I created a userChrome.css file (including the aforementioned snippets + the namespace line on top) and put it into the folder that Firefox tells me is my profile folder - still see the tabs on top though (Mac OS Mojave - FF - Quantum) - any ideas what could be the issue? I did restart firefox.
Not quite - especially in the commodities world - prices fluctuate and often ships can be at sea for months as the goods they carry are traded back and forth by companies based on energy contracts - in the end - something may have been produced in company X for 5€ and shipped when the price was 10€ - but by the time it arrives at its final destination its worth 50€ because the market has moved / the contract it was sold of was pegged at a higher rate
I hear this bit with "traditional car assembly" often. But is it really true? The powertrain isnt really the only difference - EVs are built fundamentally differently (and especially the Tesla models) from the ground up as compared to ICE based cars. If you look at the base series of most large car companies (on which most variants are eventually based) - they've been around for decades in some cases - making it easier to tweak and adjust over time, so production in and off itself hasnt changed that drastically.
I don't know. We all know that, as anything, a modern car is very complex by itself and even the simplest modern production line requires far too much expertise to understand if you are not working directly in the field. So, you have to trust reports, which with an overhyped company like Tesla are more likely than not be laughingly biased in one direction or another.
It is a bit annoying that Tesla has such a track record of failing to reach their own objectives. It is bad IMO, because Tesla is not really under any kind of market pressure (no competition, and client queueing for years), their objective are only investors milestones. As an investor, I would really start thinking Musk is either delusional, hired the wrong people or is humouring me because in reality I'm the one lucky enough to be allowed to invest in Tesla and I should be grateful rather than wasting his time with silly metrics.
It only really matters if you are an investor though.
Consumer win both ways: either Tesla is giving the rest of the market a chance, or they are ready to revolutionised car production the same way the Japanese did in the 90's.
good catch. I wonder how much of that is due to the immense pressure they had in Q1 leading to crazy overtime etc to get that 2270 number. The current average being maybe a more sustainable number that can be ramped up ?
>I wonder how much of that is due to the immense pressure they had in Q1 leading to crazy overtime etc to get that 2270 number.
All of it. Anyone following this story knew they would announce 5000 cars produced at the end of the quarter, hell-or-high-water. Do you think they will produce 5000 cars this week?
The '7000 cars' milestone over the last week is probably a similar high intensity push. I would expect them to similarly spend some time this quarter reconfiguring and improving efficiency at the cost of not maintaining that high production rate every week.
>What do you do with an alogrithm to provide justice?
Assuming Arizona hasn't produced law specifically for fatalities in their public road self driving test program... The algorithms are just one detail of the total system design, and the design of the system isn't really the issue. People don't get killed by designs or code.
The verification of it's safety, and the decision to deploy that system on uncontrolled public streets will be the issue. People made these decisions, not an algorithm.
Fine/sue the entity that made the algorithm, just like every other situation like that. Or, if you can prove negligence on the part of someone inside that company, prosecute them.
"they have more so its ok for them to lose some" - is a flawed logic. The reasons are "good" because they incentivize behaviour. An investor is willing to put a chunk of his money into the startup because he can expect a good return, why else would he take risk on people? An employee is not inherently risking to "lose" anything by taking a job, they risk not gaining something for a while if the job goes, but that's different from proactively putting skin in the game.
I'm not saying it's ok for them to lose some, I'm saying that they're not taking on the risk that everyone claims they are. And yes, an employee very much is risking to lose something. If they get fired or the startup goes under, now they face a very real situation where they might not be able to feed or house their family. I highly doubt that these investors are even close to that point.
"If they get fired or the startup goes under, now they face a very real situation where they might not be able to feed or house their family." this is true for all jobs, my point is, unless you are working for free, you arent giving up something that you will lose. Time yes, but thats why you need to make sure you get paid what you think your time is worth.
interestingly, a lot of enterprise Saas software is "sold before its built", by which i dont mean its complete vaporware, but its a very common practice to build a shitty first product, sell sell sell, and only after the first 10-20 customers are on board, do these companies start to spend more on engineering etc. Even after that, in order to sustain the machinery of building product, you need to keep selling. I think both are important, but in the technical world we tend to seriously underestimate how important sales it. At the end of the day, you can have the best alogrithms, the most elegant code and the sexiest UI, but if you dont have someone taking it to customers, and bringing their feedback back, all you have is a beautiful product without a business.
This is why for most software (think about anything you run in your browser/phone/desktop pretty much that isn't mission or life critical) software quality, architecture and design ZERO VALUE. In fact that value it delivers is negative since it takes time and human effort to do it which costs money and there's no money to be made from say, correctness.
This! It's almost like a safer ICO -- following the line of thougth that ICOs are ways for non accredited common people to get in on something with big potential upside - but unsafe because of the large pump and dump and scam potential - whereas here you know that S+C & Palihipitiya are for real.
As for the sniff test - while I agree with your assessment, I wonder if the aspect of providing employees easier liquidity will make them more attractive than traditional VC deals? Essentially by "investing" in companies with a mix of SPAC stock and capital, making the SPAC stock available to employees to sell in order to liquidate some of their options / equity. Essentially giving them better access to deals than others (a variation of test 1)
As for test 2 - I think this is true of many tech startups outside of the valley, maybe they will look outside the echo chamber.
