3 ms·

>>As an extension of this, I propose we remove 4/5ths of each airliner. The 20% that remains, so long as we pick the right 20%, will surely fly correctly. Not

by kamaal 4y ago

>>As an extension of this, I propose we remove 4/5ths of each airliner. The 20% that remains, so long as we pick the right 20%, will surely fly correctly. Not sure if they will fly correctly. But most airlines I'm sure have wildly profitable routes, some moderately profitable routes, some mild. And some I'm sure are loss making routes. You start plotting a graph and a bell curve emerges. The key is this- Do the profitable routes have more demand you can't meet now, but can meet if you divert resources from the loss making routes. If the answer is yes, you can always eliminate the loss making routes, and use those resources to supply to profit making ones. This makes perfect sense, because it not only saves money, this makes money. There's a bakery near my place which used to sell its things in a shop. Soon enough they realise finding talent to bake is a big problem and most people were buying bulk quantities to sell it to others for a small profit. Eventually he realised he could sell to people who could run shops but had no talent to bake. That way we was able to divert his time and resources to make things at scale, so obviously his profits and by definition market capture increased too. The real question in case of companies like Twitter is- What is Twitter's core competence? Should Twitter run a in house payroll team? Should they be running a PR team? What sort and size of Legal teams should they be running? Should they be running a in house content moderation team? If their business benefits more making newer products and features. It does make total sense to cut down resources from places are a cost center -ve to hiring more programmers. And it does make total sense for Musk to say things like they will be fairly intense on the engineering and programming side of things.

woodruffw 4y ago
"Airliner" here means the airplane, not the airline. (And there's a reason airlines fly routes at a loss: an unprofitable route brings travelers to hubs where profitable flights can be allocated cheaply. It's never, ever as simple as "just trim the fat," because the things you think are "fat" almost never are.)
- kamaal 4y ago
  Isn't that exactly what most people did with the economy class seating. They modified their plane to transit more people. So this logic still holds. The remainder is as simple us understanding what basic structure of a product holds good as a product to sell. >>It's never, ever as simple as "just trim the fat," because the things you think are "fat" almost never are. Fair enough. But do trim the real fat.
  - woodruffw 4y ago
    I can't tell if you're intentionally being obtuse or not. The point of the original comment was that "Pareto-style" reasoning here is ridiculous: the engines and wings do 80% of the "work" in an airplane, but you can't remove the rest and expect it to still fly. You can't really quantize work inside of complex systems (like airplanes, or corporations) in this way; adjacent sub-threads in this thread explain why.

by kamaal 4y ago

woodruffw 4y ago

"Airliner" here means the airplane, not the airline. (And there's a reason airlines fly routes at a loss: an unprofitable route brings travelers to hubs where profitable flights can be allocated cheaply. It's never, ever as simple as "just trim the fat," because the things you think are "fat" almost never are.)

kamaal 4y ago
Isn't that exactly what most people did with the economy class seating. They modified their plane to transit more people. So this logic still holds. The remainder is as simple us understanding what basic structure of a product holds good as a product to sell. >>It's never, ever as simple as "just trim the fat," because the things you think are "fat" almost never are. Fair enough. But do trim the real fat.
- woodruffw 4y ago
  I can't tell if you're intentionally being obtuse or not. The point of the original comment was that "Pareto-style" reasoning here is ridiculous: the engines and wings do 80% of the "work" in an airplane, but you can't remove the rest and expect it to still fly. You can't really quantize work inside of complex systems (like airplanes, or corporations) in this way; adjacent sub-threads in this thread explain why.