I live for this type of vindication. They lay off their best of the best because the money is not coming in, so GM is gonna GM instead of pivoting and going through pain to make it better. No perseverance, no discipline, no inspiration, just corporatism À la carte.
I am Looking forward to watch Tesla kill all the legacy business competition in this sector. Legacy auto cannot contend because they don't have the talent. You don't hear GM, Ford, Mercedes, or others having millions of resumes sent to them or people clawing to work for them. Tesla on the other hand...If you remove Elon out of your algebra and just look at everything they are doing from cars, grid power, solar, powerwall, AI, optimus, there is no way they won't come out on top in these markets or eventually be the only player(not the best thing to be fair).
Concerning the reason why Cruise was stopped and its CEO deposed, the lying to regulators:
The startup culture is really reluctant to work with regulators, and imho, it's a mistake.
There is reasons for that: a lot of startup/small companies exists only to fix an issue created by regulation (the first company I worked with did that), and arbitrary changes in details each time break our process (which is why 'startup mentality' is good there). The company/startup wants to avoid setting itself out of business so it's demands of more stability are poorly argumented/explained, the regulator is quite dense (or rather layered) and each time it ends up with either regulators or startups stonewalled, which isn't an issue when it doesn't involve people's lives.
But I had to work a few years ago with European regulators. First the CNIL, French gdpr's watchdog, then on a h2020 project, that isn't pertinent here.
The CNIL was really helpful. They understood our issues allowed us a research exception, and helped us design a better data architecture.
Since then I'm not as wary, and I think even for new-ish small businesses, it might be a good idea to be as upfront as possible with the regulator. They won't put you out of business, and probably help you.
6 comments
[ 2.6 ms ] story [ 25.4 ms ] threadI am Looking forward to watch Tesla kill all the legacy business competition in this sector. Legacy auto cannot contend because they don't have the talent. You don't hear GM, Ford, Mercedes, or others having millions of resumes sent to them or people clawing to work for them. Tesla on the other hand...If you remove Elon out of your algebra and just look at everything they are doing from cars, grid power, solar, powerwall, AI, optimus, there is no way they won't come out on top in these markets or eventually be the only player(not the best thing to be fair).
The startup culture is really reluctant to work with regulators, and imho, it's a mistake.
There is reasons for that: a lot of startup/small companies exists only to fix an issue created by regulation (the first company I worked with did that), and arbitrary changes in details each time break our process (which is why 'startup mentality' is good there). The company/startup wants to avoid setting itself out of business so it's demands of more stability are poorly argumented/explained, the regulator is quite dense (or rather layered) and each time it ends up with either regulators or startups stonewalled, which isn't an issue when it doesn't involve people's lives.
But I had to work a few years ago with European regulators. First the CNIL, French gdpr's watchdog, then on a h2020 project, that isn't pertinent here.
The CNIL was really helpful. They understood our issues allowed us a research exception, and helped us design a better data architecture.
Since then I'm not as wary, and I think even for new-ish small businesses, it might be a good idea to be as upfront as possible with the regulator. They won't put you out of business, and probably help you.