Technology is expensive, and the costs associated with research and development is frightfully expensive. The private sector, unlike government and university labs, are domains of very low overhead. In the private sector, you’ll find that a lot of things that seem somewhat as useless overhead, in fact, aren’t. However, useless overhead ≠ waste. One problem with people who talk about “waste” is that they often benefit from “the free lunch” so much that they fail to realize the costs and how much those costs can amount. Take your computer lab as an example. In order to have a well-running computer lab, or, even better, a research library, one would need to comprehend how expensive it is to do so, but people don’t see the cost and just assume that it’s due to “waste”. I believe I had spoke on this last year [if not last month], in which I had disclosed of the amount of capital I seek to fund Hexagon Lavish® and its several research projects already in the pipeline [PIR being only just one of those R&D projects]. The problem with PIR isn’t the total cost (which is north of half-a-billion USD); the problem is the level of uncertainty pertaining to its technology.

“Waste” is synonymous with the “United States” inasmuch as austerity needing to be defined objectively in no uncertain terms. $1 trillion USD can be cut from the U.S. budget and the U.S. economy wouldn’t budge nor stumble at all. Whenever “waste” is brought up–in efforts of it [waste] being reduced–it’s not the quantity that is cut, rather it’s the quality [of the spending] that is reduced. There is a reason why I seek capital [from the private sector], and not from the government since poor quality spending by the government is what creates drag, inefficiency, overcapitalized economic sectors, under-capitalized economic sectors and our favorite word of the day–“waste”.

I’m not exactly making an attempt at building an empire, but it is my intention for Hexagon Lavish® to be a juggernaut in scientific R&D. And empiricism isn’t necessarily anti-intellectual; it’s just that my way of thought is in the process of being altered and how I respond to certain external stimuli is changing–for the better. As far as HL® is concerned, I believe my start-up appeals, more or so, to intellectuals rather than repel them. However, it is intellectual inquiry and intellectual prejudice that births innovation, but, for right now, I, as an employer, would prefer those experienced in programming, scientific curiosities/discoveries, mathematical and engineering aptitudes. Another thing to keep in mind, is that innovation is akin to gold, yet, the problem is that you may have a thousand dollars worth of gold, but if people are demanding a thousand dollars worth of cash, and the mechanisms to convert one to the other have broken, then you’re stranded with one humongous problem. Referring back to the costs associated with the research at HL®, misuse of the capital will cause things to blow up. That’s rather simple to digest. Here’s something else that isn’t all too simple, to some people: the above market rates that are attributed to the positions at HL® are justified by Supply and Demand.

Just to give you all an example of what I’m talking about, let’s look at the few jobs available for mathematicians–applied or pure. For an R&D project the magnitude of PIR, there are parts which are exclusively mathematical; and then there are parts which are not mathematical. That been said, there are rather few jobs that are extremely mathematical, but there are even fewer people interested in doing anything that is mathematical. There is a demand for mathematicians, yet the supply of those mathematicians [here, in the U.S.] is scarce, therefore, you can see the justification of compensating someone above market rates to be a mathematician, at, say, HL®. If everybody in the world wanted to be a mathematician, there would be no justification for above market rates applicable to a [job] position as a mathematician, yet conversely, there are lots of jobs for sadists whose job it is to take any equation anyone proposes and punch holes in it. I bring this up because so many people that have spent a great number of years in academia are clueless as to how things go in a corporate environment. There’s very little math training that takes places in the workplace. If a job requires a working knowledge of algebra–and you know very little algebra–you aren’t getting the job.

To bring the former point mentioned in the paragraph above to light, there is a stereotype over in East Asia about Americans being fat and bad at math.

Question: How much does it cost to hire someone at a salary of $162,500 per annum?

H = \frac{S}{HP}

H (hourly wages) = S (salary per annum) / HP (work hours projected per year)

$81.25 per hour = $162,500/2000 hours

To simplify the equation, we’ll take the hourly wage of $81.25 and multiply it by the maximum number of hours per week (which is 168) and multiply that by the maximum number of weeks per year (which is 52 weeks)

$81.25 x 168 x 52 = $709,800

Bear in mind, that I’m intentionally leaving out other costs associated with one’s salary such as medical benefits, reimbursements, etc. All of these costs are inclusive to the employment of just one employee. One variable (i.e., input) that can weigh-in and change things (output) is the time in which an employee works. One week, an employee will work a maximum of 40 hours a week; the next, they could be on the clock for twelve or more hours a day. Let’s say, 12 hours five days a week. That totals at 60 hours that week, and that will result in altering one’s salary. This is a given input and I draw emphasis on the operand “given”, inasmuch as this gradually occurs in the workplace–and is expected. However, this input does not alter the maximum ($709,800), which cannot be reached no matter how many hours a week an employee hired at $81.25 per hour works. Reality™ reflects this universal truth since no matter how many hours an employee works, they’ll never exceed the maximum barrier of 168 because you simply cannot increase the number of hours in a day. Maybe you can on Jupiter, but not here on Earth–this Earth–planet Earth.

We live in an imperfect world and I am more afraid of stupidity than I am of evil. Stupidity stems from a person’s inability to develop well-reasoned arguments, perspectives or mentalities. Just how the hell can someone possibly develop well-reasoned arguments when they’re being brainwashed, indoctrinated or discouraged from developing well-reasoned arguments? Earlier this month, I encountered this–online, of course. Some stupid bitch, who supposedly graduated from UNC, failed several times to form a cogent argument against my stance on “climate change” (snicker). The embarrassment was so overwhelming, she had tried to “hide” but I later followed-up with her and continued demolishing her and the bigoted, ethnocentric viewpoint on the subject matter. Her total and complete unconditional surrender was accepted. Also, you had to have seen it for yourself in order to grasp at a better understanding of entitlement mentality and how fragile one is who harbors such a mindset. You see how strong the grips of indoctrination are when you infer universal truths to someone who’s subjugated by the predicates of said indoctrination (i.e., “anthropogenic global warming”/”climate change”). Also, you have to bear witness to how the desire to obtain fame can be such a negative reinforcement. Think of all of the “celebrities” that come to mind when you associate names with “climate change”, names the likes of Al Gore or Bill Nye. I mean, c’mon, who cares what Desmond has to say about the Earth’s magnetic flux density and its effect on the Earth’s climate if Brad Pitt can convince the impressionable minds of the weak and intellectually-frail to think otherwise? See how that works? They serve the purpose of perpetuating The Lie™; and The Lie™ plays its dualistic role of both covering The Truth™ and simultaneously pumping up the governments (plural) to allocate funding for “science”. However, the “science” that’s being funded isn’t science; it’s bogus “science”. HL®’s motto is “We Do Scientific R&D…”.

So, how come no one has yet funded this venture with [private sector] capital since science is the vehicle that drives this start-up?

Are statistics on my side? Obviously not, but then again, statistics can be as bogus as bad science. And HL® is not bad science; rather, HL® is science.

Statistics can be misleading, and in collusion with small samples–which is fallacious in itself–work badly, very badly. One thing about talking to people is that you can see a lot details about who is talking. If you were to look at me, and say to yourself, “…his experiences have absolutely nothing to do with me”, trust me, that’s a good thing. One of the most positive things in life is that if there’s someone with different views then they should speak up. Also, there is this weird phenomenon when a person’s first-hand experiences are suddenly challenged and then considered “unreliable”, however, if someone were to quote some random statistics of unknown providence, suddenly it’s hard evidence. Being around people allows you to do random cross-examination on someone yet you can’t do this with the people at, say, the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Getting good statistics that are reliable and good survey information is extremely hard. If the statistics are reliable, they’re useful; if they’re horrible, they are worse than useless.

Statistics are based on definitions, but more importantly, they are based on the definitions of those people who have the most impact on your life and your life’s outcomes. Specifically to wit, those whom you are trying to convince. I do not serve the purpose to convince low-information ne’er do wells that my stance on “things climate” is the ultimate viewpoint. Life’s too short to just win arguments; it’s about winning friends and influencing people. People whose definitions are in-line with yours.

As of this moment, for HL®, those people are investors.

-Desmond (DTO™)