Possibly the website has been hugged to death, but the principle resonates with me from the headline. In the large and old enterprises I've worked with, there is such a stark shift from I suppose, lifetime service to the consultant economy as the workforce transition follows the boomer generation out, and forecasting where that might leave us.
Short term drivers like a bad quarter or to be seen "disrupting" as a measure of progress, rather then genuine demonstrations of skills, turf out tenured employees often mid-career.
Or perhaps being in the engine room of many companies, doesn't often give you the lifestyle you want anymore, so the race to the top is the optimal spot to go for. Even if it means going up and falling down a few times on the heirarchy, its worth it.
The value of the nature of not having custodians of certain crafts, like aviation or really at the guts of any industry, seems to me its really going to set us back towards really transactional style of operating businesses that are only financially engineered and not really innovating the product in a way they should.
just random thoughts around how to have a fulfilling career, when most of the effort is in sales & marketing, and not much in operations when the funding pot gets allocated across a business.
in the australian market theres often comparison between how BYD/(chinese brands) may unseat Tesla (as the scale EV first mover), but I haven't seen what I think is the prize, which is BYD want to take on Toyota as the de facto king of global car making. They want the whole car market, not just EV and are already setup to take that on.
Especially as Toyota seems structurally unable to create a good EV. They produced one completely bare-bones model 30 years ago and never expanded past that. At least they're keeping some knowledge of the parts by having PHEVs, but I don't think they're on the leading edge of anything. Maybe they don't need to be and can buy everything from other suppliers, but they're going to be doing a whole lot less than they currently do and not sure they'll keep their profit margin.
Toyota hybrids are full hybrids however, not mild hybrids like other manufactures, so all you really need is a bigger battery and charger. My 10 year old RAV4 Hybrid (not plug-in) can deliver 160kW just from the electric motors, without the engine. That's 3x a Dacia Spring. They have the technology for motors and control electronics, and they know it works long term without issues.
Most of the European EVs are basically just electric city cars, unable to drive long ranges due to small batteries and limited fast charging. And most of them after 100,000km will need a new battery. Doesn't really fit in with Toyota's 'long term reliability' stance.
I can't blame Toyota for waiting for the technology to mature before they go all in on EVs. Plus they do have the bz4x / RX which are full EVs you can buy today.
> Most of the European EVs are basically just electric city cars, unable to drive long ranges due to small batteries and limited fast charging. And most of them after 100,000km will need a new battery. Doesn't really fit in with Toyota's 'long term reliability' stance.
Australian cities must be enormous for this statement to make any semblance of sense.
Not that big, but absolutely enourmous distances between them. The inter-city highway infrastructure is lacking in EV chargers, but it's getting better.
"Most of the European EVs are basically just electric city cars, unable to drive long ranges due to small batteries and limited fast charging"
The top 10 most sold European EVs in Europe in 2025 were the Skoda Elroq, VW ID.7, VW ID.3, Skoda Enyaq, BMW iX1, Audi Q4 e-tron, VW ID.4, VW ID.Buzz, Audi Q6 e-tron and Volvo EX30. All but the iX1, the ID.Buzz and the EX30 you can get with >300 miles range. All but the iX1, the Q4 and the EX30 you can get with >150 kW DC charging.
Whether any of these is a city car depends on your definition; to me a city car is something like a Toyota Aygo. The current version, the Toyota Aygo X, has an overall length of 3700 mm. The shortest car in the top 10 list from earlier is the Volvo EX30 at ~4200 mm. I think being 0.5 m longer than an Aygo disqualifies even the Volvo from being a city car.
That's why I said they're not necessarily out of the running, like Mazda or Subaru. But that technology isn't quite right; it's two motors, connected to a planetary gearset and in a conventional location to a gasoline engine. They're still thinking "engine here, transmission there, differential in this part" and not working on "how can we reduce cost if we don't have one prime mover that gets really hot". Their motors aren't the most efficient technology and so they aren't learning as much as their competitors are who are shipping lighter, more-powerful motors.
And they could still be right. The future could be 100-mi-EV PHEVs with ever-smaller engines and they'd be the best at it. But I think BYD will prove that wrong outside the USA.
I've been pondering this, especially given that Japan is not an oil-producing country, and concluded: it's the internal politics of the engine group.
That is, the people who design engines and run the engines division have sufficient heft within the organization that they can prevent a good car being made that doesn't have an engine in it.
It's sort of worked out for them as they have a big niche in the taxi market, and other high milage users who've not taken the EV plunge yet. If you want the most efficient vehicle that still uses petrol, buy a Toyota.
To me it feels like Toyota have over-committed to parallel hybrids, because they did them first and best, and are now unwilling to move on (to EVs and serial hybrids) even now that it's past time.
the AI umbrella has been helpful to my BigCorp to justify more machine learning work, or discrete optimisation and scheduling problems
agentic ai which is a huge buzz in enterprise feels more like workflow and rpa (again) and people misunderstanding that getting the happy flow working is only 20% of the job.
I (still!) have an uncle who had a similar mindset, broke his leg half way through a race and only realised when he stopped at the end, that he couldnt walk any further
finally when they had to (successfully) defib him during a race, that shook him into assessing his health not running for the sake of running
There's a mindset with distance runners that I have seen over and over, just sometimes way too much of a generally good thing
especially the australian airline example and perhaps with much broader applicability, I know that companies are completely happy with managable competition (Australian domestic airlines are functionally 2 players, and similarly across many large industries here that's true) where over time once they can establish profitable gimmicks neither party really wants to rock the boat and they're able to lock in that margin forever more. It doesn't suit established players to compete on that, they both open up losing situations in the game theory compared to silent non-competition.
In high capital businesses like airlines and supermarkets it seems to play out all over the place these days.
I somewhat resonate with this. Working in mature industries where competition has condensed down to larger players with enormous scale and embedded product distribution, don't need to compete _much_ on innovation or product, just on price.
I don't think specifically AI has done this compared to a broader view of constant stream of digitilisation of every departments function.
Orgs don't need grads to learn the ropes from the bottom and make their way up the career ladder, when the ladders might only be 3-4 rungs high now.
Short term drivers like a bad quarter or to be seen "disrupting" as a measure of progress, rather then genuine demonstrations of skills, turf out tenured employees often mid-career.
Or perhaps being in the engine room of many companies, doesn't often give you the lifestyle you want anymore, so the race to the top is the optimal spot to go for. Even if it means going up and falling down a few times on the heirarchy, its worth it.
The value of the nature of not having custodians of certain crafts, like aviation or really at the guts of any industry, seems to me its really going to set us back towards really transactional style of operating businesses that are only financially engineered and not really innovating the product in a way they should.
just random thoughts around how to have a fulfilling career, when most of the effort is in sales & marketing, and not much in operations when the funding pot gets allocated across a business.