Hi Peter, I'm a Canadian working in the US on a TN. I have an H1B petition that was selected by lottery and processed for an out of country status change; I haven't activated it at this. Is it possible to change employers to a comparable role with just the accepted petition? Otherwise is it possible to change from a TN status to an H1B status -- despite the out of country filing -- without having to travel, given the current restrictions?
If you haven't yet worked in H-1B status for your initial H-1B employer, then almost certainly you would need to go into the lottery again to work for another H-1B employer. Regarding switching the approved petition to an in country change of status petition, the employer would need to file an amended H-1B petition.
I can't help but think that if an IPO went like this, and the share price ballooned after colo'd bots scooped up the cheap shares, people would be up in arms about the company leaving money on the table. Just the people in this case are the artists, who traditionally get screwed anyways. And ticketmaster doesn't have the same incentive for accurate pricing. Also there's social stigma of money being the gatekeeper to fun/cultural things.
Why do you believe money is being left on the table?
TBH, I've never really understood this argument. Unless the argument is that the artist is being forced to set a lower face value, if all the tickets are sold at face value and scalped, the artist is getting exactly what they would have budgeted for.
So, are you saying the artist is being forced to sell the tickets at a price that's below what the market will bear?
I'd say no. Blablacar is more of a market place matching empty seats and riders with a driver to a common(ish) destination. UberPool is more like a smart/dynamically routed minibus that constantly picks up and drops off passengers. What they have in common is that they try to minimize empty seats in cars.
Movie and music industry is in the "Information" labor category, which accounts for a whopping 1.8% of total employment... Oh, and Bollywood is already bigger than Hollywood. I don't see such trends reversing as we continue outsourcing CGI and other movie-making magic. There's nothing special about Hollywood that isn't able to be duplicated somewhere else.
> And reputation via ivy league education? Also a legal landscape conducive to doing business?
These both almost solely benefit upper-class, and no one is arguing that they'll be just fine -- at least, for a longer period of time than everyone else.
Legal landscape in the US is just bad. Sue-happy country with convoluted taxes, horribly slow customs with crazy policies ("General Order warehouse", fml), 50 different states with different laws, taxes and regulations.
Please see my last comment, this is a debated topic.
However, I've read Mike Milken and, despite his warts, I believe he did radically improve capital allocation. So it certainly has happened over the years.
-- edit: I meant about Mike Milken
Lift requires energy, usually kinetic, like the forward motion of an aeroplane being converted to lift (and drag) via the wings, or the blades of a helicopter pushing air down, or real hot and fast gases pointed downwards (think harrier jump jet).
A blimp, on the other hand, relies on buoyancy for lift, so yeah, in that case, given an altitude at which it's stable, to maintain velocity it only needs to add enough thrust to counteract the drag created by its forward movement.
Yes it is correct. Lift always creates drag. You can think of drag as the work necessary to gain lift. When lift is generated, it produced what is called induced drag[0]. Induced drag and parasitic drag, which is the drag generated from the aircraft structure itself, are where all the energy goes in unaccelerted flight.
I think we're interpreting op differently. No, not all the energy added to a heavier than air aircraft (thrust) in straight-n-level flight* is used to counteract drag. Yes, where there is lift, there is induced drag. But the kinetic energy being added to maintain velocity is also being used for lift.
Imagine if the airfoil on an aeroplane were replaced with a symmetrical airfoil mounted with no angle of incidence. Thrust could be reduced because there's less drag from no lift. No lift, no induced drag, only parasitic drag, and the plane starts to lose altitude. Would you agree that not all the energy added to straight and level flight goes towards counteracting drag?
*where a' and v' are zero, and where for argument's sake, the thrust vector is perfectly horizontal
edit: by a' I mean change in vertical airspeed, by v' i mean change in true airspeed.
No, that's a non sequitur. An aircraft that doesn't produce lift requires less energy input, but that's not because lift requires energy -- it's because when there is no lift, the aircraft is gaining kinetic energy by losing potential energy.
If lift requires energy, then where would that energy go?
I think ppl are equating energy with force. Airspeed, altitude, and fuel are forms of energy, kinetic, potential, and chemical, respectively. Lift, drag, thrust, and weight are forces. We're talking about a heavier than air aircraft in cruise right now, and the contention is over whether all the energy added to the aircraft if used to counter drag.
Simple example: consider a helicopter in cruise. Fuel is burned to produce thrust. There is an insignificant component of that thrust vector pointed orthogonal to the vector of velocity. Since drag by definition acts along the same vector as velocity, not all the energy is being used to counteract drag.
Back to an aeroplane in straight and level, since that's a more interesting example. Let's assume that the direction of travel of the aircraft is normal to the plane of the propeller, so thrust is acting on the same plane as drag, in this idealized situation. Energy is added to the system in the form of thrust created by the prop. Said thrust is used to maintain the amount of kinetic energy of the aircraft. At the same time, this kinetic energy is being transformed into both lift and drag by the wings (and elevators, depending on how far aft the cog is) ergo not all the energy added to the system is used to counteract drag.
To explain it in yet another way: As long as you maintain your height no energy is used for lift, as energy is equal to force integrated over distance. Like as standing on a table requires no energy ;) However, an airplaine isn't standing on anything and the lift force is generated by pushing air downwards and this is what consumes energy.
A car or a train that drives with a constant velocity has constant kinetic and potential energy (assuming level ground). Therefore all energy that is consumed to maintain the status quo is spent to counteract drag.
A plane however pushes down on air instead of solid ground and accelerates it downwards. So not only does the fuel heat up the system due to drag, some of the energy accelerates quite a chunk of air.
Now you can argue that 'moving air' is nothing else than turbulence that takes a bit longer to dissipate and is therefore just another form of drag ;)
This is a bit like the debate on whether it's the current or the voltage that kills, with lift-to-drag ratio being resistance. You are right in the physics sense in that drag alone is enough to calculate instantaneous fuel consumption, but to calculate range you already need to consider mass ratios and lift.
Interesting point, sfc (specific fuel consumption) is only really density altitude and humidity dependant, since it's only calculated on a per engine basis, but a fixed wing aeroplane's range can be greatly affected by the weight and balance of the plane, ie whether the elevators need to be adding upward or downward pressure to the tail section to maintain a cruise attitude
I guess it comes down to whether being able to pick relationship terms à la carte outweighs the benefits of discounts via a bundle deal and having some influence via a seat at the table. There's a chance that, long term, this restructuring is worth the human-effort capital.
Maybe poor people don't work because there's a welfare cliff wherein people can work a lot more and still experience no gain in quality of life or economic situation.
I see it more as the value publication companies captured from entities advertising through them is now shifted to different advertising media such as facebook and google. The value the consumer derives from published content has stayed the same, or arguably declined in the case of printed news due to reduction in spending on content. Though the internet has lowered the barrier to disseminating content, eg blogging, which has put previously unpublished ideas out there.
