In Eric Ries’ new book, he tells companies to turn every unit into a cash-strapped ‘startup’

[ad_1]


All companies are startups until they aren’t. Many struggle to find their way back, too. It’s not the days of constrained resources or terrible pay or the heart-stopping uncertainty that they’re missing, of course. Instead, the problem is that it’s a lot harder to implement change at an “established” organization, particularly one that’s making money. Yet the smartest companies know change is crucial. As journalist Alan Deutschman wrote a dozen years ago, including in a book of the same title: “Change or die.”

Because that’s easier said than done, CEOs are always seeking out new ideas. Enter the brand-new book of engineer and entrepreneur Eric Ries, whose last tome, The Lean Startup, became an instant best-seller when it was first published in 2011.

In his latest effort, The Startup Way, Ries says the way to stay on top can be traced to two things: treating employees like customers, and treating business units like startups — replete with their own constrained budgets, and even their own boards. Ries offers fairly concrete suggestions regarding how to implement both, too. “A lot of people write manifestos and basically say, ‘Do what I say,’” says Ries. “I try to get away from that. The details matter a lot.”

We caught up with Ries earlier today to learn more about the book, which will be available to buy beginning Tuesday.

TC: You established a name for yourself with The Lean Startup, which basically told founders to get a minimally viable product into the market, then fix it. Can founders still do that in an age where big companies are getting bigger and moving faster to either copy products, or else acquire their teams?

ER:  People said that years ago about Microsoft, too, that it was going to dominate the internet with its monopoly power. Disruption still brings new power players to the fore. But today, because Facebook and Amazon and Google are so good at what they do, startups do need to up their game. There was a time when you had one innovation that you could ride for decades. That’s over. Continuous reinvention is crucial now. Otherwise, you’re toast.

TC: What about the giant financing rounds of today, even at the seed stage — do they signal the death of the so-called lean startup? 

ER: “Lean” never referred to the size of a round. It’s about lean manufacturing and using resources more effectively. Also, huge rounds are really for the privileged few. I’m in Columbus right now, and [local startups] aren’t experiencing the jumbo seed round.

I will say that one commonality that Silicon Valley has with corporate innovation is that we often overfund things, which can be just as lethal as underfunding them.

TC: How did you move from advocating for lean startups to writing this new book? 

ER: When a lot of small early founders heard about the lean startup, they were excited about minimal viable products and about pivoting and learning, but they didn’t pay close attention to more boring parts like management and the need to do continuous innovation. In some cases, as these companies passed 100 employees, or even 1,000, they’d ask me to come help teach lean startups to people who work for them. You go from the person who is making innovation decisions, to supporting entrepreneurs who work for you, and they might not be as good as you or you’d be working for them.

These were my friends and I was happy to help them. At the same time, big companies were asking how they could recapture their innovative DNA and I realized how similar these issues are and thought it was worth exploring.

TC: Obviously, the need to innovate continuously isn’t a new concept. How is your advice to companies different? Is this about pulling in opinions and ideas from a more diverse group of people, either internally or externally?

ER: I’m a big believer in that thesis — diversity. But in this book, I tend to focus on structural changes: who gets promoted, how we make product decisions, the general accountability layer of a company. [In other words] how do you figure out who is doing a good job and who isn’t? Because there’s a lot of B.S. at the higher levels otherwise that distorts the decisions that are made and consequently makes it hard to attract top talent.

TC: Give us some concrete examples. Who in Silicon Valley was doing this wrong and figured it out?

ER: I talk in the book about Twilio and Dropbox and Airbnb; they all had to go through a metamorphosis to empower their internal innovators.

Dropbox, for example, had some failures and was willing to admit that some products didn’t work. Some of its product development was happening internally and some externally, but it doesn’t matter if you plant in the wrong soil. But it has since developed a much better process that looks closer to entrepreneurship.

TC: By doing what differently?

ER: You first have to look at whether you’re treating the people who work for you like entrepreneurs or something different; if you’re expecting your product managers to achieve instantaneous success, that’s not [the standard] to which you were held in the early stages of your company.

Along the same lines, if you aren’t [giving teams] clear, metered funding, how are they going to have that scarcity? It’s that mindset, that hunger, that let’s you say “no,” [to delaying product launches]. [Companies have to fight] that entitlement funding because the more money you have, the less you want to expose yourself to risk.

TC: Interesting idea. How else do you recommend that companies treat their teams like startups?

ER: We also talk about creating a growth board.

Right now, most corporate employees exist in a matrix management structure, reporting to different people and having lots of different managers who have veto power over what they do. But each time a middle manager checks in, he or she exerts a gravitation influence, and most product mangers who I meet with say they spend 50 percent of their time defending their existing budget against middle manager inquiries. That’s a massive tax on most product teams.

So we treat [these units] like a startup and create a board of [say] five execs who they report to infrequently. That way, if any middle manager has a concern, [the head of that unit] can say, “Talk to the board.”  It’s like at [ venture firm] Andreessen Horowitz. It has something like 150 employees [yet] not every person who works there gets to call a portfolio company founder. Not every limited partner who has invested in Andreessen Horowitz gets to call its founders. There are well-defined processes in place so that founders [aren’t fielding calls all day.]

TC: Of course, the downside to that is that VCs often don’t know when things go off the rails at startups. How do you convince executives that they aren’t running that risk by giving these teams so much autonomy?

ER: It only works if you do limited liability experiments. Often asking, “What’s the worst that could happen?” is like a death sentence, but you have to think through the possible downsides to mitigate them. So you only let 100 people buy the product [at the outset] and add in extra provisions and securities to ensure they have a great experience and you’re smart about the liabilities.

TC: Say that works. What happens to the already oft-maligned middle managers of the world? 

ER: There haven’t been any layoffs at the companies I’ve worked with. Companies still have to run their core business; there’s plenty for [middle managers to do] Most are horrifically overworked. Others become reborn as entrepreneurs and entrepreneurial coaches. Intuit and GE have a whole program for coaching and mentoring, and that becomes part of [managers’] job description.

This all culminates in preparing a new org chart, one that treats entrepreneurship like a corporate function that’s owned and managed. Right now, if you ask [many executives], “Who is in charge of the next big innovation,” they’ll sometimes say that everyone is in charge of it. Can you imagine if they said that everyone is in charge of marketing or finance or HR? Entrepreneurship is no different. Someone should have operational responsibility for it.

TC: Do you run into much resistance when you talk with CEOs about empowering employees in this way? It’s easy to imagine that some feel threatened, even as they know their companies need to keep innovating.

ER: What distinguishes really good CEOs is that they care about their legacy, and they’re committed to the long-term health of their organization.

But you’re right. Most CEO are not serious about change because it requires senior managers to change their behavior. You know how corporate bosses can be. This is not always a very welcome method. I’ve been kicked out of plenty of boardrooms.

[ad_2]

Source link

10 Sci-Fi Gadgets That Actually Exist



10 Sci-Fi gadgets from movies and entertainment that actually exist now! Subscribe for more Top 10 videos: http://bit.ly/Top10z Hello everyone and welcome to …

source

Gran Turismo details the car classes in ‘Sport’

[ad_1]

Share

  • Pinterest


The seventh iteration of ‘Gran Turismo Sport‘ drops Oct. 17. Last week, the company posted a video explaining the race classes, which range from street cars (Group N) to full-out endurance race cars in Group 1, which are prototypes. The full car list is only 162 cars deep, a far cry from almost 1,200 in “GT6.” The Group 4 cars are equivalent to GT4, the Group 3 cars are like GT3 and so on. The game does include rally cars — Group B — and the Gran Turismo concepts fall under Group X.

Those GT-equivalent classes include a bunch of cars that don’t actually have GT variants, like the Mazda 6 and Jaguar F-Type. “Sport” is all about racing, hence the focus on fully prepped vehicles.

The track list is also a little smaller than expected. The game features six real tracks (Brands Hatch, Interlagos, Bathurst, the Nürburgring, Suzuka and Willow Springs) and 11 other locations with 40 layouts. We’ve been enjoying the beta version for a few months now, and we’ll come back with another review of the full game later this month. Also look for our games podcast coming soon.

Check out the car and track lists below.

Cars

  • Alfa Romeo 4C Gr.3
  • Alfa Romeo 4C Gr.4
  • Alfa Romeo 4C Launch Edition
  • Alfa Romeo MiTo 1.4 T Sport
  • Alfa Romeo 4C Gr.3 Road Car
  • Alpine Vision Gran Turismo
  • Alpine Vision Gran Turismo 2017
  • Alpine Vision Gran Turismo Race Mode
  • Aston Martin DP-100 Vision Gran Turismo
  • Aston Martin Vulcan
  • Aston Martin One-77
  • Aston Martin V12 Vantage GT
  • Aston Martin V8 Vantage S
  • Aston Martin Vantage Gr.4
  • Audi R18 TDI (Audi Sport Team Jo
  • Audi R8 LMS (Audi Sport Team WRT)
  • Audi Sport quattro S1 Pikes Peak
  • Audi TT cup
  • Audi TTS Coupé
  • BMW i3
  • BMW M4 Coupé
  • BMW M4 Gr.4
  • BMW M4 Safety Car
  • BMW M6 GT3 (Walkenhorst Motorsport)
  • BMW M6 GT3 M Power Livery
  • BMW Vision Gran Turismo
  • BMW Z4 GT3
  • Bugatti Vision Gran Turismo
  • Bugatti Veyron 16.4
  • Bugatti Veyron Gr.4
  • Chevrolet Chaparral 2X Vision Gran Turismo
  • Chevrolet Camaro SS
  • Chevrolet Corvette C7 Gr.3
  • Chevrolet Corvette C7 Gr.4
  • Chevrolet Corvette Stingray (C7)
  • Chevrolet Corvette C7 Gr.3 Road Car
  • Citroën DS3 Racing
  • Citroën GT Gr.4
  • Citroën GT Race Car (Gr.3)
  • Citroën GT Road Car
  • Daihatsu COPEN RJ Vision Gran Turismo
  • Dodge Charger SRT Hellcat
  • Dodge SRT Tomahawk GTS-R Vision Gran Turismo
  • Dodge SRT Tomahawk S Vision Gran Turismo
  • Dodge SRT Tomahawk Vision Gran Turismo (Gr.1)
  • Dodge SRT Tomahawk X Vision Gran Turismo
  • Dodge Viper Gr.4
  • Dodge Viper GTS
  • Dodge Viper SRT GT3-R
  • Ferrari 458 Italia
  • Ferrari 458 Italia Gr.4
  • Ferrari 458 Italia GT3
  • Ferrari LaFerrari
  • Fittipaldi Motors Fittipaldi EF7 Vision Gran Turismo by Pininfarina
  • Ford Focus Gr.B Rally Car
  • Ford Focus ST
  • Ford Mustang Gr.3
  • Ford Mustang Gr.4
  • Ford Mustang Gr.B Rally Car
  • Ford Mustang GT Premium Fastback
  • Ford Mustang Gr.3 Road Car
  • Gran Turismo Racing Kart 125 Shifter
  • Honda Civic Type R (FK2)
  • Honda Project 2&4 powered by RC213V
  • Honda Sports Vision Gran Turismo
  • Honda NSX
  • Honda NSX Gr.3
  • Honda NSX Gr.4
  • Honda NSX Gr.B Rally Car
  • Hyundai Genesis Coupe 3.8 Track
  • Hyundai Genesis Gr.3
  • Hyundai Genesis Gr.4
  • Hyundai Genesis Gr.B Rally Car
  • Hyundai N 2025 Vision Gran Turismo
  • Infiniti CONCEPT Vision Gran Turismo
  • Jaguar F-type Gr.3
  • Jaguar F-type Gr.4
  • Jaguar F-type R Coupé
  • Lamborghini Huracán GT3
  • Lamborghini Huracán Gr.4
  • Lamborghini Huracán LP 610-4
  • Lamborghini Veneno
  • Lexus LC500
  • Lexus LF-LC GT “Vision Gran Turismo”
  • Lexus RC F
  • Lexus RC F Gr.4
  • Lexus RC F GT3 prototype (Emil Frey Racing)
  • Mazda Atenza Gr.3
  • Mazda Atenza Sedan XD L Package
  • Mazda LM55 Vision Gran Turismo
  • Mazda Roadster S (ND)
  • Mazda Atenza Gr.4
  • Mazda Atenza Gr.3 Road Car
  • McLaren 650S Coupe
  • McLaren 650S Gr.4
  • McLaren 650S GT3
  • McLaren Ultimate Vision Gran Turismo
  • McLaren MP4-12C
  • Mercedes-AMG A 45 4MATIC
  • Mercedes-AMG GT S
  • Mercedes-AMG GT Safety Car
  • Mercedes-AMG GT3 (AMG-Team HTP-Motorsport)
  • Mercedes-Benz AMG Vision Gran Turismo
  • Mercedes-Benz AMG Vision Gran Turismo Racing Series
  • Mercedes-Benz SLS AMG
  • Mercedes-Benz SLS AMG Gr.4
  • Mercedes-Benz SLS AMG GT3
  • MINI Clubman Vision Gran Turismo
  • Mitsubishi Concept XR-PHEV EVOLUTION Vision Gran Turismo
  • Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution Final Edition
  • Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution Final Edition Gr.3
  • Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution Final Edition Gr.4
  • Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution Final Edition Gr.B Rally Car
  • Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution Final Edition Gr.B Road Car
  • Nissan GT-R Gr.4
  • Nissan GT-R Gr.B Rally Car
  • Nissan GT-R NISMO GT3 N24 Schulze Motorsport
  • Nissan GT-R Premium edition
  • Nissan GT-R Safety Car
  • Nissan CONCEPT 2020 Vision Gran Turismo
  • Nissan Nissan GT-R LM NISM
  • Peugeot 208 GTi by Peugeot Sport
  • Peugeot 908 HDi FAP – Team Peugeot Total
  • Peugeot L500R HYbrid Vision Gran Turismo, 2017
  • Peugeot L750R HYbrid Vision Gran Turismo, 2017
  • Peugeot Vision Gran Turismo
  • Peugeot Vision Gran Turismo (Gr.3)
  • Peugeot RCZ Gr.3
  • Peugeot RCZ Gr.4
  • Peugeot RCZ Gr.B Rally Car
  • Peugeot RCZ GT Line
  • Peugeot RCZ Gr.3 Road Car
  • Porsche 911 GT3 RS (991)
  • Porsche 911 RSR (991)
  • Porsche Cayman GT4 Clubsport
  • Porsche Porsche 919 Hybrid (Porsche Team)
  • Renault Sport Clio R.S. 220 EDC Trophy
  • Renault Sport Mégane Gr.4
  • Renault Sport Mégane R.S. Trophy
  • Renault Sport R.S.01
  • Renault Sport R.S.01 GT3
  • Subaru VIZIV GT Vision Gran Turismo
  • Subaru WRX Gr.3
  • Subaru WRX Gr.4
  • Subaru WRX Gr.B Rally Car
  • Subaru WRX STI Type S
  • Subaru WRX Gr.B Road Car
  • Toyota 86 GRMN
  • Toyota 86 Gr.4
  • Toyota 86 Gr.B Rally Car
  • Toyota 86 GT
  • Toyota FT-1 Vision Gran Turismo
  • Toyota FT-1 Vision Gran Turismo (Gr.3)
  • Toyota S-FR
  • Toyota S-FR Racing Concept
  • Toyota TS050 – Hybrid (Toyota Gazoo Racing)
  • Toyota TS030 Hybrid
  • Volkswagen Golf VII GTI
  • Volkswagen GTI Roadster Vision Gran Turismo
  • Volkswagen GTI Supersport Vision Gran Turismo
  • Volkswagen GTI Vision Gran Turismo (Gr.3)
  • Volkswagen Scirocco Gr.4
  • Volkswagen Beetle Gr.3

Tracks

  • Alsace – Village
  • Alsace – Village II
  • Autodrome Lago Maggiore – GP
  • Autodrome Lago Maggiore – GP II
  • Autódromo De Interlagos
  • Blue Moon Bay Speedway
  • Blue Moon Bay Speedway II
  • Brands Hatch Grand Prix Circuit
  • Brands Hatch Indy Circuit
  • Broad Bean Raceway
  • Broad Bean Raceway II
  • Colorado Springs – Lake
  • Colorado Springs – Lake II
  • Dragon Trail – Seaside
  • Dragon Trail – Seaside II
  • Fishermans Ranch
  • Fishermans Ranch II
  • KYOTO DRIVING PARK – MIYABI
  • KYOTO DRIVING PARK – YAMAGIWA
  • KYOTO DRIVING PARK – YAMAGIWA II
  • Mount Panorama Motor Racing Circuit
  • Northern Isle Speedway
  • Northern Isle Speedway – Infield
  • Nürburgring 24h
  • Nürburgring GP
  • Nürburgring Nordschleife
  • Nürburgring Nordschleife Tourist Layout
  • Sardegna – Windmills
  • Sardegna – Windmills II
  • Suzuka Circuit
  • Suzuka Circuit East Course
  • Tokyo Expressway – Central Inner Loop
  • Tokyo Expressway – Central Outer Loop
  • Tokyo Expressway – East Inner Loop
  • Tokyo Expressway – East Outer Loop
  • Willow Springs International Raceway: Big Willow
  • Willow Springs International Raceway: Horse Thief Mile
  • Willow Springs International Raceway: Horse Thief Mile II
  • Willow Springs International Raceway: Streets of Willow Springs
  • Willow Springs International Raceway: Streets of Willow Springs II

 













[ad_2]

Source link

Tesla has fired hundreds of employees after performance reviews

[ad_1]


Tesla fired hundreds of employees following what the company said is an annual performance review process, the company told TechCrunch. The news was first reported by The Mercury News.

“Like all companies, Tesla conducts an annual performance review during which a manager and employee discuss the results that were achieved, as well as how those results were achieved, during the performance period,” a Tesla spokesperson said. “This includes both constructive feedback and recognition of top performers with additional compensation and equity awards, as well as promotions in many cases. As with any company, especially one of over 33,000 employees, performance reviews also occasionally result in employee departures. Tesla is continuing to grow and hire new employees around the world.”

The company is not disclosing how many employees were let go as part of the process, though The Mercury News suggests that the number is between 400 and 700 employees.

Tesla will be reporting its earnings in the next few weeks along with a whole suite of other companies. But on the year, Tesla’s stock has continued to see an incredible run, especially following up on its most recent quarterly earnings report. The company said there was a further increase in Model S orders following the Model 3 handover event, prompting an additional amount of enthusiasm for the company.

During that report, Tesla also said it saw 1,800 Model 3 reservations per day following the handover event. But since then there’s been quite a bit of news, including a voluntary recall yesterday of 11,000 Model X vehicles. Earlier this month Tesla said it produced 260 Model 3 vehicles in Q3. CEO Elon Musk has said before that the company is entering “production hell,” a phrase that has been thrown around quite since then.

There’s going to still be a huge ramp-up period for the company for the Model 3. Tesla clearly has an enormous waiting list for the Model 3 and has said it wants to hit a run rate of 5,000 Model 3 vehicles per week by end of year, and achieve a 10,000 Model 3 per week clip at some point next year. This quarter, including the Model 3, Tesla produced 25,336 vehicles, the vast majority of which were Model S and X vehicles. The company also hopes to hit a run rate of producing 500,000 vehicles per year by the end of 2018

[ad_2]

Source link

What’s Ken Block’s new car? A 1991 Ford Escort Cosworth, and it’s brilliant

[ad_1]

Share

  • Pinterest


Ken Block’s out of rallycross, but he’s not done with racing. Block is actually headed back to stage rally, but he’s not going to race in the ultra-competitive World Rally Championship against the likes of Sebastien Ogier. At least, not with his latest race car.

This car is Block’s new-to-him 1991 Ford Escort Cosworth rally car. The Escort was built to run in the WRC’s Group A class and was updated over its life to stay competitive. Block restored the car to race-ready condition and should fill his days racing it through the forests in American rally stages.

Even if he doesn’t, the 2.0-liter turbocharged I4-powered Escort looks like more than enough fun to just rip around and do all-wheel-drive donuts. Like a proper rally car needs to be, it appears Block’s Escort is registered for road use and would make one hell of a daily driver.

Click above to see Block turn his Escort rally car’s new tires into plumes of smoke.

 













[ad_2]

Source link

Smart cities are boring. Give us responsive cities.

[ad_1]


As an urban technologist, I’m often asked to give an example of a compelling smart city application that real people are using. But to be honest, there really isn’t too much to point to – yet. Cities may be getting smarter, but they haven’t noticeably changed from a user perspective.

It seems like most of the digital advances in cities have been invisible and focused on city operations, rather than on the parts of the city that people can see, touch, and use. Sure, it’s important that city managers can better identify water leaks, or more accurately predict the likelihood of a building failing an inspection, but there isn’t a direct, personal, benefit to city dwellers. So it’s understandable that some people feel like there hasn’t been much progress.

The reason that we, as city dwellers, haven’t been wowed by transformative Smart City applications is that Smart Cities are boring. It’s the same reason people’s faces don’t light up at the thought of a data warehouse (ok, settle down, nerds). Smart Cities are just a means to an end; a step along the road to truly digital cities.

In order to evolve into a city that fully realizes the potential of the internet, delivering real, tangible benefits to its inhabitants, cities will go through three phases: 1) They first need to collect data about their environment, 2) They need to process that data, and finally, 3) They need to take corresponding real-time action. My shorthand is: See, Think, Do.

See – The Instrumented City

For the last couple decades, we’ve been living in an Instrumented City. Sensors upon sensors upon sensors – everything’s got a sensor, from the front door to your office to the bikeshare dock, to the traffic light on the corner. Everything is being quantified, and this is the foundation of any future city developments. In order to change something, you need to first be able to measure it.<

Think – The Smart City

So what do we do with this data? This is where companies like IBM, GE, and AT&T have been focusing their efforts over the past few years. In the Smart City, insights are derived from the data generated in the Instrumented City. This is done using data platforms, algorithms, and data science, and allows us to not only understand what we measured, but also why it matters.

We can start building correlations and causations, creating models to predict and test human behavior, and gaining insights into why things happened and how change might be affected. AI will start to play a larger role in analyzing massive amount of data and developing understanding of what’s happening in the city. But it’s all fairly “back-office” at this point. Think of it as the internet before everyone had email, or web 1.0 sites. Yeah, it’s important and it’s changing how the world works, but why should I care? What can I do?

Do – The Responsive City

Now, this is where things get interesting, when things start to actually happen, and where people will notice and feel the difference. It’s the stage with the most opportunity for development and new products. The Responsive City is one that, as the name suggests, responds to the needs, wants, and desires of its citizens; whether they’re workers, residents, or visitors. All this is done in real time, and it’s active and rich with applications.

Building upon the data generated in the Instrumented City and the insights developed in the Smart City, The Responsive City is like an app layer on top of hardware, data, and base services.

In cities, these apps will be focused on manipulating infrastructure or influencing behavior to dynamically optimize the city for any number of outcomes; safety, convenience, efficiency – but also discovery, joy, community. All of this helps support what makes cities great in the first place – engaged citizens of diverse backgrounds sharing a common space in time.

This all relies on digital, controllable, infrastructure, and that’s coming quickly. Uber and Lyft are examples of connected cars that preposition themselves based on anticipated transportation needs.

Digital screens and dynamic street furniture are early examples of responsive infrastructure as well – with the potential to act like an Augmented Reality layer for the city, these products superimpose real-time information over the streetscape to inform or influence the population, and to help them in any number of ways; citizens can better move through the city, explore all that the city has to offer, and be alerted to emergencies in real time, to take just a few examples.

Cities are ready for this transformation. With digital infrastructure, automation, and machine learning comes the ability to predictively respond to demands and optimize outcomes for millions of people at once.

Today, we have a massive opportunity for city managers, social activists, and entrepreneurs to create new economic opportunities, reshape behaviors, and repurpose our resources to truly redefine the modern city. The infrastructure needed for this revolution is beginning to fall into place, but how do cities ultimately arrive at this final stage of responsiveness?

To pave the way for effective responsive cities, cities need to:

Partner on Resources, Access, and Outcomes

We need to toss out our preconceived notions of what’s possible in cities and start with the desired outcomes. City managers need to identify untapped resources or infrastructure in need of reinvention and then make it easy to partner and collaborate with the private sector. Public-private partnerships ought to be aligned on mutually beneficial outcomes, like universal access to resources for people of all abilities, and not fixate on a particular solution, or prescribed procurements.

Understand Groups of People and Influencing Their Behaviors

A responsive city is reflective of the humans in it. The internet has shown us a glimpse of what’s possible with personalization – recommending videos or products or friends to you. A single person. But city experiences are inherently one-to-many. 50 people look up at a sign, and they experience it together, with 50 different backgrounds and maybe as many individual objectives. This opens up an interesting field of study: understanding groups of people and how they respond to real-time changes in their environment.

Whether it’s something like dynamic road closures for on-demand pedestrian plazas, or directing people with different mobility needs to the fastest route for an event, or helping them discover a new business that just opened; balancing people’s needs with the city’s -in real time- will be an exciting new area for exploration, blending Urban Planning with User Experience Design and Behavioral Science.

Make it Real-Time

Becoming a responsive city isn’t a static objective, it’s a constantly moving target. We need to think past fixed, single-purpose infrastructure and focus on dynamic, real-time digital infrastructure that can change as people and cities change. The focus should be not only staying relevant over years as cities change on the macro scale, but staying relevant from moment to moment, from the morning commute to lunch.

Cloud network servers concepts

 

The internet has changed everything we do – how we live, work, and play, all through access to information, and communication with each other. But it hasn’t always lived up to its transformative potential. We’ve seen it create isolation and siloed groups that breed intolerance.

And cities can be stale and inflexible – designed by people who died long before today’s inhabitants were even born, and where change is measured in decade planning exercises. Cities are rarely representative of the actual people using, working, and living in them.

But now, as the internet makes its way into cities, we have an opportunity to make the internet more human, and cities more dynamic.

We can build true community experiences where people of different cultures and backgrounds and abilities share digital interactions with one another as well as their city. We have the ability to shape our environment and share information in real time to better connect people with each other, and with resources. We have an opportunity to build an inclusive digital urban experience, and that starts with a responsive city.

Featured Image: Prasit photo/Getty Images

[ad_2]

Source link

Cut-Down Engine of the Week: Buick V6

[ad_1]

Share

  • Pinterest


Automakers, especially American automakers, have made plenty of engines by lopping off cylinders here and there; you can make an inline-four out of an inline-six or a V8— as we have seen with such cut-down sensations as the Iron Duke and Trophy-4— and you can make a V6 out of a V8. Chrysler did just that with the 3.9 Magnum engine and Chevrolet did it with the Chevy 90° V6 engine, but those two were built in piddling quantities compared to the 25 million examples of the fantastically successful Buick V6, an engine that stayed in production for nearly a half-century.



Rover V8

Every Buick V6 made is a close relative of the Rover V8 Photo by British Leyland


The ancestor of the Buick V6 is the Buick 215 V8, an innovative lightweight V8 with aluminum block and heads that debuted in 1961. This engine turned into iron and gained much displacement with GM later in the decade, but today we know the 215 best as the Rover V8. Rover bought the 215’s tooling from GM in 1965, and went on to build these engines well into the 21st century, nearly as lengthy a production run as its Detroit V6 cousin.



Jeep Dauntless V6

During the late 1960s, some Jeeps came with Buick V6 (aka “Jeep Dauntless”) power. Photo by Kaiser-Jeep


The cut-down version of the Buick 215 appeared early in the going, with the “Fireball” 198-cubic-inch V6 available in 1962 Buick Specials. Like most V8 engines, the crankshaft of the Buick 215 had two connecting rods per journal; if you use a cut-down V8-style crankshaft to make a V6 crank using this philosophy (in order to save money by reusing a bunch of the V8’s tooling and components), the resulting engine will be an “odd-fire” design with cylinders alternating fire at 90° and 150° of crankshaft rotation. The odd-fire Buick V6s felt and sounded pretty unpleasant, but they made good power for their size and proved to be quite rugged. GM produced 198- and 225-cubic-inch Buick V6s through the 1967 model year, at which point Kaiser-Jeep bought the tooling and built “Dauntless” V6s through 1971. Yes, the Buick V6 family tree is an especially gnarled one.



Supercharged 1992 Oldsmobile V6 engine

Once back in GM’s hands, production of the Buick V6 exploded starting in the 1975 model year and continuing through 2008. Photo by Oldsmobile Division, General Motors


After certain geopolitical realities conspired to double the cost of go-go juice in North America, the suits at GM freaked out due to a dearth of engines that sucked a bit less fuel than their bestiary of big-cube V8s. Making a quick phone call to Kenosha, they bought back all the Dauntless V6 tooling that had been gathering dust since American Motors took over Kaiser-Jeep and proceeded to churn out 231-cubic-inch V6s starting in the 1975 model year. In 1977, GM finally sprang for an even-fire crankshaft, with cylinders now firing every 120 degrees, which went a long way to de-harshify the “gallon” engine. Every extant-in-1975 GM division went on to put 231s (later renamed the 3.8 and then the 3800, as part of the communist infiltration of American institutions rising influence of the metric system) and other Buick V6s in their machines. Versions with other displacements, ranging from 3.0 to to 4.1 liters, different bellhousing patterns, different deck heights, et cetera, came and went, as did superchargers and turbochargers, but the heart of the Buick V6 design remained the same all the way through the 2008 Buick Lucerne.












[ad_2]

Source link

Bringing influencer marketing to small businesses, Unity Influence raises $1 million

[ad_1]


Influencer marketing is the “in” thing right now that all the hip brands are using to stay relevant with their even hipper young audiences.

While it used to be the province of big brands cutting big deals with big influencers, there’s a second or third tier to the influencer market — one that’s more targeted to specific niches — and one that’s been hard for small and medium-sized businesses to crack.

Well, Unity Influence believes it has a low-cost, machine-learning-enabled solution to connect these micro-influencers with the small businesses who want to use their targeted reach for marketing purposes … and open up a new category to the benefits of influencer pitches. And the company just launched from its private beta to take on new customers.

The company, currently working out of offices in South San Francisco and Los Angeles, was founded by Jacobo Lumbreras, who previously worked for the employee assessment service Yoi Corp., and Patrick Ip, who previously ran small and medium-sized business retention for Google’s AdWords business.

The two men are members of the Kairos Society, and first met at StartingBloc, a fellowship and training program for social entrepreneurs.

Both had been mulling how to build an influencer marketing engine that would be more accessible to small businesses… and arguably more successful than the standard AdWords campaigns and Facebook ads that are the typical ways that small businesses drive traffic online.

Despite the lack of transparency or data on the efficacy of influencer marketing, Ip and Lumbreras see an opportunity to expand the existing market and bring some technological efficiency to the process.

That’s not to say there aren’t already companies trying to carve out space. Companies like Nuvi, SocialToaster, Izea, Scrunch, and Babblebox all tout influencer marketing solutions.

Brands spent around $570 million on influencer marketing, according to an eMarketer survey cited by Digiday. The same article broke down some other numbers and found the price range per post for influencers with between 500,000 and 1 million followers falls between $5,000 and $10,000.

What Lumbreras and Ip say they offer is a system that is more automated than their competitors, which the two said act more like traditional advertising agency shops.

Most startups in the influencer advertising world require manual searches for influencers and manual approval of contracts. That creates additional costs and friction in the buying process, that Ip argues Unity alleviates.

“At Google I worked on advertiser retention. And one of the things we wrestled with was high churn with small business customers,” Ip said.

The lesson was to make the process as simple as possible. So the company has users fill out a single form for the business they’re in and the types of audience they want to reach. Unity dos the rest and charges only $200 for a campaign.

“For us, our focus is on what we call micro-influencers,” said Ip. “If you get a big influencer their engagement rate is 2% to 3%. With micro-influencers it’s 6% and for our power users it’s 10% to 12%.”

The influencer marketing world will only gain ground, according to Ip, because organic reach is “getting killed”.

For the company, the categories that are most active right now are food and fitness. Brands in each category are always looking to find new ways to reach an audience and gain that critical first foothold in their market. Often, an influencer endorsement can help.

The argument was strong enough to attract 9 angel investors to back the company, including

“We’re trying to build this third way,” between native advertising and traditional targeting, says Ip. “We’re trying to do human advertising and human content, but do it at internet scale.”

Featured Image: Sonia Martinez / EyeEm/Getty Images

[ad_2]

Source link

Spectacle are the Latest Fashion Trends & Gadgets | FNF News



Spectacle are the Latest Fashion Trends & Gadgets Watch Fast N Facts @ FNF News for latest updates! Stay Tuned by subscribing us! https://goo.gl/huvAKv …

source