Sometimes it's good shit, other times it's just shit.
That cost-cutting approach worked with turning Tesla from the butt of (quite reasonable at the time) jokes about "Death Watch" because they kept needing more and more investment money, into the success they are today.
It utterly failed with Twitter, which has lost most of its revenue and is constantly running into legal issues.
It lost revenue since advertisers don't like the platform's freedom of speech, and Elon won't give them control of what's allowed on the platform. Advertisers want control, they don't want free speech. Why do you think You tube removed the downvote counter? Advertisers pay not just to how their stuff but to also be able to control the narrative. If crowds of people are allowed to freely light a brand on fire on Twitter, why would they pay to advertise there?
Meta paid like 22 Billion for WhatsApp which is hardly bringing in revenue.
If they would have control, people would stop going to Twitter and it would die. Similar fate to the TV mainstream media where they only parrot the opinions of their money overlords, and people are tired of that. That's why they go on to Twitter instead, to look for comments conforming to their own world views rather than what some trillion dollar corporations and out of touch celebrities tell them. Same thing that makes Joe Rogan popular.
>Elon reduced the amount of subjective "good speech" and increased "bad speech".
What is "good speech" and what is "bad speech" for you? Let me guess, "good speech" is the opinions you agree with and "bad speech" is the opinions you disagree with?
Elon didn't reduce or increase anything. He just disable the "nanny" moderations, so now on Twitter you're seeing exactly what the people really think (probably what you consider "bad speech"), instead of what advertisers and the mainstream media would like them to think (probably what you consider "good speech").
That's why people come to Twitter, because it's one the few places left with relatively unmoderated free speech. It's what makes it valuable.
That is a large, opinionated assumption you are making, but be aware we're not discussing "me" but rather advertisers.
As for "me" I consider "bad speech" to be enabled by "unmoderated free speech", which Elon freely chose to allow on Twitter. So yes, he chose to increase it. "Free speech" is NOT synonymous with truth or facts. I will stay away from people and places that I consider to use "bad speech". Yes, it's subjective, and that's the point.
What happens if this pseudocode is run, targeting your account?
while True:
requests.post(api_url, json={"username": "@Cumpiler69", "message": "hello"})
Signal, noise.
Signal keeps you engaged, noise doesn't. What counts as which depends on the person, but you can't function in an environment that allows anything.
Thing is, the exact thing that makes social networks useful, that it's the edges not the nodes, means it is very easy to be jammed by actual humans and not just stupid scripts like the one above.
Ironically, very simple things like I've just shown you, are also how propaganda works: jam people's perception by overloading them with The Message. And any attempt to be "absolutist" about free speech, if he really was (which he isn't really despite what he says), is just a power vacuum into which those that seek power can project their propaganda.
There's no fancy good way out with this, for anyone, much as I'd like there to be. There's no "your side or my side" distinction here, nor would there be if the world were really so parochial as US politics.
In a functioning democracy, every platform influences elections. Twitter isn't special in this regard.
> Advertisers want control
They want things that don't actively damage their brands. That's not the same thing.
> Why do you think You tube removed the downvote counter?
My guess is "seeing downvotes lead to less engagement". But as I've not seen the discussion, that's a guess.
> If crowds of people are allowed to freely light a brand on fire on Twitter, why would they pay to advertise there?
They could do that before he bought it.
> Meta paid like 22 Billion for WhatsApp which is hardly bringing in revenue.
The actual revenue is not published, but is claimed to be at least $1 billion/year based on the preceeding quarter:
"""Alice Newton-Rex, WhatsApp's vice president of product, told the Financial Times in late September 2024, that "paid messaging is a bit earlier in the journey, but it's also doing well, and we've passed a $1 billion run rate."""" - https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/04091...
That said, nobody's going around saying "gosh what a great investment decision by Zuckerberg, he nailed this one", if they're saying anything at all it's usually along the lines of "huh, is this a monopoly issue?"
People were negative about Tesla owing to a long history of making negligible sales before Musk took over as the third CEO.
Twitter was occasionally profitable, and now it has so little income it can't cover the loan he saddled with it even if literally every other cost was entirely eliminated.
Now, that doesn't mean that Musk can't change course on Twitter, nor does it mean that he can't just burn money with Twitter for as long as he wants to, but it's still a thing where if I were somehow a shareholder, I'd be trying to sell.
I expect German politicians to defang the unions soon, similar to what they did with Agenda 2010 [1]. Yeah there will be some strikes and riots, but if the unions are causing an industry to be uncompetitive they're causing more harm than good.
It's a shame because while unions are good on paper, over time they seem to default to protecting themselves at the expense of the industry. Similar to communist parties.
Don't management and shareholders and finance do that? German car companies are among the most successful in the world - Germany and Japan sit at the pinnacle of car manufacturing.
Nokia and Blackberry were also the most successful phone companies in the world till about 2007. Then they stopped.
Similarly, there's no guarantee German companies can keep their positions for long with increased competition from US and Chinese companies.
Germany is arguably the most successful economy in the world, with the most successful manufacturing. And it benefits others besides the shareholders and executives. Maybe others should be following their model.
Care to argument? The numbers disagree with you. Germany's share of global GDP decreased massively in the last 30 years loosing to US and China. That's the opposite of a successful economy.
>And it benefits others besides the shareholders and executives.
Who does it benefit? German workers have the lowest median wealth per capita in Western Europe being some of the poorest citizens of the richer developed countries, have some of the highest wealth inequality in EU, and saw the highest drop in purchasing power in the last ~2 years, while many German companies are making layoffs and relocating abroad.
>Maybe others should be following their model.
I don't think making yourself poorer while resting on a glorious industrial past, is a model people and countries want to follow. I'd say Poland's growth is a model to follow, not Germany's decline.
That's the strongman argument, also used for people like Mussolini. The world besides Musk, before Musk, and after Musk (unless he destroys it) gets plenty of things done. 99% of Silicon Valley did it without him.
They get things done for some, and destroy and kill others. If he's so good - or even basically capable as a manager and leader - then like the others he can really get things done, by meeting all the goals and requirements, which includes the rights and welfare of everyone else.
And Twitter has worked out very poorly - possibly the most money-losing deal ever?
Steve Jobs, Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, Zuckerberg, the entire PayPal Mafia, all of SV's big players did the same things or worse than Musk to create their trillion dollar empires, except more low-key and with less public exposure. They were all ruthless strong men. You don't get to build empires by "being nice".
Musk is the hate poster child of SV due to his excessive personality and massive social media exposure, but he's no worse than the other SV giants that don't leave the shadows and stay out of the limelight.
>That's the strongman argument, also used for people like Mussolini.
I should have stopped responding to you right here. Comparing a controversial tech entrepreneur to Mussolini is the ultimate -200 IQ exaggeration since comparisons like these denigrates the actual suffering people under Mussolini and other dictators had to endure.
In fact none of them did any of that - all these people succeeded, on incredible levels, without doing any of those things Musk does.
>> That's the strongman argument, also used for people like Mussolini.
> I should have stopped responding to you right here.
Why? Just address it on its merits.
Because it's waters down the massive suffering of people living under these dictators had to endure. Musk may not be a good guy by modern ethical standards, but he never caused millions to die or suffer like Mussolini so please lay off comparisons for which you don't understand the historical context.
You basically show you have no idea what you're talking about with such gross comparisons.
And they justify it by saying 'we get things done'.
Reading mean comments on Elon's social media platform is not "suffering". You can just turn it off and stop using it. You also don't have to work for Elon's companies, you are free to work anywhere else.
Stop comparing it to life under dictators. Talk to people who lived under Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao or Ceuasescu. Comparing Elon or his tech companies to those is a huge disservice to millions who saw actual suffering.
Comments like these come from people in positions of extreme privilege who never knew actual suffering and think they're doing the world a favor with their thought.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/what-trump-has-said-he...
The comments have a real-world impact - does anyone claim otherwise? Why would we even imagine that people magicially forget what they read on X when they log off? The hate spreads and is inflamed, people are conditioned to cruelty, and we know very well where that leads in the real world: brutality, oppression, and harassment. Musk's goal is to terrorize federal workers into leaving their jobs - not just in their X feeds.
How do you not stand against that? How do you spend time defending this person?
> Stop comparing it to life under dictators. Talk to people who lived under Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao or Ceuasescu.
Only life under Pol Pot, Stalin, etc. is bad enough to be a problem and nobody else can be criticized? (And I didn't compare anyone to those people, you did.) That's an extreme standard. And again, do you wait until people are dying and being oppressed? They already are victims of hate, violence, and oppression in record numbers.
he didnt buy twitter to make money off it, he bought it to control the masses and swing election - mission accomplished
It's gotten us far beyond anything humanity imagined before it - or than any other form of government has achieved - in terms of freedom, justice, security, prosperity, health .... It's like early Google investors saying, 'look where that investment got us' - as a criticism!
Name any non-democratic country that compares!
Wonder what portion of this is opex masquerading as R&D, hiding behind “equivalent of”
I've also owned two Mercedes and both have had the rear brake lines rust away. Thankfully in the latter they were replaced before they rusted through.
The tax benefits more or less derive from that, along with the general consensus that we should encourage companies to invest into the future.
> If I had had this tool when ordering my Porsche 911 a few years ago, I probably would have made a different color choice.
Why not focus on what normal people want, like affordable reliable cars, instead of luxury cars with a dozen computers and screens in it where you need to get something fixed twice a year.
Look at fucking Volkswagen being a whiney bitch about sluggish sales when they focused on the upper market too for the past couple years. They just fired a huge amount of staff. Obviously just from the lower ranks, you know, the folks who actually get shit done, to ensure the coke-sniffing managers can still pay themselves huge bonuses for being dumb idiots making the wrong calls.
In 2019 Robert Habeck (green party) famously said in an interview[1], addressing head of Volkswagen Herbert Diess: "if you can't offer an EV for under 20,000€ by 2025, I fear you'll fail" - seems he was way off - by about a year.
> Volkswagen AG revenue for the twelve months ending June 30, 2024 was $351.396B, a 10.2% increase year-over-year.
But of course VW has enough buddies in politics that we'll probably just get a huge bailout package for poor Volkswagen, and all the managers can congratulate each other and keep going.
[1] https://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/unternehmen/robert-habeck-...
Why? The upper class is the one least affected by inflation. Just look how the stock market is doing. Even in bad times, luxury brands are selling just fine, this has been proven time and time again. Have you seen sales of Bugattis, Ferraris or McLarens slowing down?
The problem is, VW is not a luxury brand, it's an expensive commodity, making it the first thing avenge people axe in tough times.
Selling 100 cars for 20k each sounds better than selling 2 for 200k.
Upper class don't buy VW.
VW is a posh brand for the middle class which has now been wiped out by inflation and rising CoL, that's why they aren't selling.
I'm surprised I have to spell out obvious stuff like this.
Mercedes has always been the car for the middle class to aim for to show you made it, if that was the kind of thing that was important to you. Sure they also serve the upper class, but then again Volkswagen has Audi for that. And I'd be surprised if sales of the expensive models made the lions share, but I have to check.
But at least in my bubble I see even folks with money turn away from these kind of cars. It's like the car is losing its role as a status symbol.
I never said that. You're going with offtopic parallels instead of addressing the arguments I'm making.
If Habeck implements a belated and voluntary Morgenthau plan by de-industrializing Germany, applauding the destruction of its energy infrastructure and by being basically only concerned about increasing Rheinmetall's profits, the German economy will and does collapse.
Habeck runs a tight censorship regime as well:
https://www.thetimes.com/world/europe/article/german-pension...
The Green Party is now both economically incompetent and a warmongering party. It has become the worst of both worlds.
The problem is that the other major parties are even worse. At least Habeck has something going compared to the other candidates regarding the next election.
That is exactly what Chinese car companies is doing. Here's a video by Caresoft of the BYD Seagull which s apparently sub $12k. (Caresoft AFAIK do professional level car teardown reports for the auto industry) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izvdO-zdlKg&t=2s
I'd love to buy something like that at that price point.
Somehow Mercedes owners I know always have their car in the shop complaining how expensive it is to own a Mercedes and how often the fancy little features they have always break down.
Of course you can always get the worst of both worlds by buying a used formerly-expensive car. You get all the difficult and expensive maintenance for features that either didn't pan out or that everyone already has the more robust version of.
They were at the top in F1 until 2021.
There's already a few being developed, but that's not going to be for the peons e.g. pal-v started taking orders for Liberty this year, and apparently the price tag is somewhere between half and a mil.
In any case, we have helicopters which embodies the spirit of a flying car
Light aircraft are somewhat efficient, but helicopters point out well the likely efficiency issues with flying cars. We are not getting magic anti-gravity anytime soon... Or jetpacks...
Jetpacks on the other hand might finally be getting out of the "possible but not useful" state, moving quickly towards "useful in some niches" and maybe further on from there.
Mercedes F1 team has nothing to do with Mercedes car company other than sharing the same name. Different factories, different management, different workers, different technologies.
It's a marketing exercise designed to sell more road cars ("Win on Sunday, sell on Monday"), that shares nothing with the road cars division.
They can very well sell the F1 team if they deiced it's not profitable anymore.
OK, Ferrari for example may take some cues from F1 for their hypercars, but how much is just PR statements and how much actual reality we'll never know.
The culture of invent and fail fast just doesn’t work here.
I must be that Tesla prefers to have some research simply be considered as part of product development. While Mercedes does the opposite.
I would say, you really only notice it when you leave your Mercedes behind and rent a Kia/Jeep/etc.
I would like a touchscreen though - in addition to the buttons.
As long as Mercedes (and any other old car companies) as not cutting their staff and pipelines, they will never be competitive with Tesla or Chinese companies. They have a lot of inertia but their development processes are too outdated at this point.
>But because these friction brakes are not used much, their rotors tend to rust, leading to noise during application, as well as degraded appearance. And they still produce brake dust.
>To solve these problems, Mercedes is developing what it calls In-Drive Brakes. The idea is to move the brakes from the wheels to inside the electric drive motor at either end, where the half-shafts emerge. The prototype is shown on the rear axle, but the concept could work at both ends.
>The brake would not be a conventional disc brake but rather something that looks like the clutch in a manual transmission. There would be a disc that spun with the half-shaft connected to each wheel. This disc would have friction material on most of each side near the periphery and with something that looked like a non-rotating flywheel on each side. An annular hydraulic cylinder would press the assembly together causing the rotating friction disc to drag on the two fixed plates to slow the car.
> Since this assembly would be fully enclosed in a housing at each end of the motor housing, the two fixed plates would have liquid cooling passages to remove the heat generated by the braking. A small sump at the base of each brake housing would serve to collect the brake dust generated. mercedes benz innovations future technologies 2024, in drive brake Mercedes-Benz
> The goal would be for these brakes to last for the life of the car. Being enclosed, they would be quiet. And being inboard, they would leave the wheels clean, reduce unsprung weight, and allow greater freedom for wheel designers, who would no longer have to worry about getting cooling air into the brakes.
This is NOT an innovation. The initial mentioned problem of brake discs possibly rusting because they are rarely used can be easily address by the car computer periodically using the disc brakes rather than regenerative brakes if those haven't been used recently. Applying the disc brakes a few times every couple of days should not impact the range measurably.
They are making an easily reparable wear item such as brakes, almost cost prohibitive (labor costs) to replace by putting it inside depths of the electric drive unit. You now have to disable and disconnect high voltage battery , pullout the electric motor (usually include the motor, differential gear units, inverters in the same unit so it is similar to pulling out an engine in a ICE car), then take apart that engine, replace the friction clutches used for breaking, and then reverse the whole process to put it all back together.
The only thing this is designed to do is to sell more cars every x years by making cars harder to repair. The funny sad thing is; this is clear anti-consumer activity ironically developed with consumers (tax payers) money using tax write-off for R&D.
This type of thing is also why electric cars have a bad reputation at the moment. They depreciate so fast because the the greedy companies design them to make it impossible to repair economically, and insurance companies write them off after the tiniest accident/issue.
This is wrong in so many levels.
It's probably 4x 228 in series so each cell would have about 3.5V nominal voltage to get 800V
We put more and more in series for a reason, EV have peak power like 200kW, it's 250A already for 4V that is claimed here it would be 50000A, cables to handle this would be heaviest thing in the car.
I don't think this converter is able to boost voltage, that would be waste of components, it's for sure meant for stepping down 800V to 12/24/48V used for the rest of the car in low voltage system.
I get it that journalist cannot be specialists in every topic but I feel that they should consult it with someone before publishing