll make sure they know that.
Here's a fairly simple strategy for beating challenges 1 - 5. Basically drop off people in the elevator according to whoever's floor is closest. Then once the elevator is empty go to the closest floor that has people waiting to be picked up.
Glad you like it. I was thinking of adding a couple of examples to the about page as it might not be clear enough what the benefit is. I find it particularly helpful when dealing with a kiosk, lab PC, or quickly making a URL accessible on my phone as I'm walking out of the office.
Rockets are built to be pretty durable machines (obviously). The environment they operate in outside of the atmosphere is harsher in many ways.
Two big issues with sea landing: transport (tug, crane, huge truck, etc.), and corrosion/contamination from saltwater.
They'll still need to verify all systems and components before a second launch, but that's way easier to do when the vehicle is sitting empty on the pad next to all your people and equipment.
For Falcon 9 though, the first stage contributes so much of the dV that it is not particularly feasible to land it at the launch site - by the time it separates, it's moving at several kilometers per second away from the launch site towards the horizon. That opens up the question of where the launch/landing site pair is bound to be. A ship-based landing system, such as a semisubmersible oil drilling rig (only ~$1B used!) with a landing pad built onto it, would seem to be close to optimal for the F9 specifically.
The Falcon Heavy's 2 side boosters, on the other hand, will separate much earlier in the flight - they are likely to be much more practical to land at the launch site, particularly for direct geosynchronous payloads that allow a lot more vertical / near-vertical burn time in relation to horizontal.
It costs about 8km/s to get into low orbit from an atmosphere-less Earth. From our planet it costs about 9.4-1.0km/s because of aerodynamic and gravity losses. Those aerodynamic and gravity costs, and the Hohmann Transfer from groundlevel to orbit (trivial for LEO, more for GTO) are the only parts of the equation one can address while burning vertically to stay over the launch site.
Assuming 10, If the first stage only has to contribute 2km/s, it can address aerodynamic and gravity losses (while thrusting vertically), and then leave the second stage to boost for the horizon and achieve full orbit all on its own.
At 4-5km/s first stage contribution, it doesn't look like this is possible unless the payload is very undersized, leaving the second stage with enough dV to go from 'rising out of the upper atmosphere vertically' to 'circular orbit' all on its own.
The mass is a free variable, a greater vertical component is practical in GTO (and I don't have the modelling skills to say how much), and the second stage may launch fully fueled for F9R contra to the existing pattern, so I can't be 100% sure whether F9R will be a practical return-to-launchsite option for lightweight GTO payloads.
They'll still need to verify all systems and components before a second launch
That. You need to re-qualify the engine after each launch. The cost of labour far exceeds the cost of materials, you need to strip and re-build the thing, and you ask yourself just how much money you can save through re-using the first stage. I don't think it's much.
On traditional launch vehicles, yes. Shuttle was definitely this way. And I'm sure SpaceX will initially do a complete disassemble and inspection to gather more data about the wear and tear.
But the Merlin engines have been designed from the start to be reusable and dependably reignitable, whether at sea level or upper atmosphere. They're pretty amazing-- essentially the pinnacle of +50 years of engine design. Tom Mueller is a huge badass. :) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merlin_(rocket_engine)
I don't have a link on hand, but Elon has said multiple times that the majority cost of the Falcon-9 is the raw material. One of the reasons they've been able to drop the price significantly is by using more efficient manufacturing techniques, requiring less material and creating less waste. (e.g. stir-friction welding)
It's also worth noting that Falcon-9 can still complete a mission with one (and perhaps two?) engine failures, which gives quite a more comfortable margin of error. There's a big difference between "perfect" and "near perfect" when it comes to engineering these things. ;)
That's how politically-designed boondoggles like the shuttle work. It's not inevitable, if you actually spend the engineering effort on reliability and repeatability.
If NASA operated an airline, they would probably be tearing down and rebuilding every jet engine after every flight, and a ticket would cost $100,000.
I said this in another thread, but part of the issue is failure intolerance.
Sure - for human payloads I'd want to be damn sure my process is good, like, hundreds to thousands of missions deep before I trusted it.
But that's totally unnecessary for an unmanned payload! If the cost of launch drops enough, you can fully justify launching 2x the payloads if you expect maybe 1 in 10 failures due to the mode of launch.
I suspect it's possible to do a damn site better then that, but for NASA its never been an option. If it's reusable, they can't let a mission fail because they'll only get punished and funded according to the failures, even if they specced everything expecting 1 mission to possibly not go off right.
Space-X is great for the sub-set of things that don't require insurance, and don't therefore need to use corner-case mil-spec stuff with the corner case pricing.
For others, the cost of losing a $1-2B bird on top of a $100m/cheap rocket is shitty math. Nobody is going to insure the top of it, so ultimately the "waste" is akin to a form of insurance.
Everybody knows this already, so I'm not sure how sympathetic a hearing it is going to get. It will be great PR though to hopefully spurn <designs> that fit the new framework...and thus expand the market for space-x and hopefully limit the superflous use of corner-case technology for mundane/run-of the mill applications (at the tax payer's expense).
Right, but part of the reason we launch hugely expensive satellites is because launching a rocket is hugely expensive.
That calculus changes if your rocket launches start to get cheaper. It changes by a lot if your rocket launches have reasonable but predictable failure modes - which is something you get from volume.
As it is, rocket launches are relatively infrequent and expensive - which means its impossible to figure out the amortization of costs, and its not worth building a 10m satellite if your launch costs 100m (since if you can raise the latter, you can almost certainly get more for a better satellite too).
The $2B satellite is equally absurd, and only costs that much for the same reasons that the launch costs $400M. Everything is bespoke and produced in the maximal number of congressional districts, with no meaningful competitive pressure to drive prices downward.
And the two expenses buoy each other: if launches were inexpensive, you could spend a lot less on fault-tolerance in the payloads, because you could just launch a lot more payloads or even support on-orbit repair infrastructure.
If you look at previous launches of new designs you will see that the first few flights are invariably not commercial, they carry research spacecraft. These are the qualification flights; until the vehicle has a good track record the satellite operator won't find anyone to insure their bird.
Now the Falcon 9 is an all-new design, and their track record isn't all that shiny - there is a history of missing the target orbit by a fairly significant margin. It's going to be downvoted, but it had to be said.
I wouldn't be surprised if this flight went without insurance.
Missing the target orbit by a significant margin on all their 9 flights?
Or having their failsafe system activated after one of their engines blew up on a single mission, causing them to be in position to release the small secondary payload (which the customer did not particularly need in free flight apparently) slightly late, in a zone in which NASA had veto rights on due to proximity to the ISS. Rather than adjusting their orbit to deposit the secondary payload in the proper orbit, as is technologically feasible, NASA exercised their contractual veto and told them to drop it early.
The Merlin engine was designed from the beginning to be re-useable. They don't have to be "stripped and rebuilt" after each launch. They have already fired engines on the test stand for multiple mission durations with no problems.
Unlike NASA's adventures with the space shuttle, SpaceX is a for-profit business with a goal of making money. They wouldn't be pursuing reusability if they didn't think it would increase their ability to make a profit.
People constantly say this about him, yet he consistently comes through on what he says. I tend to favor trusting what he says about things like this now.
I was able to get 2048 building off of your solution. As you said, always keep your highest number in the top right corner. Try to build the next highest numbers up along the right edge, so that you have say, 256, 128, 64, 32 along the right edge. Always keep 4 numbers there, and only use up/down/right. Then just focus on building whatever number you need next to double the bottom right number, so that you can "chain up" numbers along the right edge and double your highest number in the top right.
Kind of hard to explain in words, but hopefully that helps!
Yep, this is pretty much the same solution with the right edge instead of the top edge. I got to 1024 and then blundered and couldn't get 2048. This thing is addictive though.
The only reason I still use Google over DuckDuckGo is the keyword suggestions as I'm typing. I find that to be very useful when I'm searching for something but not quite sure how to phrase it. I would for sure switch over if DDG added that!
One thing that I like about Knockout is that you can easily drop it into a legacy site, allowing you to have some pages that use it and others that don't. Forgive my naivete, but is this something that is easy to do with Ember or Angular as well?
Without knowing the specifics, the best answer I can come up with here is that it's Javascript -- so yeah, you can write it affect parts of the page, or all of the page. You can have it control just the navigation bar on a site, or the whole site altogether.
There are caveats here -- if you have the library loaded from any page with html5 location mode enabled, it'll take over link-handling on those pages. With Angular, it's easy to circumvent by adding a 'target' attribute to the links, but on a legacy site, that might mean having to touch every page that Angular doesn't already exist on, which would be a chore.
The alternative is to not enable HTML5 location mode (so links are to #/link/) or to adjust the targets on links that aren't meant to be handled by JS.
All summed up though, while it may not be written anywhere, I've always gotten the feeling that Angular prefers to own the entire page, loading partials into views where appropriate, and using separate controllers for other portions of the page. That said, it can work either way, but does take some extra special care.
"allowing you to have some pages that use it and others that don't"
Your response seems to dig into a different (though related) issue. If the question is whether, given a whole website, whether angular/ember can exist only on certain pages, but not all pages, then the answer is Yes.
EDIT: whoops, I was answering about Knockout vs Angular here, not Ember.
I think it's actually easier in angular, because you can set the ng-app parameter at the point in the DOM tree you want to bind to the Angular portion of the app. (ng-app is similar to ko.applyBindings, except that unlike KO, with Angular don't have to worry about having parent DOM bindings clash with child DOM binding applications.).
this is one of the nice things about angular. You can just drop it in to make a component of an existing site use angular. I attempted to get that to work with ember, but I don't think it's possible.
01 - Found it a bit confusing as to which link I should click first. Add fuel to your business? Let's get started?
Current - Interesting idea but I found it difficult to mouseover a particular portfolio site due to the small hitbox for each covered one. Also don't like how the navigation seems crammed in an odd spot.
02 - This one isn't bad but I didn't like the home page. Not sure if it was just broken in my browser or if I was supposed to see just one sentence until I clicked on it.
04 - By far my favorite. Although I wish the navigation was at the top instead of the bottom.
Here's what I did:
1) In the months leading up to my move I worked my ass off and always volunteered to help out wherever my boss needed me most. This gave me experience on a lot of our different projects and made me less replaceable.
2) I told my employer one month before my move, and made sure they knew how much I enjoyed working for the company and how I really wanted to continue working for them remotely. However, I also made it clear that I was fully committed to moving with or without my job (in fact the following weekend I was flying out to find an apt).
It seems somewhat selfish and counter intuitive, but I believe that it's better to give less notice time than more. This creates more of a sense of urgency for your employer. A friend of mine tried the same thing but gave five months notice and was told that he couldn't work remote, but "come talk to us in five months before doing anything drastic (aka quitting)".
However, regardless of when you tell your employer, the most important thing is that you must be 100% committed to your move and willing to lose your job and start over in your new location.
To answer your other two questions: Working remotely has it's pros and cons, which I won't go into detail on, since this post is already getting rather long :) But you can find lots of info in other places about this. Overall though, it has worked out very well for both me and my employer.
So far in four months of working remote I haven't been back to the office yet (it's a four hour flight). But from what we've discussed I'll probably be back in the office for one week per year.
Best of luck to you!