It's kind of astonishing that the reaction to revenue dropping and a rash of articles about the the product has gone downhill is a, "new operating model" with less resources and more time pressure.

All this started when short term shareholder value became the only thing executives cared about. For a while, I think it was more that leadership just didn't give a shit about product quality or long term viability.

But now I think the management culture has changed so much that they legitimately don't know how to achieve quality or even improvement. Trying to do more with less is the only management technique they know. If something is wrong, do more with less. If the customers don't like your product, don't listen to them, just cut costs.

They should go further with this. HVAC controls would be a good start.

I love my ICE vehicles but I accept that the future is electric.

How about working on methods of actually delivering the amount of power required to consumers before arbitrarily mandating the vehicles themselves, though? Have a viable plan to actually produce that power and build out charging infrastructure to make long journeys less of a hassle for current EV owners. You'll decrease consumers' resistance to EVs at the same time you're preparing for the volume we'll eventually see. Meanwhile, you're giving battery technology time to improve as well which will make a huge difference.

Because it's not politically sexy, that's why.

In the U.S. regulation is often driven by existing industries buying politicians to raise the barriers to entry and box out competition. In the E.U. regulation is driven by trying to protect and benefit citizens, probably to an excessive degree.

No one is getting it totally right, but at least the government of the EU is attempting to serve the people it's supposed to be serving - citizens. I'm not inclined to lean towards more regulations but given the choice between the two? I'll take a government that serves citizens over corporations.

I appreciate the need to increase confidence in our election systems after the 2020 debacle, but, "confident that voting systems and other election infrastructure are well-defended"? What in the entire history of electronic voting machines would lead someone to say something like that?

I've spent a lot of time discussing things online since the dial up BBS days. The biggest change I have observed as the unwashed masses have gotten involved in the discussion is the unwillingness to learn anything new or see nuance within issues. The foundation of social media is the little dopamine hit people get from being right, or performing outrage, and that's really all most people are after.

There is no question I can be wordy, but I had someone tell me I "wrote a book" after I posted three short sentences in response to an article.

I've seen people post charts that demonstrate something is happening as evidence that it isn't happening.

If reputable sites and cross checking won't give them the answer they are looking for, a single reference from a *.wordpress.com site will do even if it is demonstrably incorrect.

None of the big issues we face today are simple. They require nuanced solutions that take in to account many complex factors and borrow from multiple political ideologies. That doesn't give people the dopamine hit they want, though, and it doesn't serve the interests of the political class.

Large nonprofit hospital systems also sink money into real estate, especially in the form of buying more hospitals. This has a double benefit because as they gain control of more facilities in the region, the more they can strong arm payers into higher fees.

The web was supposed to democratize publishing and introduce a meritocracy of ideas.

The problem, it turns out, is that most people are really, really, REALLY fucking stupid and will believe absolutely anything that jives with their own personal prejudices. The people casting the votes in this democracy of publishing are morons.

...is for Cisco to buy it. It's where good products go to die.

It's hard to imagine anyone that could be said to have "shaped the modern era of media" being proud of what they have done.

What we're getting to with all of this is that city residents want to ban anyone who doesn't live in the city from coming there. Sure, emissions are a problem, but the solution to that is the alternative fuel vehicles that the government is insisting we purchase and working remotely. There's no reason to create completely insane unworkable roadway designs to accommodate a fictitious volume of riders other to to frustrate drivers. Now this is talking about increasing taxes, etc. which really means preventing anyone but the wealthy from entering the city.

Back in the 90s and early 2000s Google would have trailed off some time ago as the search engine that "everyone used". The quality of the results has been getting worse and worse, the amount of spam listings has gotten completely out of control, etc. and then, y'know, the whole privacy thing.

I didn't realize how bad the results and SPAM had gotten until recently. This is money well spent if you're Google, I don't think they would maintain their prominence in search without this.

It's gotten to the point where some kind of cost/benefit analysis is necessary. It's market forces doing their thing.

There needs to be a reckoning that not all college degrees are ultimately worth the same as well. Charging the same amount of money for a degree in English Lit and a STEM field just doesn't make sense. The product is, from a purely monetary perspective, simply not worth the same amount.

You don't need a college degree to go in to a lot of fields that typically require it. You're going to make less money than you would with a degree for a while, but you'll also be starting 4 years earlier without a mountain of debt behind you. You'll have to show some initiative in terms of really trying to learn, but everyone should have that regardless of whether they attended college or not - most of what you need to know to work in the corporate world is not taught in college.

Essentially what this says is, even though it is directly due to the budget cuts, blame the employee to try and trick them in to increasing their productivity.

Executive management, for some reason, always thinks this kind of mindfuck goes unnoticed. It's an insult to their own employees' intelligence to try to bullshit them this way.

It also sends the message that the executives don't believe the is worth working for during a year when raises are crap. It happens at every company and when there are other reasons to stay (like maybe the company is honest with employees and doesn't treat them like imbeciles) people will stay despite the poor raise.

If the lack of increases is due to cuts, say it's due to fucking cuts. In the absence of a healthy raise I would at least prefer to a company that is straight with me. Trying to manipulate people like this can make them start feeling like they are crazy, which is not what you want.

This seems like an unnecessary slam of the writers at Gizmodo. They work really hard to maintain an industry leading level of incompetence.