• 0 Posts
  • 14 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 29th, 2023

help-circle



  • I agree with your comment, even though I have no idea on the technical aspects. What I can weigh in on is crisis management, especially communication.

    Boeing needs to take control of the situation and actively start communicating and showing that they are working on fixing this thing. In Situational Crisis Communication Theory you would call it a rebuild approach. They tried denial, they tried downplaying, it’s not working. A rebuild strategy is usually the last resort, as things like admitting your mistakes and fixing them are rarely appreciated by investors. Furthermore it’s usually a huuuuge cost to do a recall on that scale. But Boeing need to show the public that they are actively working on improving the situation, to earn back their trust. So at least a partial recall should be considered.

    You’re exactly right in your first paragraph about the news. The media and the public are very sensitive to Boeing quality issues rn. These articles won’t stop unless one of three things happen. Either Boeing gets their shit together and gets some effective crisis management and communication done, the company goes bust, or something else turns up in the news that replaces this. The third option will be the most likely, but it will also haunt them forever. It’s like that exploding galaxy note 7 situation. There were articles about that for every new generation of Galaxy Note, despite Samsung doing pretty well in investigating the issues. And while the following Note phones sold alright, the whole thing was a significant loss of trust and money for Samsung and enabled competitors like Huawai to catch up.


  • What they do right is having a duopoly with Airbus, and great military contracts. So investors know that even if things are shit rn, they will probably get better again.

    Furthermore, while I agree that Boeing probably will not go bankrupt over this, the valuation sometimes is not a great indicator of what’s going on internally. Enron was worth over 60 billion. Half a year later they were at zero. Now I’m not saying Boeing is nearly that bad, but they are in some trouble for sure.





  • Generally in games there is a rule called WYSIWYG, unless players agree on something different ahead. It’s short for “what you see is what you get”. So if you want your boyz to have stikk bombz you should equip some models with them. They cost some points but you can use them in battle. Once those guys die your squad won’t have the ability to throw them. Usually with smaller details like grenades players would agree to make an exception if you don’t have the models for it. Bigger weapons like rocket launchers, gun choice, close combat weapons, etc should definitely show on the model tho. It’s too confusing to keep track otherwise. Also, idk how strict it is in tournaments, but it’s probably strictly WYSIWYG…

    Also, I haven’t played in the new edition yet, so take anything I say with a grain of salt.

    My recommendation would be to watch some games with factions you’re interested in, to learn some basic mechanics, before you decide on configurations. There are plenty on YouTube.




  • Can you give me a summary why character masks make this cutesy billionaire shit ok?

    I’m not confident enough in my knowledge about Marx‘s ideas to be arguing about that.

    I think I got a grasp on the basics, capitalism creates societal positions like owners and workers, and Bill slipped into the mask of an owner.

    But to me that does not mean that humanizing the billionaire class is a good thing. I’d rather say it makes it a worse thing, as it takes away incentives for lower classes to change the system and get rid of the owner class. How do we get anywhere close to equality if people see good ole Bill and Daddy Elon, instead of the ruthless oligarchs that they are?

    But like I said, I don’t have a good grasp on this theory so would be happy to be corrected/have it explained to me ;)