I would not.
yo can still hire people without necessarily giving them complete responsibility. You have to be clear - are you looking for someone to be a cofounder (or someone with huge amount of say in your company) or as a regular employee. From what you have written I am assuminng you are looking for a managerial position (so possibly large say). In this case, I would say is try to find someone you are atleast aquaintance with, maybe a old school or college mate with shared interest, It can also help rekindle old friendships. You can definitely have a close friend onboard, but make sure they are close enough that any small work space shit will not hamper relations.
Another thing that I can tell you, if you are hiring, don't hire friends, it potentially reduces your friendship to transactions, and also reduces your off time (you may even discuss business in off time) find new people, maybe even make new friends. I am not principally opposed to hiring friends, and it is a good thing if you are expecting good times, you will cherish them, but in failure, you may devalue your firendship.
You are always free to ask anything, Best of luck.
Virat Kohli (cricket, top-order batsman) - trains a lot, maintains great physical fitness, improved the standards for others in his team, and a modern day legend
try to draw boundaries, times/places when yould not work and times/places you woould, so that you form habits. Also, see if you need to hire someone to split some work, there is a possibility that some parts of your work that you spend a lot of time doing, you may even be doing them suboptimaly, so get some one who can do that, but better. This will reduce profitability, but you gain back something more important - time - try not to waste that, spend some more time with your loved ones, and when you are doing better emotionally and physically, you would also be able to think better on how to gain back those profits.
Also a general business advice - try to always be profitable - this may mean many things, you have to figure that out - consider the total amount of assets, time, and money of your team, and only make bets which are sustainable. Try to grow slow, but never aim for so high, that you keep stabbing your pinky on corners - that would be attrition and losses. Avoiding them would give you a better overall time.
Ah, stupid me, obviously you have a nuclear reactor, what would you do else with loads on nuclear waste from the accelerators.
A bit more mathematically depth of field is roughly proportional to lambda/(NA)^2, where lambda is the wavelength (we are not doing monochromatic illumination, but it still holds regardless) and NA is the numerical aperture, in photography context you may know of something called f-number which is related but not same. basically both are ratios of size of aperture (Diameter) and distance of object, to be precise f number is the ratio, and NA is n (refractive index of medium in between, which is usually air, so 1) times sin of above ratio. long story short, basically as Diameter increases, this NA increases, and depth of field becomes shorter.
For a explanation of why this happens is a bit harder to hand wavily explain, but i will try.
firstly some jargon lingo - spatial frequency - consider it as frequency of something in source, the smaller the features in the source, larger as these frequency.
also for now just take it, larger aperture helps capture larger spatial frequency (if you want to know math about it, your aperture is basically a circ function (the name called in literature) (1 inside aperture, and 0 outside, as in blocking anything outside) and mathematically it gets multiplied (or to be precise, we actulally have convolution (Assume some fancy multiplication), and for larger spatial frequency, jinc (a complimentary fucntion of circ) becomes small) - yada yada - we loose small features with small apertures)
but above math also tells you that for larger aperture, depth of field is poorer. So Imaging is a balancing game of figuring out how to have your aperture, if you can manage with poorer depth of field, you get better "resolution" and vice versa.
If you want to publish, please do 2 things - find a publisher which does not necessitate exclusivity (as in, you do not necessarily have to just publish something on there portal) - and secondly, make a portal of your own, and publich a duplicate copy there. This serves 2 purposes, if someone really wants to follow your work, they can just follow your website, and in case a future bait and switch happens, you have a backup of all your work.
If you want to publish, please do 2 things - find a publisher which does not necessitate exclusivity (as in, you do not necessarily have to just publish something on there portal) - and secondly, make a portal of your own, and publich a duplicate copy there. This serves 2 purposes, if someone really wants to follow your work, they can just follow your website, and in case a future bait and switch happens, you have a backup of all your work.
Best of luck for the electricity bills
most don't, most will just give you poisoning from ingestion (or plain old indigestion), or in off case cancers, but that is not "kill" enough
This is (in my opinion) one of the single biggest achievements of humanity.
Image of Sagittarius A* black hole at center of our Galaxy, taken by Event Horizon Telescope team. This one is also refined with magnetic field lines.
I don't remember what was the exact source for me, but one of the possible ones is https://s3.amazonaws.com/cms.ipressroom.com/173/files/20247/66c7d3d62cfac2492a9bdd54_Sagittarius+A/Sagittarius+A_hero.jpg. I just made it grayscale, some dimming, and resizing, to not cover whole of screen.
view more: next ›
the linux support strategy i see