Ouch. I literally did this. Built a site to buy/sell textbooks. Moved abroad, learned the language. Built a business to teach travelers the local lingo. 10 years later, it was acquired (at a loss). Currently on (9).
Apparently you can survive about 40 seconds in a vacuum. One option would be for one pilot to enter (as quickly as possible!) then put the CMP into a spacesuit, then re-admit the other astronaut. No clue if they could enter and re-pressurize the capsule within 30 seconds- sounds like a long-shot.
It takes about 45 minutes to don a modern spacesuit -- and that assumes the person donning the spacesuit is assisting with the process, not incapacitated.
Edit: This says it can actually be done in five minutes in an emergency if one's willing to skip every safety check, but getting an unresponsive person into one seems like surely it would be more of a challenge -- particularly if the "helper" was wearing a spacesuit himself. Those things are awfully restrictive! And I would wager it's not a scenario they practiced.
> - Help incapacitated astronaut into suit (temporarily removing own suit if necessary)
> - Once both suited up, open airlock again to admit remaining astronaut
These steps don't seem to be necessary. Since the CM can be opened from the inside towards the LM, the third astronaut could just wait in the LM and be let in that way.
I think the only question is really how quickly can you repressurize the CM.
It was basically a cone-shaped pressure vessel 3.23m tall and 3.91m wide, that's 51.71m^3 of volume. I'd estimate about 50% is taken up by machinery, so how fast can you repressurize 25m^3 to 1/3 sea level (which was apparently standard for the spacecraft)?
My guess would be it could be done pretty quickly, maybe 2 minutes?
Your insight suggests an even better solution: the spacewalking astronaut could open the internal hatch to the docked Lunar Module so its cabin air can instantly partially repressurize the Command Module
Maybe, IF the hatch can be opened when there is a pressure difference. It might be dangerous or even mechanically locked out in those cases. It may not, I have no idea.
I mean we're just guessing and spitballing here, and all of this assumes that whatever incapacitated the CMP is fixable by the other astronaut. But it does look like there may be a decent chance the CMP could survive this. Of course, he might have internal injuries or they might not be able to restart his heart. But seems like this procedure would be worth a try.
Opening the hatch was a huge pain. They'd have to disassemble the rather phallic docking mechanism (as Collins described it). Not being able to disassemble it was one of the fears Collins had about Apollo 11.
They just announced they plan on changing the policy. It has not changed yet.
Also they announced they were "investigating the issue" for 4 months before, and then didn't make a change. So let's not congratulate them until its been confirmed to be actually working as drivers and customers expect.
While this was definitely not clear to the consumer, it ended up being a preferable model for the drivers as they would get a higher pay on most orders. Not saying that it should be that way, but saying they did that just to steal tips is not true. It was used to guarantee a minimum amount on orders that don't make sense financially.
What the company should have done, ethically, is to just increase base compensation for drivers. You shouldn't be able to dynamically change base compensation based on the quality of the tip that the driver is rewarded, that is pretty antithetical to the entire idea of a tipping economy.
That's a very valid viewpoint and what's done by Grubhub or Caviar I believe. But it results in lower pay for the drivers overall because the guaranteed minimum is lower than the one DoorDash usually offers.
Because they still want people that can afford to pay $50k/year to pay it. Lowering tuition lowers it for everyone. If your parents make $300k+/year, then you'll still be paying full tuition. But as their income is lower, currently you'll get some need-based financial aid. The problem is that this aid is a combination of "scholarship" and "loans". The goal here is to remove the loan component.
The problem still is that middle-class families get stuck in a gray zone. I went to Brown, and my parents made enough (~$110k) that I didn't get financial aid but they also couldn't pay $40k/year.
While the process sounds good in theory there is an ever increasing gap that people fall into between parents making too much money and parents not making enough. I'm bias because I fell right into the middle of the gap - my parents inherited an illiquid share of real estate that on paper is worth about a million dollars, in reality after taxes it yields maybe 40k/yr that my parents live off of (60+, no college). Because of this I was denied any form of financial aid and had to fend for myself.
Yup, and it leads to this perverse economic effect of middle class families that scrape together enough wealth to make a very positive situation, then get it all pulled back pretty hard because of outrageous tuition fees. Not that low-income students have it easy either. Sometimes it just feels like the rules of our society are lined up to keep the middle and lower classes in their place instead of supporting general prosperity.
Education is one of the biggest scams and it’s run 99% by the upper middle class. At elite universities, it’s upper middle class people fleecing upper middle class peoplle. At less elite universities, it’s upper middle class people fleecing middle and lower class people.
Did you explain this to the financial aid office? Generally, elite schools are in the business of finding elite students first and then dealing with FA second. But you have to make your situation clear to them. They offered you admission or you wouldn't be dealing with FA. So they wanted you. But FA is a negotiation even especially if you're in the gap and then you have to negotiate hard because otherwise you pay sticker.
None is necessary since they are both Federally guaranteed and they can’t be discharged by bankruptcy (which is the epitome of stupidity). Indeed, that ‘bargain’ is why Brown is doing this thing.
No collateral is necessary for student debt since they can come after anything you or your cosigners have.
Someone will have to explain to me what is special about this debt that it gets this special treatment.
> None is necessary since they are both Federally guaranteed and they can’t be discharged by bankruptcy (which is the epitome of stupidity). Indeed, that ‘bargain’ is why Brown is doing this thing.
Just because they can't be discharged in bankruptcy doesn't they're actually repaid. Student loans can and do default - an average rate of 15% a few years ago, though some schools have students that default at more than twice that rate.
External guarantees on loans (in this case federal guarantees) doesn't address the same issue that collateral is typical used for: namely, it doesn't solve the moral hazard problem.
(It's not that Brown has solved the moral hazard problem itself; it's that Brown's able to take on that risk themselves, because it's an incredibly selective, incredibly competitive, and fairly small[0] school).
[0] We're talking specifically about undergraduates
> Just because they can't be discharged in bankruptcy doesn't they're actually repaid.
Exactly. So instead that’s an albatross to be hung around a young person’s neck for all of eternity. Bankruptcy would share the burden between lender and borrower.
What we have now is a system where loans are Federally guaranteed and then not dischargeable through bankruptcy. That leads to $100k cooking schools that promise to turn you into a pro-chef, just sign here, here and here and you can even get a Federally guaranteed loan, sign here.
The gap is real, but parents with a million dollar house who aren't making enough while on retirement? That's most parents except for that huge asset. You're not in the gap in my view.
The difference is that some assets (in retirement accounts) are protected from financial aid inspection and inherited real estate is not. If that seems unfair, it is because it is.
Yep. My wife would like to be stay-at-home-mom, but she works so we can save $2k/month for two kids college expenses, currently in elementary school. Goal is to have $160k over next 10 years. So by saving, I'm screwing myself. It's equivalent to another mortgage.
You're not screwing yourself, you're taking responsibility. Financial aid comes with strings as well as a highly invasive personal finance anal exam called FAFSA (which database I'm sure will get hacked and disclosed at some point, if it's hasn't already, as most other big government databases have).
That’s mighty puritanical thinking. When a family works their ass off to be denied financial aid and pay full freight for highly inflated university tuition, that’s not what I would call “taking responsibility” that’s just being taken.
College financial aid is just another policy in the pile of progressive taxation and needs-based benefit programs which conspire to enact a near 100% effective marginal tax rate on the middle class.
>> Because they still want people that can afford to pay $50k/year to pay it.
That's not quite what I was getting at. My question is: Why are they making alumni find the $120M in grants, when they could just forgive the loan directly?
There's nothing that says a lender has to collect on its debt. It can choose to forgive the debt.
So it's possible for Brown to charge $50K/year generally, collect it from the rich kids, and then forgive the debt incurred by the poor kids.
But that's not what they're doing. They're keeping the money, and asking alumni and other charitable institutions to pay them.
The loans don't actually come from the school- they are often government-sponsored, though those typically cap out at $12k a year or something. The rest you have to get through private loans, and the school has no way to forgive them- unless they want to write a check to my loan provider.
The truth is that they should evaluate need not based on your parents income, but on their net worth - the price of their home. If you struggled to make ends meet for 15 years at the beginning of your child life but then suddenly started making 200k a year, you likely don't have the savings you need to pay 200k over 4 years to send your kid to college.
My company has been a partner of Concur for several years, starting back in 2012 when the original founders (Steve, Raj and Mike) were all still there.
Steve was easily the most-respected leader in the travel industry- even people that disliked Concur admired Steve. He was articulate, created a clear vision for Concur that they maintained even as they grew like wildfire, and he inspired trust and goodwill with Concur partners.
I get the "oh no, SAP executive" instinctual reaction, but Steve is clearly an entrepreneur at heart and considers himself an entrepreneur (it took them 20 years of grinding and ups and downs to build Concur what it is today).
There was also a comment about him leading the company to exit in 2-3 years. I seriously doubt it. Concur's stock symbol is CNQR which isn't a coincidence. They didn't build Concur to sell it, they built it to conquer, which they had basically done when SAP bought them. Plus after 20 years I imagine $8B sounded pretty good, but I don't think their approach was ever to try to "flip" the company and I doubt he would join Docker if that was the intention in any way.
I'm not affiliated with Docker in any way and I'm just speaking from my experience. My only connection to Steve Singh is just that my company still partners with Concur.
Concur became a behemoth in corporate travel, and companies that competed against them or didn't want to work with them eventually had to.[1]
It sounds like you don't know a lot about the corporate travel industry which is fine. I'm sure a lot of people would love to get "conquered" for $8B some day.
Please don't post like this to HN. It's a breach of the civility rule to accuse a fellow user of "standard PR stuff" and insinuate astroturfing or other bad-faith behavior without evidence. The overwhelming majority of the time, you're simply talking to someone with a different point of view than yours, and that's the foundation of civil discourse.
I disagree with the moderator's response. The whole reply was fine, and "easily the most respected leader in the travel industry" is indeed unintelligent, gushing drivel that sounds like PR copy; it's this sort of thing that we don't want on HN.
Note 2: This kind of comment from a moderator feels a bit out of place, given this. At least without a disclaimer explaining the relationship between the topic and the moderator's employer.
Three thoughts. First, the overwhelming majority of users who we stick up for with comments like this (including the GP) aren't affiliated with YC in any way, so I don't see what problem that would solve.
It would insult readers' knowledge and intelligence to put nitpicky disclaimers on everything, especially when the affiliations are all public. Presumably you knew these things without special access; why assume less of others?
HN is a spirit-of-the-law, not letter-of-the-law place. The principle at issue is that fellow users deserve to be read charitably. I don't see how that needs any disclaiming.
Under the terms of the transaction, LogMeIn will pay $110 million in cash upon close for all outstanding equity interests in LastPass, with up to an additional $15 million in cash payable in contingent payments which are expected to be paid to equity holders and key employees of LastPass upon the achievement of certain milestone and retention targets over the two-year period following the closing of the transaction.
That's funny. The LogMeIn employees have a financial stake in making sure that people DON'T exit en masse after the acquisition. I wonder why?
I would caution, then, that any interviews given by any staffer to the effect of "LastPass is not changing, your data is perfectly safe with LogMeIn, the prices will not skyrocket, etc." over the next few months should be taken with a grain of salt, since they quite literally have $15 million riding on you not leaving.
As opposed to any other acquisition (excl. acquihires) where the company doesn't have any incentive to keep customers at all and therefore everything they say must be completely true?
That's a whole lot to infer from that. Holding a significant portion of the sale in escrow pending retention, legal requirements, and other issues is pretty standard practice.
Under the terms of the transaction, LogMeIn will pay $110 million in cash upon close for all outstanding equity interests in LastPass, with up to an additional $15 million in cash payable in contingent payments which are expected to be paid to equity holders and key employees of LastPass upon the achievement of certain milestone and retention targets over the two-year period following the closing of the transaction.
