1,488 karma · joined October 28, 2012
denzel dot morris one at that google service
Just interested to see your approach as I’m in the middle of writing my own my own.
And I say this because I thought exactly the same thing before I experienced it. Similar to how I thought I’d never enjoy a full touchscreen phone and that it’d never beat physical keys until alas I actually tried the iPhone. Tesla’s UX is really really good. And almost everyone has a change of heart when it’s actually in front of them.
I recommend you at least give it a go if you’re interested.
if we use the electric car as a way to persuade ourselves
that our 'way of life' is safe if only we all switched to
electric vehicles then we are ignoring the elephant in
the room
I'm genuinely asking for sources because I don't know of anyone that is pushing electric cars as the solution. Not Tesla, nor people who buy Teslas, nor people who buy electric cars.
I want sources because all I can do is speak about the individuals I've come across. In my life, some of the people that have bought electric vehicles also:
- Advocate in local government for bike lane buildout in their cities.
- Adopt vegetarian or vegan diets.
- Ask their employers to buy carbon offsets for any work-related flights.
- Push schools, hospitals, governments, apartment complexes, etc. to transition what they can to solar or wind energy. (My brother's HS didn't have solar panels, now they have solar+batteries providing some X% of their energy needs.)
The list goes on.
Yes, I agree with the author, electric vehicles aren't the full solution. No, I don't agree that they're a talisman of false hope. That's pretty strong, inflammatory wording. And no, I don't agree with the author's decision to set his article in a negative framing. To me, that does more to invite analysis paralysis than a positive framing would.
If he (or anyone) knows a better route, then please offer CTA for a program where individuals can pay $X for a guaranteed Y benefit towards addressing climate change. Electric vehicles offer exactly that CTA. Why didn't the author?
First, can you not buy an electric car and advocate and enact organizational or systematic change? They’re not mutually exclusive.
Second, how do dynamic systems composed of many independent, self-directed agents change? Instantaneously or over some period of time? How long is that period of time? Probably much longer a period of time than it takes to purchase an electric vehicle (< 1 minute) and reduce your emissions immediately.
This is an uninteresting and uninspiring line of thinking that ignores the nature of socially dynamic systems which don’t exist in a world of instantaneous cause-and-effect.
His conclusion states that electric cars make a difference, but they don’t make a real difference: “I do think they can slightly reduce unsustainability” but “by switching from a regular car to electric I might think that I am making a real difference”.
I’m sorry that the author doesn’t consider a real reduction in emissions a real difference.
Look, it’s simple, climate change will require a concerted effort to change in multiple markets across multiple arenas. And the solutions are not mutually exclusive. People that buy electric cars to help the environment or become vegetarian, are probably more likely to make additional changes in their life, and persuade others to make changes as well, to reduce emissions.
Most people arrive at the decision to purchase an electric vehicle exactly because they are questioning their way of life. Electric vehicles are not a talisman of false hope, they’re a singular step in the right direction.
Egress limiting – Blasting external SMTP servers with millions of messages is No Bueno.Value betting and bluffing aren’t defined by the outcome of a hand — action yet to be completed. Poker is a game of hidden information so betting with “thin value” implies that your component of bluffing is larger. You want your opponent to fold more often than not when you have thin value because more often than not you’re actually beat.
QQ can get KK to fold based upon board texture, street, and prior action. But you don’t know the other person is holding KK when you’re betting for “thin value” on the river.
The most important part is that it opens up discussion to the team. Everyone is able to read, comment, and offer up improvements or get clarity on questions they have. After a few rounds a feedback and revision — usually 2-3 days — a decision is made and the engineer goes off to break out a few tickets and start the work.
It’s async, collaborative, efficient, visible, and just a generally pleasurable process as both an individual and teammate.
This is laughable as someone who grew up comfortably middle class and made 20+ drives between PA <-> FL. We looked forward to the stops along the way for many reasons: to relax, stretch our legs, and eat the sandwiches we packed; to check out all the cool stuff at South of the Border; catch a beautiful view; or — my personal favorite — stop for Kristy Kreme doughnuts before they made their way up north.
I love to drive. And I’ve never taken a road trip — car or motorcycle — where a 30min rest stop wasn’t welcome.
SpaceX has no plans right now to colonize Mars. In fact, they keep saying, “Look! We want other companies or nations to step up and plan for how to establish a colony. We’re only going to do it if we absolutely have no other choice.”
SpaceX is truly establishing a financially viable solar transport system that may eventually extend beyond our solar system. This is analogous to the birth of the U.S. railroad system. We don’t know yet what what don’t know is possible.
SpaceX is poised to own space transport outright. That’s major!
Now what does Mars have to do with this? It’s just a helpful organizing goal. People love a good milestone. Something to reach for with meaning. I mean if you’ve been following SpaceX’s 15-year history you’d see that they’re nothing if not methodical in their planning and attainment of milestones.
SpaceX is one of the most well-run companies in the world. And right now they have the best prices, the best technology, the best pace, the best outlook, the best...
They have no competition. Literally. I’d invest the entirety of my lifetime earnings in SpaceX if I could. We’re witnessing historic achievements in the making.
Hypothetically: what're some solutions that a monied person could implement to stymie the runaway feedback loop? I know it may sound odd but is it possible to use money to stop the purchase of political power for both yourself and everyone else?
You need to do them at different times and for different reasons. The top-down estimation at the start of a project needs to be done to the lowest level of detail necessary to get a Go/No-Go decision made. You can't realistically start an Agile-managed project without understanding where $10k is in the ballpark of $10M. That's just foolish. This top-down estimation needs to be done to the level-of-detail and accuracy required by your Go/No-Go decision.
Then, on a day-over-day basis, you use Agile to manage the actual project operating process. (I'm speaking loosely here, of course, as long as Agile makes sense.) This allows you to be dynamic week-over-week and respond to outside forces, new information, new technology, etc., within your budget.
What people miss is that no sensible project sponsor is going to accept, "we'll finish it when we finish it for however much it costs" unless it's pure research. And if I only need accuracy to the closest $10M, then we can keep the estimates high-level, if I need it to the closest $10k, then we need lower level estimates. It's just the nature of it. As a project sponsor, I need to know what's possible.
Technology invalidates the very idea of a zero-sum economy. If tomorrow we reach a breakthrough in fusion energy and are able to deliver all the energy the world needs at several order of magnitudes less cost, material, and space... well then we just gave a lot and took very little -- the pie grew -- the possibilities grew. It's not zero-sum.
Listen, simply decrying "zero-sum" doesn't make an argument anymore intelligent. You must seek to understand the concept and basis underlying the words you use. Only then does their true explanatory power become accessible.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Production%E2%80%93possibility...
Thanks for updating your wording.
As a savvy negotiator you have to understand that every little piece of the offer is a bargaining chip that causes movement within your range: bonuses, equity, PTO, benefits, gym reimbursement, commute time, cost of living, hours, etc. Everything is fungible.
The salary range is just one lever in an entire control room.
No one has to agree or use my negotiating method. It's simply something that worked really well for me and allowed me to maintain more productive discussions as I negotiated. Whereas a game of chicken leaves a sour taste in both your mouth and theirs.
Say the market is showing you between $X-$Y.
Consider it a form of late-binding. You want to be dynamic. So make that range both realistic and wide.
This is beneficial to you for a number of reasons. It will eliminate companies that can't get there. Win. It doesn't commit you to a specific number. Win. You don't have to ruin the rapport with an unnecessary game of chicken over who says the first number. Win. And most importantly, you have a wide open range to negotiate in when your offers come in. You can say... hey, I was upfront about my range, and I really feel like I'm <here> in that range for <these reasons>.
Using this strategy has worked beautifully for me.
In our team, we define the terms less by tactics and more by intent.
It's our belief that you can generalize your idea on what acceptance testing means. The intent of an acceptance test is to verify that -- no matter how it's exercised -- the implementation performs the work and outputs the result I expected. Now, you can exercise this implementation with any interface. Of which, a browser is just one interface to your application layer. An HTTP API is yet another interface; a command-line utility is another; etc.
We actually have separate acceptance tests at the UI level and the API level. Sometimes even at the _feature_ level, in that it exercises a multi-step multi-result pathway through the application.
The engineer responsible for developing a unit of work may or may not implement API level acceptance tests (it's recommended); the reviewing engineer usually writes an automated API level acceptance test that must pass for the merge request to pass from code review -> QA/QC; then the QA/QC engineer implements and runs UI level acceptance tests that must pass to move from QA/QC -> Done.
We've found this process to be very effective in reducing our defect rate and improving the quality of our product.
Sounds interesting.