So if the benefits haven’t accrued to you, it must have gone to your customers right?

If your students were growing up to subvert your line of work, sure. Pretty sure that’s not the case though!

Yep agree it looks like it’s taking the existing generated artefact, parameterising it within an inch of its life, exposing a pseudo WYSIWYG for the parameters and calling it a day with a few export options. Not a huge leap from what they’ve got already but it’s a clever adjacent step for sure. Same product new chrome.

You’re illustrating one of the points of TFA - a team that is equipped with the right tools to measure feature usage (or reliably correlate it to overall userbase growth, or retention) and hold that against sane guardrail metrics (product and technical) is going to outperform the team that relies on a wizardly individual PM or analyst over the long term making promises over the wall to engineering.

Feature usage can't tell you that.

There's often a checklist of features management has, and meeting that list gets you in the door, but the features often never get used

Until they’re using consistent methods of reporting those figures, they’re not comparable. Same as any other company pre vs post IPO

Was referring to this:

  What we hearing is just from news media who get their leaks/info from investors who get some form of IR reports/ presentation.

Without commenting about the frequency of negligence myself, I suspect at least that you and GP are in agreement.

I doubt GP is suggesting ‘go ahead and be negligent to feedback and guardrails that let you course correct early.’

Plugging the Cynefin framework as a useful technique for practitioners here. It doesn’t have to be hard to choose whether or not rigorous planning is appropriate for the task at hand, versus probe-test-backtrack with tight iteration loops.

If 9 of those solutions are crummy and reviewing them takes longer than just doing it right once…

Chiming in as Australian with no context on European situation. AFAICT the key drivers of cost inflation are to do with reconfiguring the electric grid to transfer power efficiently and reliably from plants that produce renewable energy. However, the grid is set up to do so from non-renewable sources. And you want to do it while smoothly operating the network. This is extremely hard. Doing so quickly therefore elevates prices. That’s the rationale I could imagine being the case in EU markets.

It's not that simple. For example, in the The Netherlands, the use of electricity was stable for a long time. Mostly because all kinds of equipment (light bulbs, etc) got more efficient.

Grid operators predicted that with the energy transition, demand would rise, but politics wanted to keep prices low and limited investments.

So now, there is a big problem in the entire country connecting companies or new residential areas to the grid independent of how electricity is generated.

At the same time, the government is extremely forward looking and builds massive interconnection points on the North-Sea. Not a bad idea in the long run, but in the short run it does make electricity from wind on sea more expensive.

That said, the biggest hit to EU countries is that cheap natural gas disappeared. Coal is not cheap and extremely polluting. Natural gas was cheap for a while. Until it wasn't.

The European situation is a bit more complicated. It was very well known for a long time that Russia is a ticking time bomb in our backyard yet we made ourselves nearly dependent on their energy supplies and now combined with the push for renewables (which in my opinion is the right thing to do) we have a crisis. Now there are also lot of countries in the EU with different priorities, so while in theory we could build long-range HVDC connections across borders, it is very hard to do.

That’s not real math though, that’s a quirk of floating point math.

But NaN is also a quirk of IEEE754 floating pount math.