The only real complex problem a start-up has to solve is making the product successful. Engineers that love "complex problems" with no love for the product / space it's in is usually a recipe for disaster.
Comments here feel a bit rough. If you've got the time, I'd recommend a read here.
Regardless of the "stats" here (absurd price point, 2 days / 18 miles, plenty of supervision), it feels the author is as self-aware as one would hope. The article, longer than necessary to be sure, is still well-written.
His experience, his feelings throughout -- make any arguments you want about them, but it feels genuine. I learned a good amount about Black Tomato et al., and regardless of their merits, they do exist and people are using them.
Oatly is a successful brand and their marketing is clever, but that doesn't mean they are "The New Coke".
Oatly has never pretended sugar is good for you, it's listed on the box, we all see it. And I don't think they should be put on blast for their use of canola oil of all things..and by the way nobody is drinking it because of the health benefits of that.
The most effective thing they did from a marketing standpoint was an anti-dairy campaign. Their biggest achievement is making people go "Yea... cow's milk is kinda weird, why wouldn't I drink an alternative that tastes just like it".
Coke, cigarettes, sugar campaigns -- They sold you on this idea that life can be more amazing if you just use this product.
Oatly did something different. They said "Hey your life can be about the same as it is now, enjoying dope milk, but without drinking cow's milk like a weirdo". And it worked.
Looks like you're ignoring the main theme here. People do choose oat milk because it is supposed to be a healthier or more sustainable alternative to cow's milk, but the reality is that it could be worse. Ignoring the GI for example is what would make it 'the new coke', like we did for sugar itself in past decades.
> People do choose oat milk because it is supposed to be a healthier or more sustainable alternative to cow's milk, but the reality is that it could be worse.
Surely the environmental costs associated with feeding and raising cows far outweigh whatever environmental impact of Oatly’s plant-based ingredients. Not sure about the health aspect though.
I always thought the reason why people choose milk alternatives is they're either vegan or intolerant. Personally I find oat milk the least unappetizing.
I like HuK, but his thoughts on WC3 are off-base. He says:
Economy/Resource - 2.8 / 10
"However when comparing it to the SC universe, WC3 has always been underwhelming to me when comparing its resource counterparts of mineral/vespene. Gold obviously being the most important, with wood generally feeling more like a chore than something I want to collect. To me the most limiting factor is the upkeep cost, a mechanic that not only limits strategies, but also deters expanding or larger scale battles."
This misses the point of WC3 vs. Starcraft / Starcraft 2. In Warcraft 3, one of the most important resources not present in Starcraft is your heroes and their levels. If you watch any professional WC3 game, there is rarely a discussion of who's ahead based on economy (although that is a factor at times) - but there is always discussion on hero levels. The importance of creep routes and disrupting creeping for heroes / races with favorable creep is a huge component of the game.
Also, upkeep is a specific choice meant to reward players who don't inflate their armies for the sake of it. Grubby said it on his stream, in Starcraft, it is universally a good decision to spend your money as soon as you have it. It's not strategy if it's always a good thing to do. Whether you spend it on X, Y, or Z is where the strategy comes in, but as long as you spend it something, you can be confident that it was better than not spending it / banking it. In WC3, that too is up for debate. You can spend on X, Y, Z (units, hero items, expansion, another hero, tech, upgrades) but at certain times in the game, it is also perfectly valid to hold on to that money for a specific reason. I think this is a smart design decision, and is one of the reasons why WC3 has some interesting dynamics.
This is my perspective as a really big fan of both games. They're different games, but it's clear HuK is using Starcraft as the rubric. No game is as Starcraft as Starcraft, Warcraft is its own game with its own complexities.
Article presents opinions based on a broad and incomplete picture. This might be the most harmful type of publication right now, the author wants to justify his feelings of "The U.S.'s liberty is expendable, but it doesn't have to be" when the reality is the U.S. was not equipped in the ways S. Korea were. He wanted to make a specific point and ignored the obvious facts that would make the point invalid.
