They don't have to be the same people if they were the people who showed up in the primary to vote for someone like Ron Paul and then stayed home on election day when the Republicans nominated an establishment candidate instead.
But also, you might be surprised. Elections aren't decided by the bulk of partisan voters who show up to always vote for the same party and then cancel each other out. They're decided by the much smaller number of people willing to vote for a candidate instead of a party, and therefore move votes from one column to the other.
why would this be the higher level story? The US government doesn't build guns either, but they're capable of buying the appropriate one from the market.
There are more than enough enterprise chats out there with security levels ranging from "good enough if you trust a major US corp" (Teams DoD) to "complete paranoia" (finance communication apps with on-premise encryption/decryption modules plugged into your HSM)
Well, yes. I just like that they made up the numbers to get an exact negative 1. Again, I am a financial columnist, and I have a patriotic appreciation for the US’s export industry of finance, and two of that industry’s most popular products are:
1) Sprinkling some Greek letters on your work to add visual interest, and
2) Making up parameters to solve for the result you want.
Even in this tariff announcement, you see the US leaning into its comparative advantage.
I suspect innovation on EVs will also cause a lot of ICEs to depreciate. When the market is flooded with 5 year old teslas that will also drive down the cost of second hand corollas
In the future, we're going to hit a point where most new cars sold will be EV's.
At that point, most of the used cars available for sale will be ICE's. Do you think it's likely that the majority of new car drivers will prefer EV's but the majority of used car drivers will prefer ICE's? I don't. That effect should drive up the relative cost of a used EV relative to a used ICE.
I agree that it's in the future, but the key is how far in the future? Because if it's 5 years in the future then it's very relevant to people buying cars today, but it's 20 years in the future... not so much.
And as a purely academic point freed from the constraints of *when*, it's not interesting at all.
Well I think intuitively it should be obvious that we aren't getting from 3.3 million EV's in the US to 228 million EV's in 3 years, so that really makes me question where you're coming from. Doubly so when ICE vehicles are still being sold at quite a pace, with 20 million more expected by 2030.
Given all of that you'd need to see sales of EV's leap into the range of 23 million per year, every year from now until 2035 to reach 80% of what's on the road.
If you just mean "x% of vehicles sold will be EV" then... it's a bit less absurd, but also much less meaningful in terms of the original discussion.
It's a less unlikely result, but you're still talking about going from around 7% of the market to 80% in as little as 3 years. That doesn't feel tethered to reality IMO. It seems to be a "line going up must continue along roughly the same slope" situation, which I don't think holds true in most cases.
Not in the US, no. But worldwide EV market share of annual sales is already over 20%. The rest of the world is much more cost sensitive than the US, so once EV's are cheaper than ICE I expect a rapid transition. It'll follow an S curve, and we haven't hit the second knee of the S curve.
I doubt it'll be 3 years, but that seems a reasonable lower bounds to me.
And the only better experience than "working on a greenfield project long enough to watch it become legacy and see the good and bad consequences of past decisions" is working on a second greenfield project long enough to see that drastically overcompensating for all the bad things from the first one is not the right solution either :)
And the only better experience than that is killing a new greenfield project before it gets to production because the old software was good enough and the problems were organizational in how the software was being used.
I thought it was pretty funny how we had this large project that was supposed to replace a legacy system (that was mostly a bad hack that got pushed to production).
But when it was finished it failed to meet the basic requirements for the only customer that used the system.
I wish this happened tbh. I've seen one where the greenfield (Scala, AWS, etc) is still living alongside the old good enough software they went back to (C# / .NET) ten years on.
> how much they disparage the previous team's work.
And many fail to discern between "disparage" and "critique" or even "Question in order to learn"
One of the greatest failings I've seen in leadership in our time is the idea that in order to make a critique one must come with a solution in hand. As a leader I want to know the things that are going wrong as soon as they're seen, not to require someone to go through the heavy lifting of a solution before they say a word. Now, of course, there's a difference between bitter unhelpful cynicism, and simply identifying a gap between the current state and optimality.
> And many fail to discern between "disparage" and "critique" or even "Question in order to learn"
I think I’ve had the conversation with new to my organization devs a few hundred times: “Look... saying code is crap or stupid is telling others you’ve given up on learning. How about asking why it is the way it is?”
> greatest failings I've seen in leadership in our time is the idea that in order to make a critique one must come with a solution in hand.
The pattern works at very high levels in an org chart, but with developers and those that manage them it breaks the whole concept of problem solving. You have to be able to identify and understand problems before you can come up with a solution... and usually, with software, the solution is developer hours.
I always pick apart previous teams' work.. it's how I learn. I question most every decision because I'm curious why they made those decisions. And it lets me think about how I'd do it better. And yes, I know that many poor decisions are not necessarily the developer's fault. It could be bad specs, lack of time, etc.
In most cases, "better" means different things in different contexts. (Customer-driven vs performance-driven, for example) Of course, this isn't news for most of us. Where I think a lot of us fall short is assuming that definition has changed since the code was written.
This harkens back to Chesterton’s Fence. It’s always worthwhile to interrogate why things were done the way they were, especially when first coming onto a project. Knowing the why of a decision is essential to understanding if and how it should be changed. Especially if the reason is “this is what we had the time and knowledge to do at the time.”
> It’s always worthwhile to interrogate why things were done the way they were
It really isn't. A lot of the time you end up spending a lot of effort to understand something that was dumb to start with and has been dumb ever since. Something like the bullshit asymmetry principle applies - any idiot can take 5 minutes to write a line of code that will baffle a team of experts for hours. (I've done so often enough myself).
The people who have those answers have long gone. The only person left is a project manager who tells you it's up to you to figure it out. After you make a change in production they will come to you with questions after a few months, just when you assumed things must have gone well
Oh man this one hits home. I don’t do much coding anymore but my general advice to folks I lead is you’re never going to be happy with how you did things and just make sure it scales and is well tested.
Edit: oh and how could I forget as simple and readable as possible
At this point I just don't think total rewrites from scratch are a good idea, full stop. I've never seen a rewrite from scratch that didn't lose most of the learned solutions from the previous attempt, repeat most of the same mistakes and have to re-discover the solutions, and utterly fail to even attempt a passable improvement on a model of the core complexity of the problem being solved.
I'm not granting a "rewrite from scratch in Rust" exception even though that's in vogue right now. I'm not saying don't rewrite it in Rust, I'm saying don't rewrite it from scratch. It's harder to write new features in Rust while maintaining the old C code, but it's the right way to do it.
He was, but his corruption was clearly not the reason for his arrest. They were fine with him living like king until he went against the Nissan faction
I very very very very much doubt these were the same people
reply