IMHO, the value of the protest is to demonstrate a portion of the electorate does not agree with whatever they are protesting. There are a lot of people in a bubble that seem to think the majority always views things exactly the same as they do. Maybe you will always default do doubling down on the status quo, but some people will eventually inquire as to why someone is willing to inconvenience themselves to protest. Once someone starts to be curious about other people's motivations and reasoning, it often does impact their own opinions, for good or bad.
Assuming critics are just reflexively resistant is a convenient way to avoid asking whether the criticism has merit. "They'd get it if they were more curious" is unfalsifiable.
Everyone already knows dissent exists. Polls, social media, elections make that clear. The question is whether street protests add anything to that awareness, and whether the way they're conducted generates curiosity or just irritation. For a lot of people it's the latter, and waving that off doesn't make the problem disappear.
> Assuming critics are just reflexively resistant is a convenient way to avoid asking whether the criticism has merit. "They'd get it if they were more curious" is unfalsifiable.
I don't know if it can be proven or whatever, but I do know it has changed me.
There have been many events where I thought "hey, why is everybody whining about X thing?". "things are fine the way they are". Until I read more about it and changed my mind.
If it was purely online, I wouldn't take it so seriously.
So whether it can proven empirically or not, I know it changed me.
I think protests are good since it requires you to go outside and interact with other people, it requires a higher level of commitment than the slacktivism of the 2010s that was so prominent in online spaces. Polls are gamed all the time and social media is dominated by bots, but you cannot fake a large crowd in a protest. If a protest is large enough it creates a force that cannot be easily ignored.
Agreed on the slacktivism point. Physical presence means something that bots and polls can't fake. My issue isn't with protesting itself, it's that the assumed impact often seems out of proportion with what's actually being achieved. A crowd showing up doesn't automatically translate to minds changed or policy moved. And crowd sizes can be just as ambiguous as poll numbers when it comes to representing broader sentiment. If the tactics alienate more people than they persuade, visibility alone isn't doing much.
> A crowd showing up doesn't automatically translate to minds changed or policy moved.
Strawman much?
> If the tactics alienate more people than they persuade, visibility alone isn't doing much.
What tactics? What evidence is there that people are being alienated by the peaceful protests, rather than by the murders and other violence and lying of administration officials?
Yes, protests are fertile recruitment grounds. I have inducted many a liberal into leftist thinking after they experience the shocking violence the State is willing to deploy against them for executing what they thought was a guaranteed right.
don't forget the shocking violence leftist have inflicted in autonomous zones, riots, not to mention arson, assault, and in a couple cases, murder. 70 million votes said no and accepted the baggage that came with that no vote.
Of course you can fake a small/large crowd in a protest.
From the top of my head I can think of news reporting both "few (tens of) thousands" vs "hundreds of thousands" (different news reporting different numbers/estimates/etc) in 2025 protests in Serbia/Belgrade, as well as those comparisons of Obama vs Trump inauguration news/photos.
Meanwhile to you as an individual there on the spot - both crowds of say 50K-100K and 1M+ look basically the same = "huge amounts of people in every direction that you look".
Counting large crowds is hard, but the tools continue to improve: we have increasingly advanced drone photography and access to better AI tools to generate more reliable estimates.
If crowd sizes become a significant point of contention it'll become increasingly commonplace for multiple parties to take lots of aerial video and photos that serve as independent verification. You could probably get a pretty accurate estimate of how many people show up to an event by sending drones to take photos every 15 minutes.
In any case, I think the problem you highlight is more focused towards the upper-end, while I was thinking about the lower end of the spectrum. Where some people might be very vocal online, but they're unable to gather more than a dozen or two people for any given protest. If a protest is gathering an unknown number of people that ranges between 100k and 1 million that sounds like a really good problem to have.
Your criticism of inconsistent people estimates are valid, I'm not sure if newspapers have published the set of tools and criteria that they use when generating these estimates, so that's an area where it would be great to see increased transparency.
While 100K itself is indeed impressive - the order of magnitude difference between 100K and 1M makes a lot of room for interpretations, rationalizations, spins ...etc.
The "publishing the set of tools and criteria used to generate estimates" is happening, and so far it seems that usually doesn't matter.
It doesn't matter because of course those sources/news that report wildly wrong (be it larger or smaller numbers) are usually (not always, but very commonly) controlled by the governments.
So despite students that organized the biggest protests in Belgrade giving their estimates (based on combo of RSVP and how many people accommodated people from other cities). And those being close to independant research (using drone footage, VR/AR crowd simulations, AI) with loads of posts/videos providing detailed explanations ...
Most "ordinary people" saw (and keep seeing) just the "official version".
> Everyone already knows dissent exists. Polls, social media, elections make that clear.
No, they really don’t. Have you never heard someone say that they have never met anyone who is X so it can’t be that popular? My own sister thought 2000 was going to be a landslide for Gore because she “hadn’t met anyone who was going to vote for Bush”.
Don't underestimate the importance of the other reason protests are effective: as a politician, it's very, very scary to look out your window and see thousands of people that are mad enough at you to forgoe their day and instead come yell at you about it. It tends to make them a bit more amenable unless they have enough military power to guaranteed squash mass resistance (which is the case for any American politician).
This, and for politicians who actually agree without fear, it creates credibility, my constituents are up in arms about this and I will be supported if I champion it.
I don't think so, not like it was once upon a time. I had a manual 6-cylinder I bought in about 2002 for around $14000, no leather, 2wd extended cab. That's like $25k in today's dollars according to Google. If they made a basic truck for even $40k as EV it might sell a lot better, but I am pretty sure they are all about selling 60k+ trucks for profit.
There's a 100% tariff on top of all the regulatory and political hurdles that prevent BYD from selling in the US, but it shows that a very nice truck can be built for $40k.
Americans are not allowed to have better quality, lower priced Chinese vehicles because they have to suffer the incompetence, failure, abuse, and plunder by their ruling class due to … the decades of incompetence, failure, abuse, and plunder of their parasitic and alien ruling class.
It is easy to understand what the tariffs are attempting and why, but what supporters don’t get is that at the very least it’s all wrong in sequence and timing, not to mention poorly executed due to the schizophrenic and manic nature of American politics that is dominated by the president’s supposed term limits and warfare of memes people believe. “A day late and a dollar short” has probably never been more appropriate.
The inherent problem with empire and reserve currency is that it supplies a drug to a ruling class that is already inherently prone to excess.
“ The first archetype, Euro premiums, has an average labor cost of $2,232 per vehicle and includes premium brands such as Mercedes-Benz, BMW, Jaguar Land Rover, and Audi. This group is characterized by high production costs, complex design and advanced manufacturing processes, and strong labor unions.
Within the category, German manufacturers face among the highest labor costs of $3,307 due to stringent regulations and high wage rates.
The second archetype, electric vehicle-only manufacturers, includes startups as well as more established players like Tesla, which do not operate under organized labor contracts. Their average labor costs range from $1,502 to $13,291, and they face high per vehicle production costs due to low manufacturing volumes. EV-only manufacturers also have been heavily reliant on government subsidies, which are now being cut back by the new administration.
The third archetype, mainstream model manufacturers, has an average labor cost of $880 per vehicle and includes traditional high-volume automakers from various countries. Japanese manufacturers enjoy lower labor costs per vehicle, with an average of $769, compared with manufacturers in the United States, where the average is $1,341 — a labor cost per vehicle that reflects recent historic union gains.
The fourth archetype, Chinese car manufacturers, has an average labor cost of $585 per vehicle, characterized by low wages and high efficiency. The group maintains the lowest overall conversion costs in the industry by leveraging its newer factories, efficient supply chains, and high production volumes” - https://www.oliverwyman.com/our-expertise/insights/2025/apr/...
There was a dip on the first chart in the article, it also sbows something like 9% of companies using it.
What I wonder is beyond "using" AI, is what value the companies are actually seeing. Revenue growth at both OpenAI and Anthropic are increasing rapidly at the moment, but it's not clear if individual companies are really growing their useage, or if it is everyone starting to try it out.
Personally, I have used it sparingly at work, as the lack of memory seems to make it quite difficult to use for most of my coding tasks. I see other people spending hours or even days trying to craft sub-agents and prompts, but not delivering much, if any, output above average. Any output that looks correct, but really isn't cause a number of headaches.
For the VC's, one issue is constant increase in compute. Currently it looks to me like every new release is only slightly better, but the compute and training costs increase at the same rate. The AI companies need the end users to need their product so much they can significantly increase the price to the end users. I think this is what they want to see in "adoption", such a high demand that they can see the future of increasing prices.
Yeah, it's pretty clear Tesla is still the best EV experience. I'm just waiting till the next gen of EVs to have proper connectors before I will consider another one. Our model Y is fine, but I don't want to buy another vehicle from them with Musk at the helm, and they don't plan to have a regular pickup anyways.
They’re actually nearly useless at non-rural gas stations. There’s no money to be made. Far and away most people on an ev will not stop at a charge station anywhere within a couple hundred kilometers of their home.
Intel basically hit the clock speed limit and diverged to multiple cores. However, they still make x86 based chips, not ARM. They owned an ARM license for a while and got rid of it. For whatever reason, Intel felt like putting all there money on x86 was their only option. For a while they were making Atom chips for mobile, but at some point that design was hobbled because Intel has always been about the 60%+ margins on server chips. You cannot sell the cheaper chips at the same margins. It's not that Intel couldn't technically figure stuff out, it's that they couldn't see past those 60% margins.
For a while Intel's process knowledge was supposed to be better, even if the design was less efficient, but that turned out to be a mirage around 10nm or so. Intel now without a process advantage is probably never going to regain it's monopoly, and so far hasn't really transformed itself to do anything other than build those high-margin chips.
Once upon a time, I wanted to use one of the chips from a company they bought in networking, but Intel's model is to make the chip and let other companies make a product to take it to market. Intel doesn't want to make a market, just sell into it. You can see that with their attempt at TV where they stopped when they didn't want to spend money on content. So the chip I was interested in didn't get much R&D or a product and it more or less disappeared, another wasted investment.
I've worked with several types of people. For me, the best mentors were the ones who would answer questions I had with the full answer, often with details. Then they got on with what they were doing while I went back to my desk and tried to understand/retain some of what they told me.
I'd personally find someone shadowing me and asking questions super annoying.
I don't think this would work with all teams, the takeaway I got from the article is about artificial metrics.
The Mini Electric is down there. Weighs more than gas, and one of the reasons it isn't long range, would push up the weight too much.
The current generation of battery tech is just a little heavier than would be competitive to ICE on weight. Gasoline holds a lot more energy than a battery can, but the engine is heavier. If/when battery density is able to double (and this solid state tech is 2x-3x current battery, so it would be a game-changer), you would have very similar car weights. This seems to be one of the reasons the big trucks are first, adding a thousand pounds to a 6000 lb. truck isn't as bad as adding that to a car half the weight. I expect we will eventually see vehicles that weight less than the ICE counterpart that get a reasonable range, but hard to say when battery tech advances that much.
The Hummer in any form seems like a ridiculous vehicle. The Rav4 Prime weighs more than the Model Y, so depends on what version. The 4runner, Tacoma, Tundra, Sequoia etc. are all same or heavier, the big difference is that in the future, battery technology is expected to get better, so EVs should become lighter.
Model Y RWD weighs 4065 pounds, but pretty sure my Tundra is a lot less safe for pedestrians, as it sits higher and weight about 1800 pounds more without fuel.
Yeah, smaller cars are better for pedestrian safety, but North American drivers in general want bigger cars. Ford stopped making passenger cars for NA, even. Although you could argue some of their small 'SUV's are really hatchbacks at this point.
Not sure how you get people to want to buy smaller cars other than taxes.
I should have clarified I'm not picking on the Model Y in particular because I think it's a perfectly reasonably sized car and I agree it's much safer than most full-size trucks, it's just surprising how much EVs can weigh. The worrying trend is that moving forward, there are a lot of EVs much bigger than the model Y in the pipeline:
lifepo4 doesn't require any fancy materials but lithium, less energy dense at the moment, but also doesn't degrade as fast. Panasonic is currently producing ~260Wh/kg batteries for Tesla, so much of the mass market EVs will likely end up with those types of batteries. Looks like lithium production needs to go about 3x at current demand growth, but if cell density goes up, maybe less? Unfortunately this article does seem to be about the li-ion battery tech, but at leas you will need less materials for the same energy.
