It’s not required, but not using full budget is a great way to get budget reduced the next year and few managers want that…

[removed]

Depends on the Company. In corporations that use Zero Based Budgeting what you spent last year or what remained in your budget is irrelevant. You have to completely rejustify your budget every year. It’s definitely way more work than just carrying over the previous budget but discourages the above notion where departments want to fully spend the previous budget In order to keep that same amount the following year.

Yeah, those stimulus payments that the government sent out were poorly done. I realize some people needed them and those are the people which should have received them but me and my wife received thousands of dollars automatically even though we were both still working through the entire pandemic. They really needed more of a surgical approach instead of blanket payments.

Glabrous skin is located in 3 parts of your body, the sole of the foot, palms of your hands and forehead.
It lacks the hair and pigmentation and has extra pores for heat transfer.

The skin on the rest of your body is thick and well insulated and designed to keep heat in and everything else out.

You ARE assuming the original triangle is a right triangle. If you take a triangle ABC, rotate it 180° and translate it so that AC coincides with the original CA, you're guaranteed to get a PARALLELOGRAM. You're only guaranteed to get a rectangle if the original triangle was a right triangle.

Who says it doesn’t? That’s essentially what diarrhea is, your intestines not absorbing the water moving through system into the blood stream and just sending it right out.

I worked in the Canadian Government for 10 years.

The one that drove me "batshit" would be us getting told from fiscal day 1, April 1st through to February that we have no budget. Then on March 1st we will get told someone found a couple of million and we have 30 days to spend it.

and whatever you buy needs to be delivered by March 31st.

It's true madness.

They use something called a refractory material to line the various containers, and these are a bit like the tiles on the space shuttle, very VERY resistant to heat. They do need to be replaced on a regular schedule, but they keep the containers from melting on the surface.

Yes the monitor can be attached. It can be either ECG (electrical) or a finger pulse monitor. Both work fine.

ECG monitors do have problems with MRI, because the scanner generates an absolute ton of electrical interference which messes up the waveforms.

The waveform is also distorted because when you move something which conducts electricity (like a wire, but also blood or heart tissue) in the presence of a magnetic field, that movement generates electricity. The electricity generated by the moving blood and heart muscle can mess up the trace - it's still good enough for timing and syncing up the scan - but it doesn't look like the trace you get in textbooks.

Heart monitors are absolutely a hazard if used with MRI incorrectly. Obviously, you wouldn't use one with any magnetic parts. However, because of the enormous electromagnetic fields generated by the MRI scanner, there can be all sorts of weird effects with wires and metals. So, it's very important that the correct monitor and sticky electrodes be used. Electrodes with too much metal in them can get hot and burn the skin. Wires which are too long can pick up interference from the scanner, concentrate it and direct it into electrodes, also burning the skin. There are special monitors and electrodes designed specifically to withstand these effects and absorb the energy safely so as not to burn the skin. These monitors also contain special electronic filters to try to filter out most of the interference produced by the scanner so that the waveform isn't completely swamped by just static and interference.

The budget is derived from the previous year, but the money itself is not. It's not like they set up a savings account that ended on Dec 31 that they begin drawing from on Jan 1. Tracking cash flow is a job, and it goes from month to month and week to week. And business expenses count against your income in the current fiscal year, not the previous. Depreciation is also a thing, and it's why certain items would be paid for from different funds.

Otherwise they risk getting a smaller budget next year. People will argue that they didn't need the whole budget anyway.

Those nose bulbs you see on big ships are specifically tuned for each ship and do the same thing with water waves. Lowering friction along the side of the hull and thus improving fuel mileage. As much as 10%.

> Giant companies are giant. It is difficult to give each group/department/division its own rules, so they prefer one-size-fits-all approaches, even if they are more inefficient individually.

The myth of Procrustes was he welcomed all travellers to spend a night in his bed for free; however, if you were too short, you were stretched to fit it the bed, and if too tall, some of you got lopped off. We use the same Procrustean 'one-size-fits-all' approach in many places in the modern world, from grade school, to government policies, to goddam 'one-size' socks that are either too short or too loose. I suggest it's an artifact of the mechanical age, which we are in the process of leaving behind.

The assembly line that so tremendously increased material production was based on identical parts, assembled in an identical manner, to create identical products. Our new computer-controlled systems have the potential to create unique parts, uniquely assembled, to deliver a unique product to you. (No, we're not there yet) We may be leaving the Procrustean model behind.

I worked as a data analyst. I remember 'strategic planning' in 1980 - using 6 to 12 month old data to predict where you were going to be in five years, and what you should be doing to get there. Now we have real time data available, and the computing power to process it instantly. Presumably, the greater flexibility of this process will filter down to the budgeting system, but that will probably take the retirement of the Boomer generation, who are still stuck in the Procrustean paradigm.

It said on, not in. Quit being weird and strap them to a tree like the rest of us.

It doesn't detect them as multiple frequencies until later, it just samples the incoming sounds and creates a digital version of the analog measurements. from the mic.

There's a thing called 'digital signal processing' which then can then analyze the digital signal and break it up into it's composite frequencies/magnitudes, average out the noise. The way the processing is handled will determine the quality of the end result.

Some cool things to learn about would in Nyquist Theorem, Fast Fourier Analysis, and Digital Signal Processing (FFT is part of this but deserves it's own mention).

That's because the "opposite sound" doesn't make sense.

If a cat makes a happy meow, the noise canceling headphones does not make a sad meow noise.

The happy meow makes a sound wave

Think of these waves like waves in the ocean

If you were to send the exact same wave from the beach towards the ocean waves, imagine what's going to happen.

Both waves hit together at their peaks and you'll notice that after that point, the waves that would reach dry sand will be much lower in height.

So it's the same wave just coming at the opposite direction

Nuclear tech:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-nuclear-saudi/u-s-shared-nuclear-power-info-with-saudi-arabia-after-khashoggi-killed-idUSKCN1T52ER

Under Trump we sold THREE TIMES the number of bombs to the Saudis than before. Both sides? No... its three times as many.

https://www.ft.com/content/dd836c34-d60b-11e8-a854-33d6f82e62f8

The idea is somewhat simple, you simply measure (and in more expensive/sophisticated headphones predict) the noise coming into the ear and use that info to send noise into the ear which exactly counteracts the incoming noise you want to block.

There are several insanely difficult parts to this though:

1. How do we calculate what we need to counteract incoming noise fast enough that we actually counteract it in time? In airpods there may be a couple centimeters between the outer speakers measuring incoming noise and the inner speakers. This gives distance/speed of sound ≈ 3*10^(-2)/343 ≈ 1/10000 seconds, so 100 microseconds. That's not a lot of time to calculate things.

2. The noise being measured at the outer speakers is distorted due to the shape of your ear. This needs to be taken into account or otherwise the inner speakers would not be cancelling out the correct sound.

3. Predicting what noise will be coming and using the prediction instead of actually measuring the noise. This works pretty well for a lot of signal processing purposes (separating noise from music, recreating ECG's when only part of the data is available, or anything else where the input can be considered a signal) but real life noise is not always predictable.

Less red tape would be good, but there are still a lot of people who remember things like thalidomide. For regular things, the need for the process is critical. Often, research, funding, or various stages of trials and other testing is delayed because the benefits or results of previous stages/documentation did not clearly show what the approvers needed to see, or the information provided was suspect.

Note that some cases, such as approval for off-label uses for medicines that are already proven safe, work their way through the process much faster, since the main question is the efficacy; the question about safety was previously answered in earlier work/approvals.

For the COVID vaccines, saying that it was "streamlined" almost does not do it justice. If a step was completed at 8:00 PM on a Friday for anything else, the next step would not start until Monday at the earliest. For COVID, the people involved in the next step would be at the office at 7:30 PM, waiting for the previous step to be complete, and they would be prepared to work overnight, then hand off to the next step at 6:00 AM Saturday morning, and so on.

It is an unsustainable pace overall, but it worked for that single need.

I think I touched on most of this but thanks for going more in depth on it.

[removed]

A speaker moves in and out to make pressure waves picked up by your eardrums. You can make a speaker that basically catches the incoming pressure waves.

If one speaker moved outwards, the opposite one would move inward.

We assume the speed of sound is much faster than it is. Locally it seems almost instantaneous, when it is not.

If you have a large bell like the kind used in a church steeple you can see this disconnect with your own eyes.

If you get more than about an eighth of a mile away you will see the ringing bell move quite a bit out of sync from the sound of the bell ringing that you hear.

It gets even wielder when you consider that the image of the bell being rung is also arriving in your eye AFTER the bell is actually being rung, due to the speed of light. It's just a much shorter delay.

It might be tempting to just hand wave that away and say that the light travels effectively instantaneously, but that thinking with sound is exactly how we ended up here in the first place.

Oh yeah thats a tipical sitcom situation too. Teens having their first big party or prom and drinking codein (bc they are too young to buy alcohol)