> The existence of people who succeed in pushing for inferior solutions, and managing to leave before it becomes clear
Guess this is just random evolution at play. Some companies will pay a bigger price than others. And not everyone even recognizes it and pinpoint it like you did.
But overall influencing people is on net good skill for the individual. And what is good for the geese is good for the gander??
> Some companies will pay a bigger price than others.
The problem is that typically a large company has one or a few golden geese. They can milk it for a long time because of an existing moat. The moat keeps shrinking, but it can sometimes take a decade or two for others to catch up.[1] That's plenty of time for such folks to make a career of playing politics well without contributing much.
Lots of people at that company left before things went bad and are poisoning other companies.
[1] Just look at Google and search. Or Microsoft and Windows. Or even Microsoft and Internet Explorer.
> have families, real estate, weird funky interests and hobbies
Many people would rather have these^ but stay stuck in cities/downtowns despite knowing it is only delaying the inevitable for them.
If the team mates have a different mindset, they see it as half baked or hacky. And if there is ever some bad feedback, they just use it as a "I told you so" and throw you under the bus.
If your self-esteem is sufficiently resilient, you can exploit the same human tendencies behind Cunningham's Law (the best way to get the right answer on the internet is not to ask a question; it's to post the wrong answer). Check your crappy end-to-end proof of concept into the team repository, and your teammates will be so horrified and outraged that they'll fix it faster than any sprint could have planned.
Bad feedback can be more helpful than good and is often the only type of feedback a product gets. And you may not have received that feedback if you didn’t ship. It’s better to get that information early.
I personally agree with the premise to ship early, with some rough edges, etc. But teammates may not be supportive. You need the whole team to have that mindset/culture.
After reading this comment, I feel leaning into the cosplaying will make me more productive/prolific. Many things I do not push thru on are because they seem superficial or a bit fake.
Does not apply to all ppl but maybe there should be phases to cosplay hard. Then reflect and realign.
I am noticing that I am very quick to get excited about a thing and also very quick to lose motivation to pursue that new thing to a meangful level of understanding and mastery.
Yesterday I was excited about something that I wanted to build a proof-of-concept of and blog about proudly. It might take 2-3days of intermittent effort juggling between other things but god was I excited to see it through.
I reaped great dopamine learning the first 30% of the stuff by end of day.
Today I wake up and am wondering what got me so excited yesterday. Of course I knew the basics of that now, parts of it seem obvious even, would anyone be really interested in me talking about it?
If I threw my hat over the fence by cosplaying an active builder and blogger ... maybe I would have seen it through 3 days of commitment?
> SO was by far the leading source of high quality answers to technical questions
We will arrive on most answers by talking to an LLM. Many of us have an idea about we want. We relied on SO for some details/quirks/gotchas.
Example of a common SO question: how to do x in a library or language or platform? Maybe post on the Github for that lib. Or forums.. there are quirky systems like Salesforce or Workday which have robust forums. Where the forums are still much more effective than LLMs.
The hard part has been to import all the accounts and to categorize the transactions on the 1-2 cards and 1-2 checking accounts that get used a lot. However doing hledger motivated me to simplify things. Either delete cards and accounts. Or barely use them so I can update them once or twice a year. And helps to reduce the number of categories.
I have not made updates for all of 2025 after 3 or 4 years of hledger. ROI diminished once the itch to zero everything wears off and since I have somewhat steady state expenses.
These days, I find it is doable 2-3 times a year. Its a lot of work at one shot but somehow able to catch up so as to review the main spending accounts. The zeroing is what attract me still. I get to see some patterns in my overall spending/categories. And it is side project where there is perceivable concrete progress, so still somewhat easier dopamine.
Simplifying/automating the workflow is a pull. As I type this, I have an idea to stop tracking NW in hledger - it can seem incomplete because money moves from checking to brokerages. That's fine. I only want to see expenses.
Interesting! In a different comment, I took the other side: maybe it’s only worth tracking NW in hledger? Itemizing transactions is heavy duty bookkeeping effort, and I didn’t feel any directional value.
my thinking is that NW does not have to be tracked in a way that the double entries zero out. Every six months, I just open the 3-4 brokerages and banks and make an entry in a spreadsheet for cash/stock/bonds/crypto/others. Where the stocks are mostly ETFs and crypto is less than 5%.
And create a pivot table for totals and %s. And rebalance as needed. This may be too crude for some. But I am only starting to get organized, so this works, esp as you said for directional. Actually this is one of the reasons I have dropped hledger in general.
I just leave notes and comments in the spreadsheet as needed.
that's an interesting point. A echo chamber could lead to fatigue and boredom.
Reels is able to keep me engaged because it is able to surface similar content I would like but from different users. And they have such a breadth of producers these days.
The X home feed algo is not so good apart from it being text only, even for infotainment content. YT shorts also does not work as good as the Insta algo
Agree subsidies does not seem like the correct incentive structure. But that's what the other guy is doing so I guess that's what we have to do.
In general, can the EV industry survive without government subsidies? Maybe now it can in the US.
Also not convinced EVs (as they are currently) are vastly superior to ICE cars. Not accounting for the potential for ICE cars to vastly improve if there wasn't so much vested interest. So the whole EV industry seems a bit unsustainable...
As an EV owner, and not even of a top end model (Nissan Leaf 220mi range model), the last paragraph is nuts.
If you can charge at home it’s like 1/4 the price of driving on gasoline per mile. That’s not counting the fact that it takes basically zero maintenance other than tire rotation. I think there’s some fluids you want to refresh at 100k miles, but that’s it.
Compared to a gas car it’s like a free to drive car.
It also drives better. You get used to instant full torque fast. Even an economy EV like the Leaf feels like driving an ICE sports car. In some ways it’s better since the response has no latency. When I drive an ICE car it feels laggy and mushy. Also seems loud and smelly and “steampunk”.
Recharge time and range are still better for ICE, but that’s literally the only advantage. EVs are superior in every other way: cost to operate, lack of maintenance, efficiency, acceleration, torque, quiet operation, and so on.
I’ve read a few analyses that claim that driving an EV is still better in terms of emissions than an average gas car even if you get 100% of your power from coal (very few do). This is because small heat engines suck and because gas takes tons of energy just to go from oil well to pump. A big supercritical turbine in a coal plant has much better thermal efficiency than any car engine, and oil has to be shipped and refined (very energy intensive) then post-processed then shipped again and all that counts against the overall efficiency.
EVs are just better. If the charge and range gap can close, ICE is obsolete for all but niche uses.
For almost everyone with home charging, EV’s are a substantial win even without subsidies. There’s so many little wins like being able to turn the car on to warm up in a garage without filling it with exhaust. That’s a long way from every driver, but the EV industry doesn’t need to make up every car sale to survive just fine.
ICE cars can’t get vastly better they are simply too close to fundamental limits. It’s quickly becoming a competition between hybrids and EV’s.
That's my point about ICE not innovating enough. And of course hybrid would be one of the innovations. Also it should have more electronic luxuries and connectivity to match the newly designed EVs. Hybrids would carry a bigger battery that can pre warm without engine running.
ICE itself is close to fundamental limits. But iiuc other parts like frames and chasis are not, like they could be lighter and stronger.
ICE cars have bigger mileage than equivalent EVs? Meaning you fill gas once every few weeks in 5 mins.
> EV’s are a substantial win even without subsidies
Why are they subsidized then? It is somehow better than no subsidies from the company's viewpoint.
> Meaning you fill gas once every few weeks in 5 mins.
Home charging supplies more energy with less cost and effort. It’s physically impossible for ICE cars to win here as I will park at home and stay at home for a while, I don’t need to go to a gas station and then stand around for a few minutes.
> Why are they subsidized then?
Initially it was all about helping the technology become competitive, which it has.
As to why it’s a good idea, ICE cars have negative externalities due to tailpipe emissions. Much like cigarettes burning stuff = public health hazard. Mandatory catalytic converters help, but as I benefit when you buy an EV instead of a ICE car I don’t mind chipping in for some of the cost of an EV.
The alternative of simply taxing ICE engines or gas etc would be equally effective tool, just harder to pass politically.
The negative externality of EV car manufacturing seems net worse (today) per car. Harsher chemicals, more mining, more processing, lesser life of a car and battery, less mature tech so more wastage, etc.
Tesla might be responsible but almost all other EVs are likely externalizing a lot in their supply chain.
Anyway according to Gemini:
```
In the U.S., a typical EV becomes "cleaner" than a gas car after about 15,000 to 20,000 miles (roughly 1.5 to 2 years of driving).
If your primary concern is climate change, the EV is the clear winner after about 1.5 years. If your concern is local land/human rights impact, the EV has a heavier "upfront" cost that requires better regulation to solve.
```
EV is the way to go but is it going to scale sustainably to say 25% or more of all cars? Apparently yes, with the new battery tech in the pipeline.
> Harsher chemicals, more mining, more processing, lesser life of a car and battery, less mature tech so more wastage, etc.
Extracting, manufacturing, and transporting gas more than offsets those differences. Oil refineries are nasty not to mention mid to large scale oil spills.
> EV is the way to go but is it going to scale sustainably to say 25% or more of all cars?
EV’s are already 20% of global sales, will it scale isn’t some deep question 5x current production would be completely replacing ICE cars.
Like many sibling comments, many companies are on a range that is on the bad side. There is a part of EV supply chain that is particularly bad and that is for all companies.
But what about the environmental costs that are being externalized? EV car production is likely worse or equal to ICE car production at each step. And the only arg seems to be that some day all EVs will be powered by solar/clean energy somehow.
You're severely misinformed if you think the cradle-to-grave footprint of BEVs is higher than ICEs today. Feel free to pick the study of your choice. They're pretty unanimous at this point and the comparison isn't particularly close. Here's a particularly comprehensive study from Argonne:
reply