Comparing re-sale price of Tesla to Ford is absurd.
Elon Musk alienated most of Tesla‘s potential customers.
I would assume more of the price drop comes from that than from anything inherent about EVs.
You still do from operating the software.
You see what problems users have using it, which types of problems they tackle with it.
By the end of running the software for a month you will have typically learned a boat load.
Imho opinion, what you are describing are republicans of the past. As parent says, there used to be shared values. Two of the shared valued were peaceful transition of power and respect for the rule of law / division of power between executive, legislative and judiciary.
Imho the values of MAGA republicans are clearly distinct from GWB republicans (even if it may be precisely the same voters). Specifically the two values described above are no longer shared values.
I believe there are more, but for the two values above we have irrevocable proof.
> what you are describing are republicans of the past
I know it seems that way but it has always seemed that way. Republicans talk about Democrats of the past (southern Democrats). Democrats talk about Republicans of the past (Lincoln). This feeling isn't new.
> Two of the shared valued were peaceful transition of power and respect for the rule of law / division of power between executive, legislative and judiciary.
Re: peaceful transition of power the Republicans insist (whether true or not) that January 6th was peaceful. The value is still there. Re: the rule of law, Republicans claim they are abiding by the law. (Are they not?) The value is still there. Division of power is certainly coming under question with the actions of DOGE, but I don't think the mere existence of DOGE is evidence that Republicans don't value the division of power. Some of these things aren't immediately obvious to everyone, especially if they are determined to be legal (whether we like the law or not).
We must resist the urge to demonize and dehumanize the opposition. That is exactly what is happening: even with our comments and upvotes we are collectively deciding that the opposition is out of their minds and are increasingly a foe to be vanquished. That is, frankly, stupidity of the masses.
If someone changes and begins to continually insists that something plainly untrue is true, does that mean that they possibly still have the values they used to? How long do you continue defending the "well, maybe..." case?
Throw out the Jan 6th example, it's now ancient history. As a party, Republicans are, at this very instant, claiming that judges are acting illegally for... using their constitutionally mandated legal powers. Simultaneously, but separately, the party apparatus is repeating on a daily basis a new conspiracy theory that the judges they don't like are being controlled by some nefarious power.
And it's a very, very well established playbook. We have many examples of countries that dismantled their systems of transition of power and division of power starting with the courts. It's a move that could pretty much make it into a "For Dummies" book.
"The value is still there." I can't see it. But maybe I'm too focused on judging on the entire scope of action and speech, rather than a very narrow bit of speech that isn't at all reflected in actions.
I think the outcomes achieved for domestic vs foreign is another interesting angle. The degradation of purchasing power of working and middle class is have been consistently getting worse.
Afaik that was already the rule 25-30 years ago when Armstrong was cycling.
I can remember track and field athletes being banned when they didn‘t show up for surprise tests.
So either cycling was more lenient or he got a bonus treatment because he was famous.
On a side note: much harder today to not be available/found than it was 30 odd years ago.
I sometimes sum this up as:
Don‘t listen to your customer. Watch your customer.
Obviously needs to be taken with a grain of salt, but seeing how users behave is often more insightful than asking them what they want. You just need to setup the environment for watching in a way that you learn what you want to learn.
We worked on a large overhaul of the customer support system for Big Grocery Store a couple years ago, and the PMs and designers spent a lot of time sitting down with the users and watching them walk through their current flow. They observed, asked about pain points, and then iterated on designs that the users could actually interact with. They had about 70% of the functionality fleshed out before we ever started implementation, which felt really good. We still hit plenty of roadblocks and gaps, but it felt much better in terms of understanding what the users actually needed
Great point. We have a customer who uses our tool in a sensitive environment - I'm not even allowed to watch them use it. This is mind bogglingly frustrating as I can only go by what they say, whereas half an hour actually seeing what they do with it would progress the tool and our relationship in leaps and bounds.
I often join the daily standup meeting of the support and deployment team so I can 'watch' them and it has been really valuable. Sometimes giving them tips & tricks, sometimes just listening to newcomers questions to learn what is not simple enough, learning some awful workaround they come up with instead of asking/opening a ticket, and also learning their bad habits.
Absolutely and I would also add: passively monitor and listen to them. What are they complaining or asking about in communities/social media? What are they talking about in conferences and industry events?
It is survivorship bias.
Because the companies get to a point where unimportant things are important and you spend years in that second phase, the learnings are upside down.
„If only we would have solved technical problem X from day 1 we would have so much less hassle in the years to come.“
Except that solving problem X on day 1 instead of shipping what the company did might have killed the company.
I see this in a lot of second time founders, where startup 1 was successful - „this time I‘ll really avoid my mistake X.“
Why?
Climate science works with quantative models and makes concrete predictions.
So if the predictions don‘t come true the model is false.
E.g. this random blog I found googling compares IPCC predictions with actual outcomes: https://johncarlosbaez.wordpress.com/2012/03/27/the-1990-ipc...
[the link is just supposed to show how climate science is falsifiable. I have no idea whether the numbers in this specific source are trustworthy]
More comparisons here[0]. As is important, it's noticed that models even from the 80's made fairly accurate predictions. That's the real kicker: models accurately predict observable outcomes 20-40 years later (and have only improved since then).
I'm not sure why there's so much contention about climate science given that we've been observing this trend for nearly 50 years now. Scientist makes prediction about something 50 years later and 50 years later the prediction is shown to be accurate. It feels weird to not trust a source with such a good and observable track record...
The thing is - there are so many predictions made and a lot that don't come through, it's hard to find which are the "real" ones.
I also read somewhere that there are several different scenarios available for the IPCC climate models and a lot of the more "scary" predictions are based on the least likely model.
Finally - we saw the limitations of modelling in COVID in the UK, with adverse consequences.
