Factor 1: vertical integration and different supply trains
- US automakers are really just car assemblers that build the engine and frame, and assemble everything else
- EVs are uniquely good for vertical integration, and Tesla recognized this when the Roadster had lots of issues. They gradually integrated, but still relied on external partners for earlier models' interiors and key parts
- Now, China's EV makers have taken this to the end
Factor 2: US trusts the private sector too much, and they make short-sighted decisions
- In the US, mines and refineries for raw materials have largely closed due to low margins
- Apple considered going into EVs, but they decided not to due to lower margins and now have a movie studio
- In contract, China ordered state-owned enterprises to do the mining/refining and build the charging infrastructure that's not lucrative
Decision that needs to be made: what level of protectionism the US should have:
- Japan and Germany both protected their local carmakers so they can catch up and (ultimately) exceed the success of foreign ones
- The US carmakers only exist due to the tariff on foreign trucks
- Welcoming German/Japanese carmakers to create plants in the US allowed us to get good products
- China's EVs kinda sucked despite government subsidies, so they invited Tesla around 2020, which set the gold standard and also forced their local suppliers and workforce to match Tesla's standards. Those suppliers then supplied the other new EV carmarkers
- I think what the video is trying to say: we should also encourage the Chinese carmakers to create plants in the US to give our EV industry a shot in the arm
I'd guess that this is to ensure one abusive user doesn't get every other user blocked from a large service (say, Google) for botting over the VPN and constantly rotating IPs.
It's a practical measure, but definitely has a privacy cost though.
Its primary point is that TIOBE is based on *number* of search results on a weighted list of search engines, not actual usage in Github, search volume, job listings, or any of the other number of signals you'd expect a popularity index to use.
It could easily be indicating that Python articles are being generated by LLMs more than any other class of articles.
Hi! Co-founder of Wanderlog (YC W19) here - what issues did you run into with it? I'd love to get your take to see if there's anything we can do there.
I completely agree. I think the following quote really captures the argument of the article:
"There is a more fundamental issue at the heart of this seemingly good solution: A 10-year exercise window is really a direct wealth transfer from the employees who choose to remain at the company and build future shareholder value, to former employees who are no longer contributing to building the business/ its ultimate value."
In short, Kupor believes that even if you chose a lower-salary, higher-options/equity package, you should be stripped of your options if you leave. To him, it's only fair if only investors and employees who remain get to keep equity. Instead, you, who have been directly responsible for making the stock price rise so much that your options are costly to exercise, deserve nothing.
Factor 1: vertical integration and different supply trains
- US automakers are really just car assemblers that build the engine and frame, and assemble everything else
- EVs are uniquely good for vertical integration, and Tesla recognized this when the Roadster had lots of issues. They gradually integrated, but still relied on external partners for earlier models' interiors and key parts
- Now, China's EV makers have taken this to the end
Factor 2: US trusts the private sector too much, and they make short-sighted decisions
- In the US, mines and refineries for raw materials have largely closed due to low margins
- Apple considered going into EVs, but they decided not to due to lower margins and now have a movie studio
- In contract, China ordered state-owned enterprises to do the mining/refining and build the charging infrastructure that's not lucrative
Decision that needs to be made: what level of protectionism the US should have:
- Japan and Germany both protected their local carmakers so they can catch up and (ultimately) exceed the success of foreign ones
- The US carmakers only exist due to the tariff on foreign trucks
- Welcoming German/Japanese carmakers to create plants in the US allowed us to get good products
- China's EVs kinda sucked despite government subsidies, so they invited Tesla around 2020, which set the gold standard and also forced their local suppliers and workforce to match Tesla's standards. Those suppliers then supplied the other new EV carmarkers
- I think what the video is trying to say: we should also encourage the Chinese carmakers to create plants in the US to give our EV industry a shot in the arm