Understanding is reached. It’s always a game of who you not not what you know at that level, though what you know is quite important especially when it comes to knowing about who you’re dealing with and how to work them.
And also in fairness- those events and dinners and such can be stressful. You don’t generally get to just “be yourself” and “enjoy the moment.” You have specific goals and you’re watching what you say and do and who you spend time with and all these subtle elements of your behavior. It’s a performance. You are trying to put forward an image and you have to be mindful of perception. Does Murdoch hate the smell of fish? Can’t order fish. Does Jones think salad or anything but red meat is a sign of lack of masculinity or weakness? Gotta get a “manly meal.”

Now I want to be clear- sadly, that is actually not a total waste of time. Do you think Elon just moved his main operations to Texas or opened the gigafactory in China with someone email requests? There is a lead up. You play some golf or have some dinner or meet someone at a party and they mention, often subtly and casually, some thoughts on making a move. There are usually a few meetings and trips to feel each other out and negotiate the terms. “Now Roy, I’m very happy where am at, but IF we were to move our operations, I can’t see moving to anywhere that gdidn’t promise us XYZ…” even that is a bit “on the nose” and these conversations often remain “hypothetical” and general and get more specific until the lawyers get involved after an

So a big chunk of those hours is sitting and listening to people talk about what they are doing, and lots of often petty and stupid arguments which other entitled babies about “vision.” Then, especially for “hip” companies like Tesla- a bunch of those hours are spent… basically partying. You take important people to dinner, you attend events and “network” and “lobby.” You golf or smoke cigars or ride around in Epstein’s plane or some equivalent thereof to get “face time” and act as an “ambassador.”

using subtle manipulation. Instead of telling a director or VP they have to have something done by XYZ they might manipulate the director or VP into volunteering to beat goals through tactics of psychology and social pressure etc. They hear “blockers,” so at the employee level- when Dean from department 2 won’t reply to your emails even though you cc’d the management chain for your departments, that’s an employee blocker. Your manager is supposed to go to deans manager and compel a reply. Directors and VP’s can hit blockers too- at that level they go to the HDIC who goes to the board or a committee- for external problems they may contact their connections in government or industry, media etc.

Lastly, it can just be a cycle. If you make a popular toy in purple and it sells well, when buyers for sex toy distributors look at sales data they will see purple sells. They’ll generally then want to buy purple because it is a popular or at least “safe” color that they feel will sell well. Because buyers order purple, producers will look at data and see purple is what sells to buyers, so they will make purple and the cycle continues.

the same is true of sex toys. So if you have 4000 green toys and people don’t buy the green, but everyone is buying purple, your retailers or customers will order more purple but avoid the green. The green sits on the shelf dusty and you have to pay more for a small run or second run of purple and eventually likely take a loss on the unsold green ones. Flesh tones can stain and discolor and there are so many shades and preferences that they can be impractical, and wether it is an anatomically correct toy or some crazy looking thing the flesh color can be creepy to many. The “uncanny valley” or it can be threatening, and for many that enjoy penetration but aren’t attracted to men, they don’t want a flesh colored toy that makes them think of a man, making the toy not emulate a human penis can make it seem less threatening or vulgar or can remove the mental adversity to male genitals which extends beyond those who aren’t attracted to males into the more modest or reserved etc.

Purple is often rated as a “sexy” color by people. It has many traditional associations such as royalty and it has more modern associations. Many feminists consider it a color representing female empowerment and many LGBTQ+ consider purple a representational color, so regardless of many individual psychological factors purple is a color most people find appealing and suitable in sex toys.
This feeds into economics where making a product in a single color is generally cheaper than making multiple colors. The cost of 100 identical items to manufacture is usually less than doing 30/30/40 in three different colors. The materials are usually cheaper in bulk and once you have the items the packaging and labeling like bar codes, warehousing and shipping are usually cheaper and easier for a single product than many. You also don’t have to worry about duds. If you have 6 power ranger type actions figures in 6 colors there will usually be one that is most popular and one that doesn’t sell well

So in this particular case, while TE is a sack of crap in general and gets lots of undo credit or set out to repress those who often had better ideas etc- in this one case of the light build he often gets an unfair shake. He didn’t invent electric lighting and isn’t responsible for all bulbs, that idea comes from the simplified way they he is credited as “inventing the lightbulb.” He did invent and pattent one specific and enduringly popular design. Tesla wasn’t even in the country and wouldn’t be for some years when Edison applied for the pattent so there is little room there for an “Edison screwed Tesla” case on light bulbs. Tesla did do some instrumental work in public street lighting and high power or speciality lights for the military and others though and should get credit for his work.

Conventional bulbs like incandescent bulbs can last magnitude longer if they aren’t switched on and off regularly. The process of switching the bulb on and off causes a momentary surge of power and the heat cycling of going room temperature to hundreds and thousands of degrees faster than the blink of an eye cause stress and wear. Since it isn’t practical or advisable in most applications to leave a bulb on constantly at all times, the consumer use case is in part to blame for the limited lifespan of many bulbs and their ultimate failure.

Economy of scale also helped as previously bulb makers were reluctant to make extremely long lasting bulbs as they were keenly aware that they could put themselves out of business. In the modern age people tend to care less for their goods and even if a bulb lasts decades the demand in numbers for new bulbs is high enough that they have far less worry of losing sales from long lived bulbs. In their defense while “forever bulbs” were invented and at least one bulb has been in continuous use for over a century, those designed generally weren’t practical for consumers. The output is often too low or reduces with age, there are other factors as well that meant most consumers won’t buy such bulbs anyway. One of the biggest killers of many incandescent and other lighting technologies is cycling.

.. household and consumer applications. So 40 or so many years ago when you saw a lightbulb, the ones in your home or your flashlight- it was usually incandescent, possible fluorescent (some hole lighting and much office and comercial lighting), but today that is not so much the case and for the generation being born right now the incandescent bulb will likely be a rarity, many may never actually see or touch one.
Stagnation in lighting isn’t all or even primarily Edison’s fault actually- a massive criminal conspiracy of global light manufacturers (it sounds crazy but look it up) through the early 20th century had set certain agreements on the longevity and other aspects of bulbs to maximize profits to bulb makers. Various events like the Second World War essentially demanded developments in lighting and broke this conspiracy for the most part and so into the mid and late 20th century we began to see renewed innovation in lighting.

The “sole inventor” is rare- arguable non existent. Edison built on the work of others who had researched electric lighting- as did Tesla. Neither man was the first to have the idea you could use electricity to produce light or even the first man to harness that idea and make light from electricity. Edison did however create a bulb that was relatively practical to actually use. One that could be manufactured with some degree of economy of scale and didn’t rely heavily on hand crafting or exotic materials and in use didn’t require specialized and extreme care and maintenance. His credit is often given as “the light bulb” but that’s because people are lazy or ignorant so don’t want to say or wouldn’t understand that he invented a specific type of incandescent light that formed the basis of modern incandescent lighting. Which is a bit of a moot point in many developed 21st century nations as the incandescent light is a sundown technology and the LED is the current standard for most..

That may confuse some so let me be clear:
If you have a question you need answered like what are your specific odds of being bitten by a shark in the specific beach you are vacationing at, you don’t want to consider a broad average that includes people swimming in areas that have no sharks. Those people would never be bitten because even though they are in the ocean they won’t encounter a shark to bite them at all. You also likely don’t want to include people working 13 hour shifts in shark infested waters unless you will be in the water 13 hours a day every day and the beach is shark infested. So your specific question needs specific data to give you the most accurate and useful answer.
However let’s say you owned the beach resort and wanted to make people feel safe, then you might include places where there are no sharks in your statistic so you can say that the odds of being bitten are lower than they are and it won’t be a lie exactly- not one you’re likely liable for in court.

So it depends on what we want to know. If you want to know how likely you are to die while driving, and you follow the rules and good practices of the road, you would leave in victims of poor drivers but remove poor drivers themselves. If you wanted to know how safe the automobile was you would remove all Poor operators and their victims as the theoretical inherent safety of the automobile doesn’t include those who misuse the device or suffer from poor users as if we removed all Poor operators none of those incidents would occur. We can however use statistics to the inverse- since we can choose our data based on the question we want answered, we can also choose out data to produce the answer we want for a question.

When we look at automotive accident fatalities, when we remove incidents where people were not following traffic rules (running lights, incomplete stops, excessive speed, driving the wrong direction, failure to maintain safe distance etc..) or other unsafe or prohibited practices such as driving tired, driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol, distracted driving etc. your odds of traffic fatality plummet- but are still high because of the other stat issue- in this example removing people who cause accidents drops the danger but we didn’t remove the fatalities they cause. In other words if a drunk driver kills themselves and a car with 4 people, if we remove the drunk driver from the statistics we still have 4 victims. The victims were following the rules but were killed by someone who wasn’t. So if we remove the victims of poor operators as well, your odds of traffic fatality become almost nil.

Sanitation workers might be a group at high risk for garbage can related fatality. They work in a fast paced environment with trash cans and have a high exposure to them. What more though is what that work looks like. It often utilizes many potentially dangerous machines, cans are often lifted high above the ground, placed or moved with high mechanical force. Calling cans, being crushed or concussed by a can that is manipulated by mechanical means, etc etc. many of these statistics also don’t factor or differentiate between poor/improper and proper/advised practices.
A statistic comparing vending machine deaths to other types of death often doesn’t factor that most vending machine deaths occur when people attempt to steal or abuse the machines in unsafe manners and the machines fall on them. If you remove those instances the statistics for vending machine deaths changes dramatically.

.. or relating to radiation exposure, most are of people who did not work closely with radiation such as those in proximity to nuclear detonations and aftermath, reactor release incidents, and of course exposure through medical means or “lost source” incidents and other secondary exposure.
So we do have to look at risk factors.

In short, any random trash can is much less likely to hurt you and any random shark is much more likely to hurt you, but you will generally have thousands or hundreds of thousands or infinitely greater interactions with trash cans than sharks for the average person. Of course this brings us to the second statistical issue. This is general, it doesn’t take into account circumstance. Shark researchers and marine biologists, certain divers etc. will regularly encounter sharks close up, often in controlled environments and with safety measures. So while someone working with sharks might generously have equal interactions with trash cans and sharks, they are unlikely to be killed by a shark in general.
So the number of chances you have for an accident to happen is only one factor but is circumstantial. Radiation poisoning is a rare cause of death but few people work closely with strong ionizing radiation in environments that make poisoning likely. Of the number of historical deaths by…

Not all cars allow or require all functions. When we think of AC we think of cold air but generally the AC can be ran with the heater and you still get hot air, you just get that dehumidifying effect. Sone cars do not allow the AC to run with the heater and will automatically turn off the AC. Some cars use other methods to achieve dehumidifying or just aren’t designed to dehumidify heated cabin air at all. So individual climate control systems differ by make, year, model, etc. and this is just a general guide with examples. To close up humidity- if you do have a use case where you prefer or need to run AC and recirculate for long periods but are sensitive to dry air, there are humidifiers made for in car use and many are very affordable. Between the dehumidifying of the ac and the humidifier you can generally find a balance for comfortable and manageable humidity and cabin conditions.

If this isn’t an option or desirable, opening a window or windows can help allow moisture to escape. It can generally be a small opening aka “cracking a window.” Most modern cars with working AC shouldn't require this but older cars and sometimes newer cars too can use this trick.
Conversely- because AC dehumidifies air, it is especially true when recirculating air that you can end up with dry feeling air. If you are sensitive or have sensitive skin or certain skin conditions, this can be unpleasant. So you may choose to use AC with the recirculate button off to allow outside humid air to enter and help raise the humidity or keep air “fresher.”