Also Porsche SUVs regularly rank at the top of luxury SUV reviews. I've never driven one but the consensus is that they're great - it's not just badge engineering.
The Cayenne has no right to be as fast as it is. The stupid thing will powerslide out of corners at 120 kmh and fly at hot hatch speeds through twisty cobblestone roads. The brakes were also wonderful and surprisingly cheap for the size. Didn't have air suspension so it rode like a fast car though.
Solar works fine when it's overcast - and it doesn't require a grid. Heat pump is kind of a valid criticism but it's not like those infrastructure attacks by Russia aren't taking out gas and oil also.
That's a really fallacious argument. Nuclear wouldn't stop truck emissions, car emissions, boat emissions, long distance freight train emissions (unless electric), and airplane emissions. It wouldn't stop military emissions (which are significant).
We could have done a lot more nuclear but it's not clear that it would have done more than a few percent of CO2 savings in the overall scheme of things. You can see this most clearly in China which is still burning tons of coal in 2026 and have had no compunction with nuclear ever.
Imagine having HALF the CO2 emissions. HALF. That would be amazing. If we had that in most of Europe and the US instead of listening to the anti-nuclear lobby we would have a ton more runway to fix the issue than we have now.
Germany was the industrial heavyweight of the 70s and doing a lot more - those emissions aren't just because of nuclear vs coal (although that's very real too). Anyway, anti-nuclear activism only got traction in the 80s so any delta there is not because of that. Economics were probably the main driver (perhaps Atoms for Peace was more France-centric? Not sure if there were other drivers). You can see here that energy use per person was 1/3 higher in Germany than France in the 70s but I suspect if we could find total energy expenditure it would be more like double for Germany than France during that time period: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/per-capita-energy-use?tab...
If electricity is cheap enough, you can take CO2 from air and make fuel (not sure what is the threshold? 5-10 times cheaper then now?). then you can use that fuel where you need its energy density. I agree that it seems pretty dumb to ignore China (and soon India) CO2 emissions. Again, if you manage to make nuclear cheap enough, you could just gift reactors to everyone that needs them. It can be argued that cheap and safe nuclear was not really tried.
Well, it is quite difficult indeed, but I am curious what will happen in the next 20 years, with China very interested in this, and some renewed interest in the west too. I am also not sure which is more unrealistic, cheap nuclear or fusion.
Yea, I mean.. the point isn't the price imo. We can build out nuclear and sequester CO2 without it being super cheap. We can do massive projects like that anyway.
I'm sort of surprised that ecowarriors aren't dropping radio isotopes that are not actually that bad but would cause customer revulsion in places that are overfished.
I used RfP (Request for Payment) today for the first time. It was ~11k USD between IBKR and Chase and the transfer was instant with verification on both sides. It's interesting to see the evolution of payments in the US moving so quickly over the past few years (FedNOW, etc...)
I was transferring to myself (different bank). The message from the sending bank triggered a push notification from the receiving bank which I approved and the money moved instantly. This works for up to $10MM I believe.
You're making a nuanced point but it's correct. Good managers can give a little motivation (mostly by talking about and finding the right areas to work on for those people that don't otherwise already know). But for the most part good management is buffering the core that allows individuals own motivation to be self-sustaining (and productive over time) and also making sure that people aren't on a path that won't be useful (i.e. the manager knows the company will never fund phase 2).
this makes sense, but can be at odds with the reason you're there. If your manager is not working to align your personal motivations with those of the organization they are failing. I don't believe it's a spectrum of good-bad management and "level of motivational interference". An "average manager" just does a weak job at the individual-organizational alignment.
Great managers absolutely can provide motivation. They can have a genuinely compelling vision for a product - "we're going to build the best damn FooGadget on the web". They can figure out what motivates their reports and work to make it transparent to them - for example some engineers like to see positive client feedback, whilst other engineers like having thorny problems to solve.
Yes. It stands to reason that if a manager can demotivate you, then they must be able to do the opposite. Both building the vibe and killing it can achieve that in terms of extrinsic motivation, culture, the psychological contract, and so on.
These are important factors to consider for people who work in highly collaborative teams as opposed to those who prefer to be 10x lone wolves, which is the impression I get from the article and the overall startup vibe I've experienced over the past few years.
HN might be over-indexed on the "leave me alone to do my work", "I don't have friends I have colleagues," type of person but it's not representative of the entire population.
>> highly collaborative teams as opposed to those who prefer to be 10x lone wolves
I was a decent developer and a much better manager, and I think a big part of it was I learned these are different games. By the time we hit multiple dev teams I had good success framing it wtih senior ICs like this: "If you want to get 10% better (better in context of what they are defining) this year, that's really, really hard. But it would be easy for you to make everyone on the team 2-3% better, and our net improvement would be well over 10%." We then talk & plan relatively straight-forward ways to make this happen, and mix in explicit personal improvement/growth components. They're motivated, they make their teammates motivated, they make me motivated. Meanwhile the 10x'er (not sure I've had one of those) keeps grinding it out in the minor leagues.
It would be more useful if you explained why the rest of my comment didn't provide a good enough reason (because of your clear dissatisfaction with the first sentence of it), because this is just snark that doesn't further a conversation.
Anyone can quote a subset of a message and drop a remark without substance after all, but I didn't come on HN to read Twitter-quality stuff.
There was a low-level Google internal service that worked so well that other teams took a hard dependency on it (against advice). So the internal team added a cron job to drop it every once in a while to get people to trust it less :-)
reply