But, if Tesla fails and SpaceX succeeds, I think that will be a solid proof that MBA challenges are actually more significant than "rocket science" physics.
Even without the success/failure results of either company, the challenges Elon has faced in Tesla are a clear demonstration of what MBAs (and Lawyers and Lobbyists) are good for - success in the real world.
OTOH, we need a Lawyer / Lobbyist / Broker tax now, and we need it badly. There are too damn many parasites in this world, and precious few of us actually sitting on/. posting all day, er, I mean creating things!
It's always easy in hindsight. Certainly there was a "jumped the shark" moment where any idiot off the street could have managed Blockbuster better than they did themselves, but sometimes management takes a (strategically defensible) stance of "we do what we do, they do what they do, if we are just copying them we are doomed to failure."
Blockbuster built their success on "doing video rental differently." 400% markup compared to the old school video rental shops, in exchange for attractive retail locations, slightly longer rental periods, and a "family friendly" movie selection. It worked really really well for a decade. But, in the world of business, it's often better to be lucky than smart - and I think Blockbuster was just that, more lucky than smart.
There's also an arguable "need" for affordable health care and shelter... not much being provided on that front in the U.S.A. lately, unless you're willing to move to Detroit and call those "affordable" houses shelter.
What I see happening right now is Netflix riding on the "free bandwidth" of the internet and making a killing while doing it. And, I love them for it, been a subscriber since I bought my first DVD player... Next time a highly valuable service is provided to a business for free, pay attention, they'll have a better chance of doing well - if anybody is willing to pay for what they're peddling.
I keep wondering if Pandora is going to make it, on essentially this same model - their future (and Netflix's) are both hanging on the licensing fees charged by the content owners.
But it's not entirely clear when streaming will "take off," speaking from 2005 perspective - is the bandwidth there? will regulation step in and make Netflix pay for their inordinate use of the backbone? (still unknown), what devices will people consume media on? will Netflix be able to get their red button on enough remote controls? Most of these things are clear now, but were not so clear 8 ot 10 years ago.
Those newfangled cars, where are you going to fill them up with petrol? There's grass to eat clear from New York City all the way to San Francisco, and if you need to bale up some hay to cross the mountains, you can do that easy enough on the prarie for free...
How could Blockbuster have eaten Netflix's Breakfast, Lunch, and Dinner? Easy: take all the same risks Netflix took, invest more capital (which Blockbuster had at the time), and abandon their proven business models earlier than they did.
The buggy whip makers could have beaten AC/Delco to the punch if they only followed this same crystal ball strategy.
What everybody forgets is: Pets.com et. al. Sure, they look silly today, but there was a time that they attracted investment dollars that Netflix didn't get.
I agree that you can't have 50,000 in the front row of a live concert, but think for a minute about a bank of 4K cameras feeding multiple walls of video monitors around the world - people in the remote locations would have better views of the performers, and probably equal sound, though they couldn't climb up on stage or heckle... post-scarcity access to popular concerts won't be 100% like being there.
And, of course, part of the fun I had in being front row at a show with an estimated 300,000 attendees was the fact that I was up there, and most of them weren't. When everyone has front row access, that particular concept of "something special" just doesn't exist anymore.
Somebody has to design the machines, build the machines, maintain the machines, recycle the used up machines, generate the power the machines consume, and provide all the food, clothing, shelter, entertainment and government (police/military protection) that those people need.
I think the real question becomes: what are we going to use money to allocate, and what are we going to provide "for free" out of the tax base. Before anyone gets up at arms about "nothing comes for free" stop and think for a second about highways and internet service (sure, you pay a monthly fee for internet access, but odds are you pay a lot less for that then you pay in taxes for highways...)
And, even if basic food, clothing, shelter and internet access are provided out of the tax base "for free" - things like waterfront property, complex machines that take hundreds of man-years to build, etc. will still need to be allocated somehow.
Or do what I did and multi-boot them - OS-X for video editing, facetime and whatever slickness you need from that world, Linux for all the FOSS you want/need.
Maybe Mac hardware has improved in the last 6 years, back in 2006-7 when I was using all kinds of Macs (BookPro, Pro, Mini, etc.) their hardware reliability was on par with "top tier" (HP/Dell) PC makers' gear. Neither of which would I call "rock solid."
Wasn't there a release cycle style where odd numbers were cutting edge feature pushes and even numbers were stable bug-fix type releases?
4.x could proceed as a mostly feature freeze and 5.x could soldier on through the bleeding edge, if the developer and user community could actually handle those two concepts simultaneously.
I would hope that when flying at 1000mph+ the pilot has planned ahead at least several seconds of safe trajectory, even more reaction time than one might need when taxiing, should be more than enough time to get the unexpectedly distracting HUD switched off. I'd actually be more worried for safety if the pilot became suddenly and unexpectedly vision impaired while rolling to a parking space on a carrier, than at 1000mph+ in the sky.
Sometimes style trumps function for purely practical (monetary, as in financial backing) reasons.
Once upon a time, there was a project to build and drive a Miata 200mph on the Bonneville salt flats. From a pure engineering / efficient speed perspective, you'd want narrow wheels/tires for that (no reason to turn on the salt flats). However, when you're looking for funding for a project like that, one of the prime candidates are custom wheel manufacturers - and custom wheels are wide and oversized (for low profile tires.) So, the 200mph Miata just needed to turn the turbo boost up a couple of psi to be able to capture the wheel sponsorship.... BTW, the project almost happened, had a sponsored car from Mazda Japan and everything, but hit a major SNAFU when the donated car unexpectedly had to be returned to Japan after a year in the country, something about its import paperwork as a promotional vehicle.
Think of the difference between latitude 25 and 40, that "extra hour" concept works a lot better in the northern U.S. than it does in Florida, Texas and Southern California.
O.K. then, I just thought about real-estate for a second... our 1973 house (1600 square feet on a 1/4 acre lot in a decent middle class "golf course" neighborhood, not backing to the golf course, in not-on-the-beach west coast Florida) cost about $20K for land and new concrete block construction, fully equipped with dark blue-green shag carpet and all the modern appointments. So, each square foot of that house cost the equivalent of a 37 minute phone call to the next town - 1000 hours and you've paid for the whole house.
Using the exorbitant Skype rates quoted above and the current Zestimate for the house, you can talk anywhere in the USA for 72 hours before you rack up charges equivalent to one square foot in that same (now 40 year old) house, and you could keep the line open 24/7 for over 13 years straight before you reach the cost of the home (internet connection charges neglected.)
And, yet, even when gas was $0.33 a gallon (just before we built that house), it was still cheaper to "let your fingers do the walking" and call ahead, even at long distance rates.
Through my teen years, long distance voice cost roughly $20/hour for anything that wasn't a local call - and much more for international.
Also remember that those were 20 real dollars, when a good new car could be had for less than $10K, gas was (shockingly expensive at) about $1.20 a gallon, and minimum wage was $3.35/hour. Let's not even talk about real-estate...
Who still uses Skype? There are better alternatives now, and a lot more open, too.
Although I know of a few (Dolby Axon is the only name that comes to mind at the moment) - it really twerks me when people say stuff like this ^^^ without any specifics to back up the statement.
That's no horror story - let's talk about 8 bit checksums on wireless data links, for things that can stop your heart. Dick Cheney had good reason to get a custom implant.
And Google had some pretty impressive concepts to prove at the time they were starting up. If you asked a bunch of PhD computer theorists and "Top Shelf" coders at the time, they would probably have told you "it's impossible," based on their experience of the past.
Sometimes it takes an ignorant person to make real progress.
This geophysicist seems to have trouble acknowledging existential threats - he's very concerned about earthquakes that kill 28 people, but brushes off events that are 1 million times less likely, yet could kill far more than 28 million people within a year of them happening....
There's a lot of regulatory framework in place already for medical devices, medical device software, etc. Apps that are trying to be medical devices should be following those rules (they're really more like laws than guidelines...) I'm sure lots of other life-critical areas have similar structures in-place.
Generally speaking, if you follow those best practices, you're doing what's expected and should be in the clear if you've actually done everything you are supposed to. Of course, it's all very fuzzy and lawsuits can be cheaper to settle than fight no matter how righteous you've been.
If you are putting people's lives on the line with your software and you don't know about these things, you probably should find out. The penalties can be pretty stiff even if nobody actually gets hurt.
You can sue an individual with some chance of winning (though mandatory insurance tries to make us into mini corporations, it doesn't completely succeed.)
If the accident is blamed on a company like Google, do you think their attorneys would have let the product out the door without closing off the product liability exposure? Google et. al. will not roll a product like auto-drive out to the general public until they've successfully lobbied themselves teflon body armor.
Slashdot Mirror
But, if Tesla fails and SpaceX succeeds, I think that will be a solid proof that MBA challenges are actually more significant than "rocket science" physics.
Even without the success/failure results of either company, the challenges Elon has faced in Tesla are a clear demonstration of what MBAs (and Lawyers and Lobbyists) are good for - success in the real world.
OTOH, we need a Lawyer / Lobbyist / Broker tax now, and we need it badly. There are too damn many parasites in this world, and precious few of us actually sitting on /. posting all day, er, I mean creating things!
It's always easy in hindsight. Certainly there was a "jumped the shark" moment where any idiot off the street could have managed Blockbuster better than they did themselves, but sometimes management takes a (strategically defensible) stance of "we do what we do, they do what they do, if we are just copying them we are doomed to failure."
Blockbuster built their success on "doing video rental differently." 400% markup compared to the old school video rental shops, in exchange for attractive retail locations, slightly longer rental periods, and a "family friendly" movie selection. It worked really really well for a decade. But, in the world of business, it's often better to be lucky than smart - and I think Blockbuster was just that, more lucky than smart.
Dead pixels on your retina when the mirror mechanism stalls and causes burnout....
There's also an arguable "need" for affordable health care and shelter... not much being provided on that front in the U.S.A. lately, unless you're willing to move to Detroit and call those "affordable" houses shelter.
What I see happening right now is Netflix riding on the "free bandwidth" of the internet and making a killing while doing it. And, I love them for it, been a subscriber since I bought my first DVD player... Next time a highly valuable service is provided to a business for free, pay attention, they'll have a better chance of doing well - if anybody is willing to pay for what they're peddling.
I keep wondering if Pandora is going to make it, on essentially this same model - their future (and Netflix's) are both hanging on the licensing fees charged by the content owners.
But it's not entirely clear when streaming will "take off," speaking from 2005 perspective - is the bandwidth there? will regulation step in and make Netflix pay for their inordinate use of the backbone? (still unknown), what devices will people consume media on? will Netflix be able to get their red button on enough remote controls? Most of these things are clear now, but were not so clear 8 ot 10 years ago.
Those newfangled cars, where are you going to fill them up with petrol? There's grass to eat clear from New York City all the way to San Francisco, and if you need to bale up some hay to cross the mountains, you can do that easy enough on the prarie for free...
How could Blockbuster have eaten Netflix's Breakfast, Lunch, and Dinner? Easy: take all the same risks Netflix took, invest more capital (which Blockbuster had at the time), and abandon their proven business models earlier than they did.
The buggy whip makers could have beaten AC/Delco to the punch if they only followed this same crystal ball strategy.
What everybody forgets is: Pets.com et. al. Sure, they look silly today, but there was a time that they attracted investment dollars that Netflix didn't get.
I agree that you can't have 50,000 in the front row of a live concert, but think for a minute about a bank of 4K cameras feeding multiple walls of video monitors around the world - people in the remote locations would have better views of the performers, and probably equal sound, though they couldn't climb up on stage or heckle... post-scarcity access to popular concerts won't be 100% like being there.
And, of course, part of the fun I had in being front row at a show with an estimated 300,000 attendees was the fact that I was up there, and most of them weren't. When everyone has front row access, that particular concept of "something special" just doesn't exist anymore.
Somebody has to design the machines, build the machines, maintain the machines, recycle the used up machines, generate the power the machines consume, and provide all the food, clothing, shelter, entertainment and government (police/military protection) that those people need.
I think the real question becomes: what are we going to use money to allocate, and what are we going to provide "for free" out of the tax base. Before anyone gets up at arms about "nothing comes for free" stop and think for a second about highways and internet service (sure, you pay a monthly fee for internet access, but odds are you pay a lot less for that then you pay in taxes for highways...)
And, even if basic food, clothing, shelter and internet access are provided out of the tax base "for free" - things like waterfront property, complex machines that take hundreds of man-years to build, etc. will still need to be allocated somehow.
Or do what I did and multi-boot them - OS-X for video editing, facetime and whatever slickness you need from that world, Linux for all the FOSS you want/need.
Maybe Mac hardware has improved in the last 6 years, back in 2006-7 when I was using all kinds of Macs (BookPro, Pro, Mini, etc.) their hardware reliability was on par with "top tier" (HP/Dell) PC makers' gear. Neither of which would I call "rock solid."
Wasn't there a release cycle style where odd numbers were cutting edge feature pushes and even numbers were stable bug-fix type releases?
4.x could proceed as a mostly feature freeze and 5.x could soldier on through the bleeding edge, if the developer and user community could actually handle those two concepts simultaneously.
I would hope that when flying at 1000mph+ the pilot has planned ahead at least several seconds of safe trajectory, even more reaction time than one might need when taxiing, should be more than enough time to get the unexpectedly distracting HUD switched off. I'd actually be more worried for safety if the pilot became suddenly and unexpectedly vision impaired while rolling to a parking space on a carrier, than at 1000mph+ in the sky.
Sometimes style trumps function for purely practical (monetary, as in financial backing) reasons.
Once upon a time, there was a project to build and drive a Miata 200mph on the Bonneville salt flats. From a pure engineering / efficient speed perspective, you'd want narrow wheels/tires for that (no reason to turn on the salt flats). However, when you're looking for funding for a project like that, one of the prime candidates are custom wheel manufacturers - and custom wheels are wide and oversized (for low profile tires.) So, the 200mph Miata just needed to turn the turbo boost up a couple of psi to be able to capture the wheel sponsorship.... BTW, the project almost happened, had a sponsored car from Mazda Japan and everything, but hit a major SNAFU when the donated car unexpectedly had to be returned to Japan after a year in the country, something about its import paperwork as a promotional vehicle.
Think of the difference between latitude 25 and 40, that "extra hour" concept works a lot better in the northern U.S. than it does in Florida, Texas and Southern California.
O.K. then, I just thought about real-estate for a second... our 1973 house (1600 square feet on a 1/4 acre lot in a decent middle class "golf course" neighborhood, not backing to the golf course, in not-on-the-beach west coast Florida) cost about $20K for land and new concrete block construction, fully equipped with dark blue-green shag carpet and all the modern appointments. So, each square foot of that house cost the equivalent of a 37 minute phone call to the next town - 1000 hours and you've paid for the whole house.
Using the exorbitant Skype rates quoted above and the current Zestimate for the house, you can talk anywhere in the USA for 72 hours before you rack up charges equivalent to one square foot in that same (now 40 year old) house, and you could keep the line open 24/7 for over 13 years straight before you reach the cost of the home (internet connection charges neglected.)
And, yet, even when gas was $0.33 a gallon (just before we built that house), it was still cheaper to "let your fingers do the walking" and call ahead, even at long distance rates.
Wouldn't that be modern day in some parts of India and the Middle East?
Cue the tiny violin.
Through my teen years, long distance voice cost roughly $20/hour for anything that wasn't a local call - and much more for international.
Also remember that those were 20 real dollars, when a good new car could be had for less than $10K, gas was (shockingly expensive at) about $1.20 a gallon, and minimum wage was $3.35/hour. Let's not even talk about real-estate...
What kind of decent VoIP alternatives are there that are cross platform?
I don't really know of any.
Who still uses Skype? There are better alternatives now, and a lot more open, too.
Although I know of a few (Dolby Axon is the only name that comes to mind at the moment) - it really twerks me when people say stuff like this ^^^ without any specifics to back up the statement.
I'd rather say "academic work ethic" instead of "academic schedule" - never in my life did I have so much time on my hands as I did in grad school.
That's no horror story - let's talk about 8 bit checksums on wireless data links, for things that can stop your heart. Dick Cheney had good reason to get a custom implant.
And Google had some pretty impressive concepts to prove at the time they were starting up. If you asked a bunch of PhD computer theorists and "Top Shelf" coders at the time, they would probably have told you "it's impossible," based on their experience of the past.
Sometimes it takes an ignorant person to make real progress.
This geophysicist seems to have trouble acknowledging existential threats - he's very concerned about earthquakes that kill 28 people, but brushes off events that are 1 million times less likely, yet could kill far more than 28 million people within a year of them happening....
There's a lot of regulatory framework in place already for medical devices, medical device software, etc. Apps that are trying to be medical devices should be following those rules (they're really more like laws than guidelines...) I'm sure lots of other life-critical areas have similar structures in-place.
Generally speaking, if you follow those best practices, you're doing what's expected and should be in the clear if you've actually done everything you are supposed to. Of course, it's all very fuzzy and lawsuits can be cheaper to settle than fight no matter how righteous you've been.
If you are putting people's lives on the line with your software and you don't know about these things, you probably should find out. The penalties can be pretty stiff even if nobody actually gets hurt.
You can sue an individual with some chance of winning (though mandatory insurance tries to make us into mini corporations, it doesn't completely succeed.)
If the accident is blamed on a company like Google, do you think their attorneys would have let the product out the door without closing off the product liability exposure? Google et. al. will not roll a product like auto-drive out to the general public until they've successfully lobbied themselves teflon body armor.