If your a direct consumer related business, like a branch of a bank, or even a sport stadium, I get why you want your location to be "in the thick of it," but why do tech companies insist on building their work places in super expensive cities? How much money could these companies save by building in a nearby suburb where their employees could actually afford to live?
I've been noticing the uptick (or avalanche) of misleading stats in articles. Cuts aside, why did the article need to mention $300M (sic, it's billions, of course) in weather related damage last year? Without context, it's absolutely pointless except to spur an emotional response from the reader. That leads me to the conclusion that we're having a "discussion" based on an article written by someone with an obvious agenda, and that leads me to the conclusion we're just having another pointless us vs. them argument.
Even if that's a record (it is, actually, but you don't get that from the article, so there's no perspective), it's pointless for the discussion, weather trends up and down; the previous record was from 2005 (Katrina), but where's the link that reducing or adding forecasters (and we don't even know that, it's just "staff reductions") will impact how much a disaster will cost? Certainly preparedness is important - but do really think they would skimp on a major event, as opposed to the daily "it's raining in Seattle" type stuff?
My name and call sign appeared in the FCC database last night, which means I can now transmit.
On the one hand, I'm looking forward to getting involved in the hobby. On the other, I have no idea what I'm going to talk about.
I've requested a "vanity call" for several reasons. I want to see if i can get my great-uncle's call, as a nod to him. If I can't have that, I have a few others in mind that are a bit easier to deal with as I learn CW.
What good is a ticket to the good life, if you can't find the entrance?