If you read the history you’ll see the appropriate word is “restarted” the EV revolution. It was on and off again in a slow march to the point that allowed Tesla to exist. I’m not diminishing the role Tesla played, but it has to be taken in context. They stood on shoulders.
I think looking at every carmaker’s lineup should make it obvious that they don’t give a crap what powers a car, they are just trying to sell what’s popular. EVs were trendy for a couple years and a margin-subsidizing $7000 was available so everybody enthusiastically brought out EVs. Now they’re less popular so they’re all pulling back. Arguably even Tesla is doing so, given that Musk has intimidated that he didn’t really think Tesla was going to keep selling cars forever.
When the demand is sufficient, the cars will be sold in numbers to match it. Demand will increase as it becomes practical to own an EV for more people. This mainly has to do with charging infrastructure at every level, which is capital intensive for both individuals and governments.
The statement doesn’t claim any fact: it’s a hypotheical not unlike a “based on real events” movie/book/etc that never quotes or attributes specific actions to a subject.
And that’s why Atlassian is very likely to lose over and over as they appeal (but never say never these days in the US).
Was the CEO dialing in from the headquarters of an NBA team they owned? Yes.
Were they calling to aggressively dismiss employee claims (without video I cannot prove "yelling", but that is a way that word is used in common parlance)? Yes.
Does downleveling employees have a significant negative impact on their careers? Yes.
This was one of the projects students did when I helped teach APCS to high schoolers as a TEALS volunteer (FracCalc).
Some of the implementations went way overboard and it was so much fun to watch and to play a part.
Even as a “seasoned” developer I learned some tidbits talking through the ways to do (and not do) certain parts. When to store input raw vs processed, etc.
That is just the archive part, if you just would finish reading the paragraph you would know that updates since 2026-03-16 23:55 UTC are "are fetched every 5 minutes and committed directly as individual Parquet files through an automated live pipeline, so the dataset stays current with the site itself."
So to get all the data you need to grab the archive and all the 5 minute update files.
That paragraph doesn’t make it clear (to me) that it’s a snapshot with incremental updates. If that’s what it is. Sorry if my obtuse read offended. I just figured it was edge cached HTML, and less likely it was actually broken.
I’m not sure it’s mentioned anywhere here, but it’s likely that this boat will set the world’s record for speed around the globe — if it circumnavigates, and it is hard to imagine it won’t.
I’m not sure why, but I find that fascinating. No other boat, motor or nuclear reactor, can go around the world as fast as a modern sailboat.
I guess the situation with boats is the same as with land speed records? In the limit, the fastest boat simply becomes an airplane just touching the water.
Indeed. The really interesting bit is that the power required is high enough that the wind can be used to cover distances far greater than a fuel tank. And, given their weight nuclear reactors don’t fly (as much as due to the kind of ships they’re in, granted).
in those wonderful little square boats the reason for tipping the hull was to reduce the amount of weight it surface and dragged through the water. It was still floating, being held above the bottom by buoyancy,so definitely not flying.
The fact that they got it to work is interesting in a way because given the lack of hull length the two surfaces controlling the pitch are right next to each other.
it’s been “flying” as long as I can remember. It’s the distinction between that and floating.
A traditional boat relies on buoyancy to keep it away from the murky depths, while these boats rely on buoyancy only when at rest or going slowly. After that, once the foils take over, they are genuinely flying in that no buoyancy is involved.
But then again, does the word really matter? People refer to “flying” in hot air balloons, too.
It’s difficult to imagine executives citing underperformance as the reason for layoffs as opposed to clinging to the AI storyline. The risks blaming the economy would entail also means AI is a generally more acceptable answer.
The only downside to the AI storyline is appearing to be managing from fear; and the company there is plentiful.
* Companies are "AI washing" layoffs, blaming artificial intelligence for workforce reductions they would have made anyway, according to OpenAI CEO Sam Altman.
* A Resume.org survey found that 59% of hiring managers say they emphasize AI's role in layoffs because it "is viewed more favorably by stakeholders than saying layoffs or hiring freezes are driven by financial constraints".
* The stated reason for the layoff matters more than the fact of the layoff, and framing cuts as proactive restructuring around AI can result in a valuation boost, even if the technology doesn't actually work.
> The AI premium isn’t even reliable. By late 2025, Goldman Sachs group Inc. found that investors were actually punishing AI-attributed layoffs, with shares falling an average of 2%. The analysts concluded that investors simply didn’t believe the companies. But Block’s surge shows the incentive hasn’t vanished. It’s just a lottery instead of a sure thing. And executives keep buying tickets.
> The broader data confirms the gap between narrative and reality. A National Bureau of Economic Research study published in February surveyed thousands of C-suite executives across the US, UK, Germany and Australia. Almost 90% said AI had zero impact on employment over the past three years. Challenger, Gray & Christmas tracked 1.2 million layoffs in 2025, and AI was cited in fewer than 55,000 of them. That’s 4.5%. Plain old “market and economic conditions” accounted for four times as many.
reply