monkeyfacebag

It sounds to me like you understand the point perfectly well, you just cared to make a different point.

As someone who has resided both in a foggy part of San Francisco and in Portland, I feel that this index doesn't adequately capture the dreariness of some SF neighborhoods.

> If you are not capable of functioning minimally in society

Homelessness is a state, not a capability. The majority of homeless people exist in this state only temporarily (eg, victims of domestic violence who flee their abusers)

All I have is my personal experience that SF felt especially cold this summer.

It sounds like they got some commercially available chemical sunscreens and added zinc oxide, which caused a reaction in those components, increasing their toxicity. That seems bad, but in my experience, zinc oxide is used in lieu of chemical components, not in addition to them. I'm not clear this interpretation is correct because the article only mentions zinc oxide, not the components which reacted to it.

My point is that evaluating the relative effectiveness of regenerative braking in off-road contexts requires data and analysis which would not be present in a test drive context. Speculating about the effectiveness or parroting Rivian marketing materials would not require any data or analysis.

This is exactly my point. Establishing that regenerative braking is "especially helpful" for a particular driving context feels like a conclusion one could not reach during a test drive.

More likely that the author got some talking points and maybe even data from the fine folks at Rivian.

I don't know anything about the author, but the breathless praise combined with questionable analysis leads me to think this is a PR puff piece.

For example,

> The instant you start letting off the accelerator, the motors start braking and feeding energy back to the battery pack. This is especially helpful for off-roading, which requires lots of careful stopping and starting.

This could very well be true, but how did the author come to this conclusion in the context of a test drive?

> But to succeed in a very high way is as brutal as any other industry.

I agree with this.

The common ground unite us all.

I think you're just wrong about how merit-based our industry is. I don't think it is meaningfully more merit-based than other industries, nor is it more challenging, despite the fact that it is often presented as both of these things.

I doubt there is anything I could say to convince you of this, so I guess we should call this one a draw.

I mean, not to discount the value of working hard or anything, but you describe this as a self evident truth when it can't possibly apply across the board. I am an existence proof. I've had to work relatively little for my success, including in interview situations. Again, this is not to say that I believe hard work has no place, but to frame hard work as some kind of self-evident key to success is exactly the disingenuous framing I expect from leadership seminars.

> without hard work any luck presented would be useless

Can you say more about why you’re convinced this is true?

> Yeah but everyone already knows the rest of the job market is fucked beyond belief.

I’m not sure what you mean.