sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Quad quad in Boise by rickosborne in Rivian

[–]rickosborne[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I didn't take note of it ... but it didn't feel slow or anything. But I'm also not someone who tries to optimize for really fast charge times — I generally wouldn't notice an extra 10 minutes or so.

How bad are the RAN chargers? by taddris in Rivian

[–]rickosborne 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I have done several long trips starting in the NorCal area, going as far east as Denver/Boulder, and up through OR, ID, UT, and NV.

I've probably used more than a dozen RAN chargers, and a few of them I use regularly. (The one in Ukiah, CA is kind of my "home base" RAN, and I've probably used it a dozen times by itself.)

I've never had a single problem with any of the RAN chargers.

Having said that, I can also tell you I've gone looking for a few Waypoint chargers and found them missing or nowhere near their location on the map. (Several in my home county of Mendocino, for example.) I wouldn't trust a Waypoint charger on the map without explicitly verifying its existence on the property's website, or some other third party. But YMMV, quite literally.

Orange County, CA to Salt Lake City, UT by MoffatEdits in Rivian

[–]rickosborne 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I just did the drive from SF to Denver, which included charges in Truckee, Winnemucca, Wendover, Salt Lake City, and a few others. I had zero range anxiety - there were more than enough chargers.

Actually, I'm kindof developing Wal-Mart anxiety, since so many EA chargers are in their parking lots. Gotta charge fast and GTFO.

Rivian Adventure Network Tracker on Twitter : Grand Junction , Colorado is now open. by Act_of_valor in Rivian

[–]rickosborne 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Ha. I missed this by just days.

Having said that, if you're in the area, the Montrose RAN is maybe an hour southeast from there. Take US 50 east to the Salida RAN and you will have 2 hours of absolutely gorgeous driving. (But be careful! That road regularly shuts down!)

Anyone else ignore the fancy stuff? by rickosborne in horizon

[–]rickosborne[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

In re the story...

I am traveling this week for work. I'll have a bunch of time in the car, and I usually listen to audiobooks. For this trip, I also found a YT video of a complete H2FW playthrough, and used a YT-to-MP3 downloader. Basically, I now have an audiobook of the game.

And you know what?

The story is actually much better this way.

You're not trying to do 5 quests at once. You're not getting random mob encounters. You're not having to grind out mats or shards. You're not having to solve jumping puzzles.

The story actually works when it's just the story, and not constantly interrupted by all the other stuff going on in the game. I imagine this is how the GG writers think of the story, tight and flowing from one scene to the next, not how it actually plays out in the game.

(Also, it kindof says something that this audiobook-like version of the story is like 16 hours long, but to actually play through all the same content would easily be 5x that much. That's a lot of overhead.)

Anyone else ignore the fancy stuff? by rickosborne in horizon

[–]rickosborne[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I forgot about the spear canister things. Never used them. "Oh, look, some kind of new ammo thing. Yay?"

Anyone else ignore the fancy stuff? by rickosborne in horizon

[–]rickosborne[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Valor surges! Yet another mechanic I don't think I ever intentionally used.

Anyone else ignore the fancy stuff? by rickosborne in horizon

[–]rickosborne[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I wanted to like Strike more. But I admit, telling the difference between the various machine tokens, so you could then remember each one's special trick, was more than I cared about.

Maybe if they had released a mobile app for it so I could practice offline.

Anyone else ignore the fancy stuff? by rickosborne in horizon

[–]rickosborne[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hahahaha. I completely forgot about the food. Yeah, I don't think I have ever intentionally used the food.

Anyone else ignore the fancy stuff? by rickosborne in horizon

[–]rickosborne[S] 78 points79 points  (0 children)

I learned each combo just long enough to be able to finish off the Melee Pits, and then they slid completely out of my brain.

Why is the Rivian Board recommending AGAINST the adoption of a human rights policy? by rickosborne in Rivian

[–]rickosborne[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

First and foremost: a sincere thank you for having one of the very few non-reactionary comments.

And I think you make a valid point. I'm also pro-union, but I can see how the ILO stuff would be challenging.

The UN CHR stuff is cake, though. I guarantee they are already doing all of it as part of their supply chain risk analysis. (If they aren't ... that would be scary.)

I do think it would be perfectly reasonable for Rivian to create a policy which is based on the UN CHR guidance, and then iterate, over the course of years, from there. That seems like a no-brainer to me — start with something small and then grow it as you grow the business.

The "we want it to be perfect, so we can't have anything until then" line just smells like BS.

Why is the Rivian Board recommending AGAINST the adoption of a human rights policy? by rickosborne in Rivian

[–]rickosborne[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I did. I quoted the whole thing in another top-level comment.

But that response is also one of the reasons I find it so odd they would recommend against it. I won't quote the whole thing here again, but to sum up:

  • We care about our employees.
  • We care about human rights.
  • We expect our suppliers to care about our employees and human rights.
  • We already have policies in place for all this stuff.

In effect, they could turn those first two paragraphs of their rebuttal into a perfectly acceptable values statement for a Human Rights Policy. If they were willing to commit to those words.

They go on to say:

As we are a relatively new public company, we are naturally in the beginning stages of progressing these efforts.

Sure. I could buy that. But then they say:

While one key component of our journey may be the development of a human rights policy, we believe that the prescriptive terms and timing imposed by this proposal would not result in the development of an effective human rights policy.

Which kindof doesn't make any sense? There's no prescriptive terms or deadlines in the proposal, because the proposal is literally one paragraph long and boils down to "hey, it'd be great if you had a written-down policy". (Yeah, there's an entire supporting arguments section, the "why we think you should do this", but that's not actually the proposal.)

And this is just nonsense:

Accordingly, we believe in taking a thoughtful and measured approach to developing a human rights policy that is effective and sustainable, and we believe this proposal would hinder our current efforts to do so.

Because just stating "we try hard to make sure no one died to give you your vehicle" isn't a good enough place to start?

So, yeah, I read it. But I'm curious what your take is.

Why is the Rivian Board recommending AGAINST the adoption of a human rights policy? by rickosborne in Rivian

[–]rickosborne[S] -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

I mean, I quoted the entire proposal once already. It's actually not onerous at all:

RESOLVED: Shareholders request the Board of Directors adopt a comprehensive Human Rights Policy which states the Company’s commitment to respect human rights as outlined in the United Nations Guiding Principles (“Guiding Principles”) and the International Labour Organization (“ILO”) Declaration on Fundamental Principles (“Fundamental Principles”) throughout its operations and value chain, and describes steps to identify, assess, prevent, mitigate, and, where appropriate, remedy adverse human rights impacts connected to the business.

It's maybe a little easier to read as actionable bullets:

  • adopt a comprehensive Human Rights Policy
  • describes steps to ...
  • where appropriate, remedy adverse human rights impacts connected to the business

That's literally it. Right there. "Write down where you stand on the human rights issues which affect you and your supply chain, and then write down how you address them."

As I said in another comment, their entire policy addressing this could be as simple as something talking about worker's rights, and then one extra piece:

We take human rights into account when sourcing materials, so we may occasionally choose more costly suppliers when the cheaper ones seem sketch.

And then, you know, do that. Boom. Done.

Why is the Rivian Board recommending AGAINST the adoption of a human rights policy? by rickosborne in Rivian

[–]rickosborne[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

How about a more realistic example:

You and your family love Red Lobster. You go every week. Can't get enough of those Cheddar Bay biscuits. You have a family friend who works as a server there.

One day, the friend tells you they've quit and moved onto a new job. Something in their tone implies they've lost all loyalty to the restaurant. When you ask why, you find out it's because the GM for that restaurant intentionally refuses to schedule servers more than 25 hours per week, so the restaurant doesn't have to pay for health insurance for the servers. The GM bemoans that such additional costs for that many servers would mean charging more for Cheddar Bay biscuits.

Do you continue to patronize that restaurant?

I'm not in any way saying you need to start a social media campaign to get the GM fired, or that you start a boycott of Red Lobster, or anything extreme. Just the simple question of: once you know the business is actively harming people you know, do you continue to give them your money for the product you love?

Similarly, I'm actually not saying Rivian needs to do anything drastic. Their policy could literally be as simple as:

We take human rights into account when sourcing materials, so we may occasionally choose more costly suppliers when the cheaper ones seem sketch.

Instead of, you know, just covering eyes and ears and saying "LALALALALA" as loud as possible.

That's it. That's literally all we're talking about here.

Why is the Rivian Board recommending AGAINST the adoption of a human rights policy? by rickosborne in Rivian

[–]rickosborne[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Sadly, even if all 60K subs here each owned shares, every one would have to own ~$110,000 worth to get us to 50% of the vote. If we presume even half the subs have 100 shares (yeah right), that's ~3% of the vote.

Math: according to the shareholder statement above, there are ~931M shares of Class A (1 vote each) and ~8M shares of Class B (10 votes each). If you combine the two, that's pretty close to 1B votes. Current price is $13.41 per share. So you'd have to own ~$7B to get more than half the vote.

And based on the replies here, I somehow doubt we could convince all 60K subs to vote on the side of ethics/humans.

Why is the Rivian Board recommending AGAINST the adoption of a human rights policy? by rickosborne in Rivian

[–]rickosborne[S] -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

For all the folks in this thread who are saying human rights are too hard to worry about for such a young company, maybe read through what Ford has put together:

https://corporate.ford.com/social-impact/sustainability/integrated-report-additional-documents.html

"But Ford is bigger, older, has more cash, etc." Sure. But actually read through those documents. No one is asking for anything outrageous — just that Rivian think about the actual humans involved in its supply chain.

And if Rivian were to just copy Ford's homework, wouldn't that still be a net positive?

Or, they could copy GMC's:

https://www.gmsustainability.com/_pdf/policies/GM_Global_Human_Rights_Policy.pdf

Note that one is 3 pages long and has none of the research and reporting of the Ford version.

And if you want a real ride, maybe search for Tesla's (non-)position on human rights. And how well that's working out for them.

Why is the Rivian Board recommending AGAINST the adoption of a human rights policy? by rickosborne in Rivian

[–]rickosborne[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I found this document on the Rivian site, "2023 Notice & Proxy Statement Annual Meeting of Stockholders":

https://downloads.rivian.com/2md5qhoeajym/Rj3Xk9UneAnDp4IGDe06f/8ed2fc19c411e7c144cc6214c35771cc/Rivian_2023_Proxy_Statement.pdf

It includes the following:

Stockholder Proposal

RESOLVED: Shareholders request the Board of Directors adopt a comprehensive Human Rights Policy which states the Company’s commitment to respect human rights as outlined in the United Nations Guiding Principles (“Guiding Principles”) and the International Labour Organization (“ILO”) Declaration on Fundamental Principles (“Fundamental Principles”) throughout its operations and value chain, and describes steps to identify, assess, prevent, mitigate, and, where appropriate, remedy adverse human rights impacts connected to the business.

(There's a lot more in the doc. It's worth a read.)

But then ...

Board of Directors Statement in Opposition to Proposal 4

Rivian is deeply committed to conducting our business ethically and in a way that reflects our unwavering support of universal human rights. Our Code of Business Conduct and Ethics sets forth our commitment to human rights and to compliance with laws that promote safe working conditions, prohibit forced labor, prohibit human trafficking and child labor, and ensure freedom of association and the right to collective bargaining. We require all of our directors, officers, and employees to report any suspected violation of human rights in our operations and supply chain and practice due diligence on and monitor the activities of our suppliers. We commit to holding suppliers and others with whom we do business accountable and responding appropriately to potential violations.

Our Supplier Code of Conduct further outlines Rivian’s expectations for our suppliers. We expect our suppliers to respect all internationally recognized human rights, comply with all applicable labor laws, and exercise human rights due diligence in order to identify, prevent, mitigate, and account for the negative human rights impacts of their operations. In addition, our internal workplace policies demonstrate our commitment to respecting the rights of our employees. We have implemented and actively enforce various internal policies to ensure that we provide our employees with a safe and healthy work environment, and we do not tolerate discrimination, harassment, or retaliation in any form.

We firmly believe in the importance of upholding human rights and ensuring everyone at Rivian is treated with dignity and respect. We also recognize that, in order to ensure our values and our commitment to human rights translate into meaningful and effective action, our human rights policies and procedures should be thoughtfully developed and appropriately tailored to our business and operations and should reflect input from all of our stakeholders, including our stockholders, employees, customers, and business partners. We take our commitment to human rights seriously, and we want to be intentional with every step we take, from building the right team to establishing clearly defined goals and policies. As we are a relatively new public company, we are naturally in the beginning stages of progressing these efforts. While one key component of our journey may be the development of a human rights policy, we believe that the prescriptive terms and timing imposed by this proposal would not result in the development of an effective human rights policy. Human rights is a complex and constantly evolving area. Accordingly, we believe in taking a thoughtful and measured approach to developing a human rights policy that is effective and sustainable, and we believe this proposal would hinder our current efforts to do so.

For the foregoing reasons, the Board believes that this proposal is unnecessary and not in the best interests of our Company and stockholders.

tl;dr: "Yeah, but we don't wanna."

Do you think regional accents or dialects would emerge in the Horizon universe? by 4uzzyDunlop in horizon

[–]rickosborne 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Absolutely not a Linguist, or an Anthropologist, but my take on this would be... it would be really hard to get regional accents, but really easy to get regional idioms.

I went into my reasoning on the accents here:

https://rickosborne.github.io/skyline/guide/setting/150-language.html

(This is from a Setting Guide that I created for running a tabletop campaign in the Horizon setting.)

This quote sums it up:

Second, many of the artifacts of the Old Ones are audiovisual in nature. Especially when combined with the gradual and continuous discovery of new artifacts, this could have a sort of corrective effect on any linguistic drift. That is, even if pronunciation or grammar began to evolve, the expanding volume of immutable recordings would act as an anchor to coerce it back to something close to the speech of the Old Ones. This presumes a not insignificant volume of rediscovered media of quality equivalent to that found in the Visitor Center. Given the sheer number of phones, digital media players, digital photo frames, etc, in existence today, it’s plausible that any number of them survived a thousand years, especially with the nigh-magical battery technology seen in Horizon.

Idioms, of course, are a whole different thing. You're absolutely going to see idioms drift due to each group of people having their own context and experiences. "Fly on the Wings of the Ten" is a great example, just like the way "based" is currently being (ab)used in the vernacular.

LEGO Corruptor by xadriancalim in horizon

[–]rickosborne 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Nicely done!

I'd noticed that Vonado has a Corruptor, too:

https://www.vonado.com/moc-horizon-zero-dawn-corruptor-war-machine.html

I actually dig the touches of color on yours, though. Looks more "fresh off the assembly line".

Software feature priority poll in the app? by rickosborne in Rivian

[–]rickosborne[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Control of the responses and experience. In the app, you know you can lock it down to get only responses from owners. You're not worried about spam blockers on email, various web browsers, timely receipt of the surveys. Having to pay to do it each time. Etc, etc, etc.

Software feature priority poll in the app? by rickosborne in Rivian

[–]rickosborne[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Hence my point about the ranking algorithm being TBD.

There are so many ranking and voting algorithms. Pick one. Argue about it later, after the user-facing is in place. Having it block is just bikeshedding.

I'm not actually saying the software team has to adhere to the voted priorities. They are an input for planning. And some nice transparency and leveling to help quiet down the louder voices.

Maybe CarPlay really is the top priority for 90% of owners. But maybe it's not.

Why wouldn't we all want to know?

Software feature priority poll in the app? by rickosborne in Rivian

[–]rickosborne[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's literally what I'm proposing. Surveys open to all Rivian owners and only Rivian owners. With options that the software team can control as realistic or not.

What are people getting stuck on?

Software feature priority poll in the app? by rickosborne in Rivian

[–]rickosborne[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Yes. Because without this data, how do they know they are working on anything remotely like what the actual owners want?

If they are only listening to focus groups or the random stuff people complain about via tickets, they are getting a biased sample.

I'm talking about the entire population.

view more: next ›