I have a simpler answer- the bad ones make money. All of the Jurassic World movies have topped $1B. Rebirth has been out 5 days and is already at $300M, twice its budget.
While movies are art, they are primarily an entertainment product, especially when they cost $65-200M to make. Jurassic World is selling really well, so they aren’t going to change the product to produce “better” art.
It is interesting that Jurassic Park are the only (non animated) dinosaur movies to get much traction while JW is taking in so much money. But it’s got to be tough to come up with a dinosaur movie concept that doesn’t sound like a JP knockoff and doesn’t confuse viewers.
Maybe Marvel will make a Savage Lands movie. But I don’t think this what the author wants.
I suspect they are a bit high, but not insanely so. The author is using city limits rather than metro area it appears, so there is going to be some draw in from the suburbs.
100k/305 residents= 325 people/restaurant. Average per capita spending on food away from home is $4500. That means that each restaurant has $1,475,000 of addressable market on average, which seems totally viable? (https://www.michiganfarmnews.com/boom-in-spending-at-restaur...)
From the MSN article linked below:
“ UK-based shipowner Zodiac Maritime has since confirmed that the fire originated in the section of the vessel carrying electric vehicles.”
Is an EV with 2% charge in the battery any more or less prone to spontaneous combustion than one with 10%, 50%, or 100% of charge?
I'm under the assumption that these are roll on/roll off carriers and that cars themselves are driven on and off (so they have some level of charge or fuel).
I know that batteries (apparently) can "just catch fire", I just don't know what the risk of fire to charge capacity of the battery is.
Higher state of charge absolutely correlates with fire danger - there are physical mechanisms in play where highly charged lithium batteries can have dentritic shorts, for example, which cause thermal runaway almost immediately.
It’s a much higher risk during charging as that is when the structures typically form, but they can also be borderline and then ‘cross the border’ suddenly when just sitting there.
It stands to reason (and simple physics/chemistry) that a fully-charged battery is going to burn more intensely than a depleted one. But as I undertstand it, Li ion batteries need a minimum "base" charge below which the battery can be damaged or become unable to be recharged (at least not by normal means). So I'd guess that like phones and other devices, they are shipped with roughly a 50% charge, allowing them to be driven on and off the ship and then on and off a truck before finally arriving at the retail dealership or other buyer's location.
Many of the things we teach in school aren’t just for the direct knowledge or skill. We largely don’t need to do arithmetic any more, but gaining the skill at doing it really improves our ability to deal with symbolic manipulation and abstraction.
I remember another parent ranting about their 3rd grade kids “stupid homework” since it had kids learning different ways of summing numbers. I took a look at the homework and replied “wow, the basics out set theory are in here!” We then had a productive discussion of how that arithmetic exercise led to higher math and ways of framing problems.
Similarly, writing produces a different form of thought than oral communication does.
History is a bit different, but a goal of history and literature is (or it least should be) to socialize students and give them a common frame of reference in society.
Finally there is the “you don’t know when you’ll need it defense.” I have a friend who spent most of the last 20 years as a roofer, but his body is starting to hurt. He’s pivoting to CAD drafting and he’s brushing off a some of those math skills he hated learning in school. And now arguing with his son about why it’s important.
Those are the fundamental defenses- that we are seeking not skills but ways of viewing the world + you don’t know what you’ll need. There are obviously limits and tradeoffs to be made, but to some degree yes, we should be forcing students (who are generally children or at least inexperienced in a domain) to things they don’t like now for benefits later.
Then your friend spent 20 years not needing math skills. If someone spent years doing something useless to them for two decades, we wouldn’t call them efficient. But for some bizarre reason, we celebrate it as a point of honor in academia.
One counter argument to yours is that when you do need the skills, you can learn them later. It’s arguably easier than it has been at any point in human history. In that context, why front load people with something they hate doing, just because their parents think it’s a good idea? Let them wait and learn it when they need it.
From the title, I thought this article was going to be about how Hannibal won an incredible number of victories in the Second Punic War, but Carthage still lost the war and had to take devasting terms of surrender.
It's about how Rome was defeated at Cannae due their overconfidence and inability to adapt, but doesn't examine how Rome ended up winning in the end. It is interesting how dependent on framing case studies are.
It's also worth noting that some of the Roman commanders were simply bad, and Hannibal himself was not without flaws.
The best example of the former is Gaius Flaminius, who was defeated by Hannibal at Lake Trasimene. [0] Livy memorably describes Flaminius as "not sufficiently fearful of the authority of senate and laws, and even of the gods themselves." Hannibal took advantage of his rashness to lure Flaminius into an ambush in which he and his entire army were annihilated.
Furthermore you could argue--and may still do--that Hannibal didn't even completely win Cannae, because he failed to attack Rome after his victory. His commander of cavalry remarked at the time, "You, Hannibal, know how to gain a victory; you do not know how to use it." [1] I'm personally inclined to think Maharbal was correct, but that's the advantage of hindsight.
These accounts are both based on Livy, who didn't let facts to get in the way of a good story.
Coincidentally, the excellent podcast, Tides of History, is currently doing a miniseries on the Punic Wars, and just covered why Cannae didn't end the war.
The Romans were actually quite smart after Cannae; they had lost a bunch of pitched battles, so they decided to shadow Hannibal's army to make his foraging logistics much more complicated (and forcing him to stay close to Southern Italy where he could easily resupply). The logistics of attacking Rome were therefore challenging at best, and the Romans used this as a delaying tactic to score wins on other fronts (since they enjoyed an overall manpower advantage).
One of my favorite anecdotes my history teacher shared was of Hannibal marching to the undefended Rome, throwing a spear at the gates, and walking away under the logic that if Rome could just throw away that many soldiers at Cannae, just how many more did they leave back home to defend the city?
perhaps "defeated" is a confusing word. Both romans and carthaginian armies suffered defeats multiple times. But there wouldn't have been a third punic war if carthage had been thoroughly defeated in the second as it was in the third.
Unless the writing changed after you post this, but the writer certainly explains how Rome won after Fabius’s new strategy of attrition and “cowardly” tactics.
"Blockbuster vs. Netflix: Blockbuster's leadership couldn't break free from their retail store mental model."
Silicon Valley cannot break free from its surveillance, data collection and online advertising mental model of the internet.
"It's that their past successes created the conditions for these mistakes. Their expertise became their vulnerability. Their conventional wisdom became the instrument of their downfall."
Ad services have been highly profitable in the absence of meaningful competition or regulation. But how long will those conditions last. Silicon Valley's "conventional wisdom" comprises "products" and "services" priced at zero dollars, "normalised" anti-competitive conduct, relentless data collection and surveillance and finally, the sale of online advertising services as a "business model".
"Disruptors and innovators intuitively understand the Cannae Problem. They specifically look for gaps between established organizations' mental models and reality. These gaps represent enormous opportunities."
The established "tech" organisations' mental models are so weak they were never able to find a business model. They had to resort to internet intermediation for the purpose of surveillance and advertising services.
Yeah, this is what Chief Engineer Scotty said every time Captain Kirk asked for the impossible: "I cannae give ye' any more, sir!" So I just thought we were going to max out the laws of physics again.
Rome recovered because if its literally unmatched in the ancient world ability to recruit armies and put orders of magnitude more men in the field as a portion of their population.
Hannibal never marched on Rome because he knew he could never take it. Doing a siege in the area most loyal to Rome would have been suicidal for his force.
Hannibal was basically in a hostile land, without proper logistics support. There was no way that he can stay still and lay siege, only way he was able to survive so far was his ability to stay mobile and live off the land.
In case of siege, the Romans would not need to fight, they could simply wait until his army slowly died from attrition.
I thought that was due to him not having the equipment needed to carry out a successful siege. His strategy was to defeat the Roman Army in the field and then peel away their allies in the peninsula.
"It is interesting how dependent on framing case studies are."
She fails to consider specifically that so-called "tech" companies also operate via "orthodoxy". There are enormous "gaps" in their "mental models and reality". As such, there are similarly-sized opportunities for "disruption" and "innovation". But as we have seen through documentary evidence, sworn testimony, and Hail Mary tactics like deliberately destroying evidence and giving false testimony in federal court, these companies rely on anti-competitive conduct. This is not merely an "inability to adapt", it is an inability to compete on the merits. One could argue the ability to effortlessly raise capital coupled with the large cash reserves of these companies results in a certain "overconfidence".
This is of course not the frame she chooses to adopt.
It seems like it would be extremely difficult to identify that breakdown.
Not because it's difficult to identify emissions generated in order to produce those goods subsequently exported (it would be arduous to do so, but not infeasible), but because absent that particular manufacturing effort for those specific exports, what would that nation state instead be doing with those resources / what emissions would they be generating in the pursuit of domestic consumption needed to replace the income from those exports.
> I have no managerial experience, hence I can't get any leadership roles (either people or software),
Management and leadership are overlapping but different things. You become a leader by having people who will follow you. Having control over their rewards and career (management) makes that more straightforward but it’s not the only way.
Do you know your boss’s biggest objectives, problems and worries? Your boss’s boss? Do you have opinion about what is holding your team back?
The answers to the above often aren’t strictly technical. Your boss might be under pressure to show efficiency improvements due to AI, or might have junior developers struggling to ramp, or be getting taken to task for quality issues. If you understand their problems and go to them with a solution they will typically be happy to make at least a little space to work on it. Succeed, and you develop trust, which in turn results in them being more willing to turn to you to solve problems and grant more autonomy to do so.
The key thing here is that you have to work to find problems that others want you to solve. You can develop autonomy, but only in the service of others.
That’s true whether you want to develop within a corporate environment or move into consultancy- you only get rewarded/paid to work on problems someone else wants solved.
Definitely agree, almost wrote that too, but it was already a long response :)
Management is about directing resources. Good management needs leadership ability to get the people they are directing to buy into where they are being directed, but also a bunch of other skills.
That being said, having the formal designation makes relationship and reputation building easier to start- subordinates are motivated to have a good relationship with you.
Maybe? In today’s market, I’m going to do everything I can to build a positive relationship with my manager. Jobs just don’t fall out of the sky like they have done for me since 1996.
But if I don’t genuinely like and respect my manager, I’m not going to go the extra mile for him, I’m not going to stick it out with him through thick and thin and I’m going to leave at the first opportunity.
On the other hand, I’ve had very technical managers that their subordinates liked. But didn’t build positive relationships with the rest of the org. It was impossible to get things done that required cross team coordination and he couldn’t get the raises and recognition that his team wanted. Everyone ended up leaving.
I’m trying something new on my next interview- I’ve had an LLM solve a coding problem and I’ve uploaded the output to github, I’m going to ask the candidate to evaluate the generated code adapt it to new technical and non functional requirements.
I haven’t been doing that much interviewing, but in the dozen or so candidates I’ve had I don’t think a single one has tried to use AI. I almost wish they would, as then at least I’d get past the first half of the question…
