The biggest driver for push vs pull in my experience is “who does the work”. If I need data and I have to ask 7 different teams to “push”, it ain’t happening.
Rivian has a huge interest in being the outsourcer for legacy automakers. They’re not able to sell $100k cars enough and even with the promised R2, they probably will only be a small-ish player in the EV market. Their CEO recognizes how crazy good Chinese EVs are and currently they’re not even a competitor for Tesla.
But, VW is willing to pay $5B for their software platform. I think they want to extend that to being able to sell custom chips and “AI” capabilities, whatever that means.
Which honestly is crazy to me. I have a Rivian, and to say the software is disappointing would be an understatement. There are heisenbugs galore; some examples:
* Doors refuse to open
* Lose the ability to control media playback using any controls
* Any button in the UI just opens and closes the windows
Granted, I'm a server side/backend engineer mostly, and I don't know much about writing software/firmware for a very hostile emf environment. But if any project I worked on had bugs like this, fixed at the rate they're fixed on Rivian, I would assume a badly flawed architecture or non existent technical leadership
Yet VW paid billions for this very software. I can't imagine how bad it must've been on their own stack that they gave up and bought this other seemingly broken stack
Service can’t do anything about the state machine being wrong.
The Rivian app does not permit you to send a command to the car while the app thinks the car is processing a command. Trunk opening? You can’t unlock the door. On top of this, if you try to open the trunk while outside Bluetooth range and then Bluetooth connects, you are still stuck waiting for the pending command to complete.
Oh, and the ridiculous “hey let’s always remind you that you own a Rivian” Live Activity seems to synchronize on a schedule that involves being hours and hours out of date.
I agree that the app leaves something to be desired - my personal pet peeve is that it shows stale or cached data while waiting to do some async update, leading to just outright fabricated charge or lock state. Never had those kinds of problems with the truck's software proper though
Presumably, but you don't really known until you pay to take it in for service and they tell you there is nothing wrong but they don't have a fix (gee, great experience). On the "know it's software" side e.g. I had what appeared to be random issues with audio crackling on my PC I assumed was software/driver related, it turned out there was a faulty USB hub causing an issues for the whole bus but it was just most apparent in the audio device.
Stuff like "Doors refuse to open" is vague enough it could be a similar kind of issue which needs physical service/replacement rather than just a software update, especially if other buttons are triggering completely separate actions with the windows. Or it could very well be 100% software issues, which could be more apparent with additional details like "only does it after transitioning from this screen or pressing things in this order" type problems.
As a car guy you should know that there's tech in cars these days. Or do you calibrate everything from tpms monitors to re pointing/tunes in your garage?
If something's wrong with your car's head unit firmware or android auto connection or whatever, of course you'd have a technician look at it?
one funny one is that periodically you can trigger the "more cowbell" rainbow road easter egg. You can cancel the road animation, but you can't cancel the easter egg music or control the volume.
The market wants them to sell the $40k cars asap. All the other side quests are distractions. When they spun off their electric bike side project, the stock went up.
Because everything is mostly following on local purchasing power. You can build a beautiful modern house in buttfuck nowhere Belarus for 20% of what you'd pay for the same exact house in Germany.
The screening isn't even the problem, finding you have _a_ cancer is one thing, pinpointing where it is, how to treat it, treating it and recovering from it cost orders of magnitude more than the initial diagnosis.
The point I was trying to make was that cancer screening is expensive only because we have a highly inefficient healthcare system. (India was an example and their healthcare system has its own flaws) Sure we can point to PPP, but the reason why screening is that cheaper elsewhere is not ONLY because of PPP. Since you mentioned Germany, public health insurance covers early detection cancer screen every 3 years (2 for skin cancer) once you’re 35. The concern about “raising insurance costs significantly for everyone” in US only exists because of the way healthcare is set up here. It shouldn’t be that expensive to screen and it shouldn’t be that expensive to treat.
> The concern about “raising insurance costs significantly for everyone” in US only exists because of the way healthcare is set up here.
100% definitely not lol, you need 2-3 months to see any kind of specialist in germany, 5-10 hours before someone sees you in the emergency room. The healthcare system of every western EU country is getting worse year after year because of the aging population, and on top of that we're taxed more, for shittier services.
I pay 800+ a month and it doesn't even include a yearly blood work unless I beg for it. Just look at your own link, in germany we screen for two cancers for each gender and it's already so fucking expensive, there are dozens of cancers you could theoretically screen for.
> More than 80,000 Americans are told each year they have melanoma skin cancer. If that sounds like a lot, it’s because the numbers are six times higher than they were 40 years ago.
> Overdiagnosis is one of the most harmful and costly problems in medicine
> you need 2-3 months to see any kind of specialist in germany, 5-10 hours before someone sees you in the emergency room
That’s like pretty much the standard in the US as well? The unless you’re dying, you’re pretty much in an extremely long wait before you get seen in an emergency room, and then later get sent a $10k+ bill at the minimum. And there’s very few specialists that you can see immediately. In fact, for the majority of people, the step before “how fast can I see my specialist” is the “what specialists are in network”.
And as far as costs are concerned, I pay $2000/month for two people and it will only go up once we have a family of 4. This isn’t even the top tier plan, just a good enough one. Not to mention the thousands of dollars in deductible that you have to pay before the plan kicks in.
And we have an aging population as well. And that’s not going to change regardless of who’s paying for the care.
You’re being taxed for it, we’re paying out of pocket. The only difference is that you get shittier services when taxed, and here you don’t get the care if you can’t afford it. And if you end up in the ER and they have to treat you despite you not having the coverage, the taxpayers cover it anyway.
In the US, depending on your health plan, the fastest way to see a doctor is Urgent Care. They will typically see you nearly immediately, and send you to the emergency room (with paperwork already handled). You will still be charged, although at least in my case, it's just a copay.
> In the US, depending on your health plan, the fastest way to see a doctor is Urgent Care
Correct. It’s faster than getting your PCP to see you and it’s faster than Emergency Room (which GP was comparing the wait times for in other countries). But how much you wait really depends on a lot of factors: how many other patients are sick that day, what time of day are you calling, does the urgent care take appointments, how many urgent care centers are in your area etc. In my area if you call at 8 in the morning and the urgent care you are calling gives out appointments, you’ll probably be seen the same day. You’ll have to wait for your appointment, but once you show up for the appointment, you’ll be seen immediately.
If you’re calling in later (after 10 in the morning) or walking in to a facility, you’ll probably be waiting at least 2-3 hours if you’re lucky. All of this of course comes with higher costs (not as much as ER though).
The problem with urgent care though is that it’s more expensive if you’re running tests and is only designed to fill in for conditions that you’d ideally want your PCP to take care of, but can’t get an appointment for. True emergencies still go to ER. In fact some urgent cares don’t even have equipment like xray or sonography machines, so if you need one, you’d end up in ER anyway. (and get charged for both)
This is largely a misconception that's caused by the fact that EV fires are hard to extinguish with normal water sprays. That is because the bettery packs are designed to be water proof, so it is hard to get the fire patrol's water in. If you can immerse the pack in water, the fire is extinguished without much trouble. That's unlike petroleum fires, where the fuel is lighter than water and liquid, so water spray will boil and spread the fire instead of extinguishing it.
It doesn't need to be extinguished, it just needs to be removed from the ship. Even a second of airtime (and a healthy lateral velocity) might be enough that the ship is out of the explosive radius of the battery.
As far as I’ve seen that’s as far from the truth as it can be. They in fact consolidate terrible businesses, undercut the good ones and drive them out of the market until only they are left, after which point, they get even worse.
From what I've seen, they take a terrible business and liquify its valuable assets for their investors, freeing up capital to be invested more productively elsewhere in the economy. Of course those investors could take the money and commission a bunch of statues of themselves, but frequently they do something more productive than that.
A lot of the negative reaction to them seems to me to be mostly emotional. They'll dismantle a business that holds a lot of nostalgic value for people, even though it's long since ceased to be a viable and productive company. But it wasn't their fault that the business was in that situation in the first place! Years of mismanagement and neglect or perhaps disruption from a competitor left the business in zombie-like state. PE came along and put it out of its misery rather than allow it to slowly crumble while depreciating the value of its illiquid assets.
> lot of the negative reaction to them seems to me to be mostly emotional
Mine specifically stems from PE buying up all but one 24x7 emergency vets in a 20 miles radius from me. All of them were thriving businesses. There is only one remaining non PE ones has its days numbered. After monopolizing the emergency vet market, they shut down a few locations, which previously acted as competition for each other, effectively cementing monopolies in those individual neighborhoods as well. Now, you pay $200 to just get your pet checked out and always have to wait anywhere between 6-8 hours in triage if your pet isn’t literally dying, because they are perpetually understaffed and there are no other options. They also recommend unnecessary tests and treatments, present them as “optional” but refuse to treat your pet if you don’t agree to their “optional” treatment plan.
Lots of businesses have big positive externalities [1]. They provide more benefit to their communities than they take in for themselves. Unfortunately, these sorts of businesses are easy pickings for PE.
Artists are a classic example. They generate huge positive externalities for a community while reaping almost none of the benefits for themselves. Artists get severely exploited by the economy for this!
To counteract this problem we need other ways of addressing the positive externalities. In the case of artists, this usually comes in the form of public (and private) patronage and endowments for the arts.
Man, it's horrible people have such an emotional connection to art and businesses that keep their pets alive. If only we could transform these into an asset that extracted wealth, now that would be great for society! Think of all the externalities!
Sounds like a problem with lack of competition. Would you have been happier if it was a publicly traded company that did it? Amazon health or some such?
What you are describing the best-case scenario. They happen.
What also happens is, they take operating businesses with reasonable returns, buy up all it's supply chain or it's competitors to reduce costs or enable monopoly pricing, then load the company up with debt, squeezing it into a terrible company. That is the bad scenario which people object to.
They could do this, but there's not enough targets of this type for the money invested in the sector. They've also proven to not have the advertised & applicable expertise to run companies any more efficiently than current management. Nostalgia had nothing to do with it unless that's one of the company's assets. I've been inside on three PE acquisitions, and 5 sales by PE to new funds. The playbook was the same for them all: predictable, decent cash flow, cut expenses, grow enterprise sales, sell on before long term cracks from lack of strategic investment showed. If anything they accelerated the decline of healthy going concerns, but at each sale the insiders did great.
The big difference is the extent to which PE will go to juice the quarters earnings. Public companies cannot and will not just fire all staff, fleece customers to the point they won’t return and take on debt that they have no intention of paying back. PE will do all of the above and more if it means they get their money. Which means, you as a customer get screwed over more when PE is involved.
>Public companies cannot and will not just fire all staff, fleece customers to the point they won’t return and take on debt that they have no intention of paying back.
Why? Is there some code of conduct for public companies but not private ones?
> Is there some code of conduct for public companies but not private ones?
No but there’s a difference between private companies and PE owned companies. PE model is very different from regular private companies, and it often involves extracting maximum profits at the expense of the company itself.
And as far as public companies go, shareholders will have to say something about the operation of the company if you start intentionally sinking it.
> PE model is very different from regular private companies, and it often involves extracting maximum profits at the expense of the company itself.
Not all PEs model. The ones you are referring to are often buying large businesses (like the infamous Toys R Us) load them with debt and strip their assets. 90% of the other PEs out there do not do this...in fact the opposite. They put capital on their balance sheet to grow.
What is the "company itself" if not its owners (private equity company that is)? Everything else is just an asset of it. If they see a way to maximise profit by draining the company that's better than any other one, why not? After all if company is then simply liquidated, it frees up market opportunity for new entrants.
Because a PE fund is at most a seven year timeline, and everybody knows it. There is absolutely no incentive to add value beyond the next sale, and often you only need to add the perception of value. To quote my CTO of a PE owned company: "we want to make it look like we're on the road to <big investment in strategic roadmap>", not actually accomplish it
> Because a PE fund is at most a seven year timeline
Berkshire Hathaway is a PE fund with permanent capital.
Broadly speaking, making generalisatios about PE is almost impossible because it's an asset class which is, essentially, all non-public business. Instead, it's more useful to think about which element private equity touches you're specifically complaining about: capitalism in general, financial transparency, leverage and liability.
The problem with PE is only the hyper aggressive and generally terrible ones make the news.
The quiet ones that simply run business well, don't make the news.
There are PE firms that specialize in rescuing distressed companies with potential and turning them around. In many cases not firing anyone and holding onto the form they acquired for a long time.
> Is there some code of conduct for public companies but not private ones?
There's a pattern of behavior, to be sure. The primary control on public companies is shareholder scrutiny. Gutting your company for short term gains, is not always popular. The more diverse the shareholder cohort, the less popular it tends to be.
Private companies don't mind it when they can literally start a new company with the assets from the old without the pesky plebian investors.
> Is there some code of conduct for public companies but not private ones?
It's more about Private Equity firms than private companies. The oversimplified TL;DR strategy for most PE firms is acquire, strip, pump, then dump (combined with all sorts of tax strategies). Most PE firms don't own the companies themselves, but act on behalf of investors and take a cut of the ultimate profits. So it's basically tons of short term thinking.
> wouldn't it make more sense to combine HBO Max and Netflix into a single app
I currently pay $20 something for Netflix every month and $10 for HBO Max a couple of months through the year when I’m binging a show from HBO. I as a consumer would prefer to keep it that way. I absolutely do not have the appetite to pay $30+ a month if the two are combined.
reply