Seems like there is a misunderstanding about the US credit system. Paying interest has 0 impact on your credit score. Plenty of ways to get a credit card without credit history (secured credit cards are typically easiest) and as long as you pay it off before the statement due date (typically 28-60 days after the charge) then you will not be charged any interest while building credit.
> Plenty of ways to get a credit card without credit history (secured credit cards are typically easiest) and as long as you pay it off before the statement due date
How it works? What the reason for a bank to give credit without interest? I just do not believe it. System must have a way to get interest. If system says it charges no interest, it means that interest payments are hidden. Either behind transactions fees, or by fixed costs covering maintanance of credit card, or by some other ways.
> How it works? ... Either behind transactions fees, or by fixed costs covering maintanance of credit card, or by some other ways.
You're correct, US credit card companies do still make a profit on those of us who pay off their balance in full every month and therefore pay no interest.[1]
Visa/MC/Discover/Amex all charge the merchants a percentage (~2%) to process a credit card transaction. I have a cashback card with no annual service fee which pays 1.5% cashback.
Let's say I spend $10,000.00 on this card in 1 year. Visa will collect $200.00 in merchant fees, pay me $150.00 in cashback, and gross profit of $50.00 on my account for 1 year.
Some cards charge an annual service fee which adds to the gross profit.
[1] It's possible there are some people who are a net loss to the card issuers due to gaming the rewards systems, but generally the issuer will make money on someone who pays $0 in interest.
If system says it charges no interest, it means that interest payments are hidden. Either behind transactions fees, or by fixed costs covering maintanance of credit card, or by some other ways.
In a sense you are right -- there is a hidden fee, and it's related to the value that credit cards create for merchants. There are other ways to make money on payments, besides interest. The card company charges the merchant a fee -- perhaps 3.5% -- to process the transaction.
If a customers pays 8.00 USD for a toothbrush with cash, the merchant receives 8.00 USD in cash. If the customer pays with a credit card, the merchant receives 7.72 USD directly in their bank account. They lose 0.28 USD on 8.00 USD. Why do they take this deal?
* Reduced risk of theft and loss. Cash is easy to steal -- it can be stolen by employees, by dedicated robbers, and by passers by.
* Increased likelihood of making a sale. People don't want to carry too much cash, so sometimes they run out; and instead of making an impulse purchase, they just don't make the purchase. Credit makes it much easier for them to make that purchase.
That's definitely a mischaracterization of what the airlines do. Anyone that has been in a cockpit of a plane knows that you fly by checklists.
There's a checklist procedure for almost any scenario they will run into (of course not every). This exact issue was seen by other airlines and the pilots followed the checklist procedures to safely regain control of the plane as expected.
In theory, these checklists are optimized to resolve these issues and regain control as quickly as possible while ruling out other causes. It is very rare the correct course of action for the pilot differs from the checklist procedure.
There is 0 expectation that the pilot should remember everything. Pilots are trained specifically to communicate with each other to go through these checklists as quickly as possible.
That being said, there is a major concern that this issue will popup while taking off and being too low to the ground to properly follow procedure in time to recover control of the aircraft.
Chicken and egg problem. How does the pilot know that the automation is malfunctioning? The pilot has to go through their mental checklist and make the realization that intervention is necessary to prevent catastrophic results. All this while in critical take-off situation.
Apparently, the plane thought all was well, just needed to point the nose of the plane down a wee bit.
And yet it is precisely because Captain Sullenberger did not follow protocol, in the moment, that he was able to save the lives of everyone aboard flight 1549. It was only determined afterwards (obviously) that he made the right call.
Many pilots in similar situations would have made the wrong decision. As a passenger you are not necessarily going to get someone of Sullenberger's quality. And it is possible that automation could help in this kind of situation. It could provide an estimate of glide distance. It could use spatial data to identify crash landing sites, avoid populated areas, and design an optimal landing profile. All in a fraction of a second. Of course this kind of failure is so unusual that it is probably not worth designing the automation to deal with it.
I mean, initially pilots were not informed this system existed. Certainly the assumptions that went into that decision seem to match up with what the person above you is describing.
In theory (not saying I agree), the "regain control checklist" is very similar before and after this change which is apart of why they did not see a need to communicate this until after the 1st crash.
Reviewing the video below - it appears to still line up with this. He doesn't mention the actual memory items changing. His explanation is the pilots starting using the wrong memory items because of information overload.
Example - They could have been going through the stall memory items instead of the runaway vertical stabilizer memory items.
That appears to be contradicted in this video which was linked above, around the 8:45 minute mark, it's a different set of memory items ("Runaway stabilizer") which should be enacted in the case this system was coming into force outside of a stall situation.
The problem is information overload to pilots. And the pipeline how commercial pilots are trained also changed. 50 years ago a lot of pilots were having military backgrounds and training. So they were having more experience with shit going down the drain situations.
Same ways you measure engagement with any other advertising campaign. Comments on promoted posts, number of likes, number of shares, number of clicks, etc....
"Granted, most PDF readers (besides Adobe Reader) don't implement most of this stuff. But Chrome does implement JavaScript! If you open a PDF file like this one in Chrome, it will run the scripts."
Does anyone know how they get the sample back to earth uncontaminated? I don't see any information on that in the article and that strikes me as one of the most difficult parts of the process.
Wikipedia doesn't have much information and uses a dead link as the source -
The spacecraft is planned to depart the asteroid in December 2019, and return samples to Earth in December 2020.
The rest of the information I can readily find is in Japanese.
Yep - very similar to the first one - it's sealed in a strong aluminum capsule with a heat shield and parachute, and tracked with a radio beacon once it lands in the Australian desert (hopefully). Spaceflight 101 has more details, Ctrl+F "Sample Return Capsule": http://spaceflight101.com/spacecraft/hayabusa-2/
I never understood why the starting point for these projects was not simply to drive a car in GTA V (or some other game) around the city. It would test pedestrian detection, street signs, traffic lights, merging, emergency vehicles, etc... While certainly not perfect, it would seems like a good starting point in a controlled environment that is already modeled on the real world.
Apple did start spiraling after they fired Jobs. By the mid-'90s, Michael Dell famously said Apple should just shut down and give the shareholders their money back. What finally turned Apple around was Jobs coming back, and they wouldn't have even made it that far if Microsoft hadn't felt the need to put them on life support in order to stave off monopoly charges. So I'm not sure that's an example of it not being a crazy decision.
No, Apple stock became very diluted thanks to its near death experiences. Steve became a billionaire through Disney/Pixar as much as Apple, and Apple has mostly produced shareholder wealth for Vanguard 401k owners since then.
Depends who you ask. To be fair, it is not an apples to apples comparison (pun intended). Tesla is in a very different position than Apple in the early 90's.
With that in mind, the dialogue about Jobs / Musk feels oddly familiar with institutional investors having major issues and everyone else probably being too optimistic.
Here's a quick overview of how a US credit score is calculated - https://www.equifax.com/personal/education/credit/score/how-...