Life Lessons, Learned the Hard Way

This post will stand in fairly stark contrast to the rest, it's much more personal and hopefully informative from a personal development perspective. This isn't telling you how to live your life nor is it how everyone should, but it's been on my mind this morning and I'd like to share my personal thoughts.

One of my fairly good friends and peers with whom I work with a lot had started a steady downward trend. Call it senioritis, laziness or life, it was affecting my work and my organization's productivity. We're training for our future jobs and working on personal habits as well as building those under us up to replace us and move on, kind of like an internship or any job training. In this situation, the friend was in charge of me. He tasked me with stuff, I reported to him on my progress of the people under me and we should've had a constant dialogue. Imagine manager in charge of team leader leading a couple of other employees in a project.

Well, my manager started off fairly strong, model of fitness, work ethic, compassion and behavior and throughout the semester slowly trended downward. He started talking to me less, replying to me less, and to get tasked and to report on our progress, I decided to start finding ways to include people above him into conversations so I knew it was getting up to them (Problem 1). We meet as a group each day at various times to do various things where attendance is required, one day in February, he overslept and was late to our group meeting (Problem 2). World ending? No, but how does your project team feel when the guy they're working for isn't there when he is supposed to and you've been working hard on your job? We have other weekend meetings to plan out the next 2 weeks of project goals and discuss the previous week of accomplishments. Throughout the time, my friend is showing up just on time or a few minutes late(Problem 3). Again, not world ending. Next up we have spring break, time to relax, and then school slaps us in the face again and so does the project we're working on. Yeah it sucks but we're adults and we should be able to get back to it. Manager sleeps through alarm again and is late to a requited meeting (Problem 4). Next, my friend/manager tells his manager says he'll be at an extra meeting that's kind of not required but it's nice to see a senior employee at your overtime meetings once in a while to know they share the suck. He decides it's not a big deal and bails day of, but after telling people he'd go, it's seen as another meeting missed, this time by personal choice (Problem 5).

We as a project group decide it's time for an extra meeting to hash out some problems with everyone as a whole getting lazy and performance falling, which this friend/manager should attend and sleeps through (Problem 6).  String of problems over a few weeks and the CEO(also my friend) decided he's fed up with his manager screwing up and we decide to sit him down and formally reprimand him. It sucks since all 3 of us sitting on the reprimand board meeting are friends with each other as well as with the kid who's getting reprimanded.

This is where things get hairy and why I spent time above detailing the situation. Since in the real world, you're probably not going to be really close friends with people at the bottom, middle, and top levels of a large company just due to age difference and the job, but playing at it here in a learning situation it's the reality you face putting peers in charge of each other. We sternly talked to him about screwing up and put him on some extra tasks to correct him. Now, while that may seem obvious, here's the part that I myself am learning and working on. Where did I go wrong? Where did I fail to act or help to stop this snowball before we had to put this guy on the brink of being fired? This is the part that makes the meeting suck since as you go through, hopefully you're as critical of yourself as you are him and you pick out places you say "I could've said/done something here to at least warn him to stop his destructive behavior." I've always had a problem with doing this too much, being too judgemental or critical of people and it's something I fought sophomore and junior years to stop because it hurts people more when you do it wrong. Telling your roommate in a harsh manor to quit something he's doing is as bad as after he messes up, telling them you told them so. But, done correctly in either situation can help guide them to a better path or at least let them know you care for them and genuinely want to help. Conversely, this means if you're in that situation you need to take criticism well and not snap. Yes, the first few times it will be hard but if you critically evaluate it and care about improving yourself, you'll strengthen yourself and your friend. Win-win, right?

Let me get on my soapbox real quick (probably doing what I said I shouldn't) but I'll try to put it in my perspective.  If you've got a manager that suggests you to do something, it's probably more than a suggestion and if you suspect it is, it's probably also okay to ask for clarification. It'll pay dividends when we're working our way up the corporate ladder since you'll look like a rockstar. If you don't do that (or know you've been dodging the work altogether) and get reprimanded, take it to heart and work to improve yourself. We are grown-ups now and soon to be on our own (36 days until graduation). Take the situation and make the best of it. It's an "if life gives you lemons, make lemonade," kind of deal. And if you're wondering where the lemons came from, ask yourself first. You might have been giving them away and are now just getting them back. We are the future, we are the (hopeful) leaders of a developing energy field with immense possibilities. We all learn but we learn especially well through mistakes and adversity. Go beyond the minimums. Like investments, whatever we put in now while we're young will hopefully show immense return later. Getting down off soap box, now.

We've spent almost 2 years together and aside from occasionally joking about swapping to PolySci, I wouldn't go back to change my major. We've had great discussions and expanded our views and we've had short discussions where the discourse was harsh, myself being a particular contributor to the latter.

Comments, criticism and rebuttals appreciated!
-Michael

Funny Phrases and New Words

What started off as maybe a blog post about jumping the shark and nuking the fridge ended with me learning a new word that seemed kind of ridiculous to me.

First off, jumping the shark, if you aren't familiar with the term, talks about the moment a TV show does something ridiculous or outlandish to gain back viewers and generally comes soon after the show starts to decline. It also generally cements the fall in popularity because you can't keep doing things that ridiculous. The phrase itself refers to this scene from Happy Days when Fonzie literally jumps a shark on water skiis. My dad always used to talk about this phrase when I was a kid so I'm fairly familiar with it. After some research on its history, I ran into a similar term applied to the firm industry: "nuking the fridge."

Nuking the fridge means about the same thing in reference to a movie series. Time Magazine defines the phrase to mean: "to exhaust a Hollywood franchise with disappointing sequels." This actually comes from the fourth Indiana Jones movie, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull where Han Solo I mean Indiana Jones escapes a nuclear blast by hiding in a lead-lined refrigerator. Not only would the shock from getting blown away and landing kill you, but the inch or so of lead probably wouldn't stop the radiation much less the heat from cooking you. But, here's that scene so you can see ol' Indy in action for yourself.

While researching that, I also came across this sentence in a Wikipedia article: In August 2014, the City Manager of Black Rock City, Nevada described Burning Man, an annual event at nearby Black Rock Desert, as having "jumped the shark," when the 2014 event — which had been previously noted for core values of radical self-expression and self-reliance — featured incongruously posh VIP lounges, cell phone towers, private jets, and "glamping."

What the hell is glamping, you ask? That's exactly what I thought and why I had to find out. Turns out it stands for "glamour camping" where you basically "21st century tourists seek the luxuries of hotel accommodation alongside the escapism and adventure recreation of camping." Sounds nice but to me, that tiny level of self-sufficiency that regular camping requires is half the purpose. Might as well park a full size RV somewhere and call it "camping."

Aside from my little "what has the world come to" tangent there, we appear to have a term for when a TV show goes too far and when a movie goes too far. What about videogames? They're another huge source of digital entertainment? I wonder if there's a term for when they go on too long? Call of Duty, Halo, Assassin's Creed, all big name games with many many sequels, one can only wonder when it goes too long. Most already argue that it happened with Call of Duty after Modern Warfare 1 & 2 were such huge hits that they made Modern Warfare 3, that series is often considered the "peak" of that franchise. And Halo, as much as I love it, was supposed to end and be done at Halo 3 ("Finish the Fight") but people loved it so much (and they made so much money) that they made Halo 4, 5, and soon 6. Book series as well.

Every series need a climax and resolution, it is a good book/show/game/movie that can make another climax feel just as important and the resolution to both mesh and be satisfying. Every good thing eventually comes to an end, as morbid as that sounds. Imagine if Harry Potter had to fight reincarnated mecha-Lucius Malfoy? As great as they were, the series had a great ending and left open a world for J.K. Rowling to explore separately. I was and am a huge Star Wars Extended Universe nerd. I loved the movies and got into reading the books in middle school. I loved having characters fleshed out, their children fleshed out, even grandchildren but I realized that 50 years into the hypothetical Star Wars future was a long time to extend something.

Tying this back to reality, I don't think nuclear energy is anywhere near this point. Our field had a rise and a fall but as the world pushes toward new and better energy sources, I think we're about to enter the "rising action" step of the nuclear story and it's exciting that we can have a direct influence on the field and its direction.

-Michael

Never Ask the Internet To Do Anything

Welcome back to another space-based post about nuclear energy! Psyche! This time it's about that neat ocean exploring stuff I oh-so-briefly mentioned. The theme for this post comes from here. I found this article hilarious, especially the other names they said were suggested (I love British humor). This sparked an interesting question: what powers it? There appears to be a significant lack of gas stations in the Arctic and long exploration missions away from land, researching and lots of moving to study the ocean floor and there appears to be a significant lack of gas stations in the arctic.

ENTER, NUCLEAR POWER!

It's probably not nuclear powered but Russia uses nuclear powered ships as icebreakers since they have a lot of power and can go for long periods without refueling. China is also pushing forward plans to build a nuclear plant, the ACPR50S reactor, capable of powering a small island or a ship. Old Russian nuclear icebreakers sound kind of scary but maybe Chinese-designed reactors are better? Depends on your opinion of China, I suppose. Nuclear power can also only extend your mission for so long before you have to stop for food and other supplies. We need power somehow, nuclear may be the way to go, the risks or sinking a reactor to the ocean floor are probably pretty small compared to on land. Do you guys have any other energy suggestions? Have you heard about and neat new technology?

-Michael

Future Speculations

So I had a really good talk yesterday with a friend if mine, Florian, over lunch and it got me thinking. If America can't agree on a power source tr direction or even energy policy, how do we expect the world to agree? And without that, how do we expect to colonize other worlds? Basically, since we cant communicate or agree, how are we going to expand past this planet?

Every day we're approaching the time when we'll outgrow this planet. The human race's desire to expand is so great that it will force us to starve long before we curb it, so the next step after we overpopulate Earth is somewhere else. We're looking at Mars but without a source of liquid water or much atmosphere, that's going to be hard. If we do find a new planet, we'll probably be unable to reach it. Have you ever seen the size comparison videos of space? Mars is about half the diameter of Earth and its a REALLY long ways to get to anywhere else outside our solar system. We can probably shoot something in the direction of another solar system but we just aren't there yet. Plus there are more than a thousand languages on this planet alone? Cut that down to the top 10% and its still a lot of different translations. 10% of that to languages from countries able to go into space? Still 10 languages to decipher and work with. Who gets the first new planet? America? Who governs it? All this stuff can't happen till we figure out problems here on Earth. That's not saying we need to make the world language English and take over space. How do we govern colony worlds? Do we set them free from all influence? It's not exactly the British colonizing the new world but it's very similar. Do we establish a world government at some point? If Mayor Bagodonuts is corrupt in big town X of state Y, then how can we expect a reasonable chance at a worldwide government? All these questions with so few available answers.Hope you've enjoyed the last few days of space related posts!

Also, if you believe the moon landing was fake then we're really screwed!

Other neat size comparison video about space ships for nerds like me: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_Loc7qX7FI

-Michael

Post Super-Duper Tuesday Job Status

So, with Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton having come out on top in the Florida Republican and Democratic primaries, I think it's about time to break down the candidates' stances on nuclear energy.

Ladies first, Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is quoted as being "agnostic about nuclear energy." Most of her remarks tend to be toward pushing a clean/renewable energy policy and making the Unites States the "world's clean energy superpower." She promises

1. The United States will have more than half a billion solar panels installed across the country by the end of Hillary Clinton's first term.
2. The United States will generate enough clean renewable energy to power every home in America within ten years of Hillary Clinton taking office.

 What this means for nuclear energy, we have yet to see. This is also a huge goal to achieve, meaning she'd probably push a law through forcing the progress. Again, this is unknown as to how she'd consider nuclear waste, whether is passes the clean energy requirements and while waste reprocessing can mitigate the total waste, whether she'd support it.

Next up is business-mogul-gone-politician Donald Trump. Regardless of your views on him, if he's elected his policy will have an effect on the jobs in the nuclear community. The good news is he's fairly pro-nuclear. He supports nuclear energy and reforming the permitting process, which is bogged down with red tape and bureaucracy. He is cautious though, saying,“we have to be careful” because nuclear power “does have issues.” He also makes a good point, saying:  “I’m in favor of nuclear energy, very strongly in favor of nuclear energy. If a plane goes down people keep flying. If you get into an auto crash people keep driving.” He is, however, much more in favor of natural gas driven energy systems, saying we have Saudi Arabia x 100 but we don't use it.

So there you have it, the two most likely (maybe, probably, at this point, totally speculative) presidential candidates. One with a fairly uncertain future and the other claiming all sorts of good things for nuclear power's future. Open minded debate is more than welcome. Hopefully you voted in the primaries and you intend to vote in the presidential election, it's your civic duty. Remember, people sacrificed and continue to sacrifice their lives for this opportunity.

Also, anyone else notice how we refer to Hillary Clinton as Hillary but not Donald Trump as Donald? Aside from Former President Clinton, I don't really think it would be that confusing...

-Michael

(I tried to find a funny campaign picture for Hillary but failed, feel free to post one in the comments)

Sources:
  -Clinton: https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2015/07/26/renewable-power-vision/
  -Trump: http://dailycaller.com/2015/09/07/donald-trump-on-his-nuclear-doctrine-democracy-promotion-and-why-he-refuses-to-use-term-supreme-leader/
  -Both: http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/20/heres-where-the-2016-candidates-stand-on-nuclear-power/

Daaaamn Michael, back at it again with the SPACE TECH

I know that's what you'll be saying after you read this awesome blog post. Because people seem to be so opposed to using nuclear power on Earth, they shouldn't get mad if we use it in space, right? Wrong, but it's worth a shot. There's a ton of different ideas for usage of nuclear technology listed on this page (thanks Wikipedia) but I think one of the most far-fetched is Nuclear Pulse Propulsion, because it's probably not something you've thought about before. Basically, the idea is to use this:

to propel this:

Now you're probably thinking, wouldn't detonating a lot of nuclear bombs on Earth be bad? You'd be right, and that's why we use it in space far away from Earth so we don't contaminate the globe. The idea is conventional rockets get the ship to space, then nuclear detonations are set off behind the ship to propel it with the pulses from the released energy. Of course heavy shielding and and resistance to shock would need to be designed into the ship, among other things. Unless we somehow figure out faster than light travel, we're going to try to make propulsion technology to get us as close as we can. A lot of the things that put nuclear power on the list like efficiency, long-lifetime, and high energy density also make it a foundation for new space travel ideas. Cancer, space, energy, nuclear has tons of possibilities.

-Michael

SPACE TECH

Space exploration is pretty neat, agreed? One of the things you always hear people say is that we know more about space than we do our oceans. I wont debate the validity of that claim but I will assert that both areas of exploration are REALLY FREAKIN COOL. So, the deepest part of the Mariana Trench is 6.831 miles deep and according to the time tested source Wikipedia, "There is no firm boundary where space begins. However the Kármán line, at an altitude of 100 km (62 mi) above sea level, is conventionally used as the start of outer space in space treaties and for aerospace records keeping."

We can theoretically run trips down to the depths of the ocean faster than we can send stuff into outer space, plus there's the whole going with or against gravity thing. But powering an expedition down into the ocean is *seemingly* easier than one into outer space, since they have to go farther and last longer. So, you can't really burn stuff without oxygen and there is a significant lack of that out in space. No wind to power wind turbines. Batteries seem logical but how do you charge them? You're got 2 options so far: solar charged batteries and nuclear radioisotope thermal generators. What if your space mission takes you out too far from the sun? What to a really cloudy or dusty planet, or anything that would obstruct the sunlight? That's where nuclear power comes in.

Radioisotope thermal generators (RTGs) are really just that, radioisotopes that generate thermal...energy. The main use is to get really really hot and provide heat to a thermocouple, where two metals are connected and temperature differences create an electric current. These RTGs are restricted to powering things that require less than about 100 Watts but they can last up to 50 years. Voyager 1 space probe was launched in 1977 and is expected to keep transmitting signals up until 2025.The drawback is that even though these things can last that long, they're still serious radiation hazards long after they've surpassed their useful power lifetimes. So, we can't ethically just go parking radioactive golf carts on other planets, inhabited or not. We're not likely to power any manned probes with these as they're too low power and potentially dangerous to support us, but they're pretty darn useful when the sun isn't shining in the depths of space. 

-Michael