标签：#car

If you're interviewing at Amazon this year, you've probably read that you need to "prepare STAR stories." What most guides don't tell you is exactly how Amazon uses STAR differently from every other company — and what interviewers are silently scoring you against while you talk. Here's the complete 2026 breakdown: the cheat sheet, the full question bank, scored example answers, and the four mistakes that get candidates rejected even when their stories are genuinely impressive. Why Amazon STAR Is Different Amazon evaluates every behavioral answer against its 16 Leadership Principles. This isn't just culture marketing — interviewers are trained to map your stories to specific LPs and give them discrete scores. A Bar Raiser isn't just listening; they're running a rubric. The STAR formula at Amazon has specific time allocations that most candidates ignore: Situation (10%): Set the context in 20–30 seconds max Task (10%): What was specifically your responsibility Action (50%): What you did — not your team, not your manager Result (30%): Quantified outcomes only That weighting is the whole game. Most candidates spend 60% of their answer on Situation and Task, then rush through Action and Result — which is exactly backwards from what gets high scores. The "I" Rule: The Single Biggest Reason Candidates Fail Bar Raisers flag one thing more than any other: candidates who say "we" during the Action phase. Weak answer: "We decided to refactor the codebase, and we deployed a caching layer to fix the latency issue." Strong answer: "I identified the bottleneck using distributed tracing. I proposed the Redis caching layer to my tech lead and personally implemented the proof-of-concept over a weekend before bringing it to the team." Amazon hires individuals. If you can't cleanly separate your contribution from the group's work, interviewers have no signal on whether you were the driver or just along for the ride. Every sentence in your Action phase should start with "I." 30 Amazon S

The pale-blue Ojai vehicles will start picking up members of the public in California and Arizona today.

After several months of testing, Waymo is finally ready to invite non-employee passengers into its newest vehicle, the Zeekr RT minivan, which has been rebranded as Ojai. Waymo says it will begin offering "select riders" access in San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Phoenix, before "gradually" expanding to more riders and cities. Trips will be free […]

Today, I’m talking with Wassym Bensaid, the chief software officer at Rivian, and the co-CEO of Rivian’s platform joint venture with Volkswagen, which everyone just calls RV Tech. That joint venture kicked off about a year and a half ago with a nearly $6 billion investment from Volkswagen. It effectively puts Wassym in charge of […]

A colleague said something to me recently that I keep coming back to: "Often, by the time you've finished articulating a complex problem for the AI, you've already solved it yourself." It sounds almost like a joke. You open a chat window, start typing out your problem in careful detail — and somewhere in the middle of the second paragraph, the answer appears. Not from the AI. From you. If you've worked with LLMs seriously, you've probably experienced this. And I think it points to something important about what is actually changing in our craft — something that goes beyond the usual conversation about automation and job displacement. The Rubber Duck, Promoted Developers have known for decades that explaining a problem out loud helps solve it. The classic technique involves a rubber duck: you place it on your desk, narrate your code to it, and the act of articulation forces you to confront the assumptions you'd quietly made. The duck never responds. That's not the point. The LLM is a rubber duck that occasionally says something useful back. But even when it doesn't — even when the response is generic or slightly off — the discipline of formulating the prompt has already done its work. You've had to be precise. You've had to strip away ambiguity. You've had to decide what actually matters. That process is not a workaround. It is thinking. The Inversion of the Workflow In the pre-AI era, the typical development workflow looked something like this: you had a rough mental model of the solution, you started coding, and you discovered the edge cases along the way. The code was exploratory. The thinking happened during the writing. With AI assistance, that workflow inverts. Vague inputs produce vague outputs — the model has no way to compensate for an underspecified problem. So precision becomes mandatory upfront. You have to think before you type, not while you type. This is a more demanding cognitive posture. It requires holding the full shape of a problem in your head be

I first realized there was an issue with Kia's flagship EV9 when I tried to unlock my car last year. The hulking three-row SUV was sitting on my driveway completely dead. The key didn't work, the app connection to the car was gone, and I was already late to an appointment. Luckily, I had prepared […]

Two years ago, when I got my first freelance client, I was still in my final semester of college. A...

The advice was correct. That's what makes it interesting. A creator with a large audience recently described the problem precisely: unused project ideas atrophy. They gave the prescription: externalize the idea, commit to a 30-60-90 day sprint, get into a community that holds you accountable, treat a deployed URL as the only real milestone. The audience listened. The ideas stayed unshipped. Not because the advice was wrong. Because advice is not a mechanism. The gap between diagnosis and structure There's a category of knowledge that's completely useless without enforcement. "You should exercise consistently." Correct. Also irrelevant for the 80% of people paying for gym memberships they don't use. "You should ship your side project in 30 days instead of perfecting it." Also correct. Developers have been hearing this for years. The projects that were "almost done" last year are still almost done. The advice identifies the problem. The problem persists. The gap between them is not information. It's structure. Discipline is the tax on misalignment One phrase from the transcript stayed with me: "Discipline is the tax on misalignment." The insight is sharper than it sounds. When what you're building doesn't connect to why you're building it, every work session requires a new act of will. You're not building forward momentum — you're paying an interest payment on a debt you haven't quite defined. This is why most sprint systems fail. They give you the structure (30 days, daily tasks, accountability partner) but skip the alignment check. The structure holds for two weeks. Then it becomes another system you're "almost following." What the AI makes worse Here's where it gets specific for developers using AI tools on side projects. The AI is genuinely useful. It generates architectures, writes boilerplate, outlines features, summarizes where you are. The output looks like forward motion. But the AI has no ground truth about your actual progress. It has your files and your pr

I understand why so many people are questioning software engineering right now. Every week there’s another headline saying AI will replace developers. Junior engineers are worried there won’t be jobs. Senior engineers are wondering how long their experience will stay valuable. And honestly, if you spend enough time on tech Twitter or LinkedIn, it can start feeling like the industry is collapsing in real time. But after using AI heavily in my day-to-day work as a software engineer, I’ve started seeing things differently. AI didn’t make me feel less useful. It made me feel more capable. Before AI became part of my workflow, a lot of engineering time disappeared into things that were mentally draining but necessary: repetitive refactoring debugging small issues writing boilerplate digging through documentation trying to remember syntax cleaning up legacy code writing SQL queries optimizing simple functions translating vague tickets into technical tasks None of these tasks were impossible. They were just time-consuming. Now, a lot of that friction is reduced dramatically. One of the biggest changes I noticed was backlog cleanup. Tasks that used to sit untouched because nobody wanted to deal with them suddenly became manageable. Not because AI magically solved everything. But because it helped reduce the “mental startup cost” of difficult tasks. Sometimes all you need is: a starting point a refactored example help understanding unfamiliar code a faster debugging path quick documentation summaries That momentum matters more than people realize. A task that feels overwhelming at 9AM suddenly becomes achievable when AI helps break it down. I also noticed we started delivering faster as a team. Not in a “replace developers with AI” kind of way. More in a: less context switching faster research quicker prototyping fewer hours stuck on repetitive problems better ticket breakdowns improved communication kind of way. The interesting part is that AI didn’t just help with coding.

Ferrari fans don’t like the design of the new Luce EV, an electric four-door sedan that just doesn’t look like the Ferraris of old. It was designed with help from Jony Ive’s LoveFrom, but what worked for Ive at Apple isn’t working for Ferrari. The Luce’s launch immediately preceded a stock drop that even an […]

Designed by Jony Ive and a host of ex-Cupertino colleagues, the Luce shows us what might have been had Apple made good on its $10 billion bet.

The ban for model year 2027 onward began under Biden and has been enacted by Trump.

The company is mapping Alexandria and, soon, Arlington—right across from the power center of Washington, DC.