It’s a new year, but drama in the WordPress community keeps going. Automattic, the company that runs WordPress.com, said that it would reduce its contribution to WordPress core, the open-source project that acts as the backbone of most of Automattic’s products and ensures the longevity of WordPress as a technology and community. Automattic CEO and […]

© 2024 TechCrunch. All rights reserved. For personal use only.

• Andrew Lambrecht rented a 2023 Polestar 2 to compare it to his 2021 Tesla Model 3.
• He discovered the Polestar 2 has a premium feel but lacks efficiency and tech compared to Tesla.
• If he were in the market for a new EV, he would choose the Tesla Model 3 Long Range RWD.

Last summer, I bought my second used Tesla Model 3, a 2021 Long Range AWD in the low $20,000 range, with incentives. I considered several other options but decided to buy another Model 3 for its engaging driving dynamics, wickedly fast acceleration, solid tech, and reliable powertrain.

I enjoy driving my Model 3, but the market has grown to include many more attractive options than just Tesla, like the Polestar 2, a four-door that arrived in the US in late 2020. It boasts a clean yet muscular design and solid, but not groundbreaking, range, charging, and performance.

The Polestar 2 looks like a good car on paper but flies below the radar. To learn more about the sporty sedan, I rented one from Hertz for a week to test it at $48 per day, which included mandatory airport fees and taxes. For the purpose of this story, Business Insider compensated me for the rental price.

Who is Polestar?

Polestar is a Swedish automotive upstart founded by Volvo and China-based Geely Holding Group in 2017. The electric vehicle maker offers three electric cars: the 2 sedan, the 3 SUV, and the 4 crossover.

Having roots with Volvo, Polestars and Volvos share a lot of components. Volvo recently divested from Polestar, though the two automakers still collaborate on manufacturing and engineering ventures.

Polestar 2: First impressions

When I picked up the Polestar 2, I noticed that my rental was the base version with a 2023 Dual Motor but no added packages besides upgraded 20-inch wheels. That said, all models' exteriors and interiors look virtually the same aside from different trim pieces and a glass roof.

As soon as you enter the Polestar, its Scandinavian vibe is evident. Its muscle car-esque proportions and higher-raked windshield make it feel like you're in a cocoon. A high-sitting center console, standard metal roof, and dark headliner material give the Polestar a sporty, mature, and premium vibe.

It feels well-built. The doors with framed windows produce a solid "thunk" when closing, and the blinker stocks, drive selector, and steering wheel all have a high-end feel.

There are some hard-touch plastics here and there (more than in a Tesla), but elements like the brushed metal door handles redirect your focus. The Polestar 2 feels better built than my older Model 3 but is on par with the refreshed 2024 version. I can see buyers preferring either.

On the road with the Polestar 2

Despite being an AWD electric sedan like the Tesla Model 3, the most noticeable difference is the weight. The Polestar 2 weighs 4,650 pounds — the big battery Model 3 weighs 4,019. 600 pounds is a sizable difference, and you can feel it when taking corners.

Still, the Polestar 2 is a rapid vehicle. With 402 horsepower, it can hustle to 60 in about 4.5 seconds. Unlike the Model 3, you can launch it by pressing your left foot on the brake pedal and right foot on the accelerator, then letting the brake go.

On the road, the Polestar 2 also does an excellent job of minimizing vibrations. While the new Model 3 is much better in this regard, there's a notable difference with my outgoing Model 3.

Another benefit is the added ground clearance and lower plastic cladding. While it's no rugged SUV, the Polestar 2 is capable of light off-roading with 6 inches of ground clearance.

Polestar range and charging

During my final day with the Polestar, I drove through the North Carolina mountains and stopped at a 350-kilowatt EA station outside Asheville. I recorded around 30 minutes to go from 17 to 80% charged. In that time, the charger dispensed 53 kilowatt-hours, which cost $30.91. This charging time is fine but not revolutionary.

The Polestar 2 has a peak charge rate of 150 kilowatts but dropped below the 100-kilowatt threshold by around 55%. The Model 3 has a peak of 250 kilowatts, but it sees a similar drop to the 100-kilowatt mark at around 60% charge. The big difference is its efficiency. The Polestar has a battery similar in capacity to my Model 3, but it can't go as far on a charge.

I recorded an estimated 224 miles of range at 70 miles per hour. My 2021 Model 3 can get around 270 miles within that speed range. Since the Polestar 2 isn't as efficient as the Tesla Model 3, it'll need more energy to travel the same distance, increasing the cost.

I never had any anxiety with the Polestar, as its range was still more than ample for my driving, averaging over 100 miles per day. When I get to campus, I plug in and head to class.

Average tech and missing safety features

Despite having a sticker price above $50,000, the Polestar had virtually no safety features. This one didn't have adaptive cruise control, lane centering assist, or even a blind spot monitor. For comparison, every new Tesla, Hyundai, Kia, Volkswagen, and Toyota EV comes with adaptive cruise control as standard.

Another disappointing area of the Polestar 2 is its lackluster technology. While the Polestar features two crisp displays powered by Google software, the computer chip powering them is an Intel A3900 chip, which debuted in 2016. The result is a display that can be laggy and somewhat unresponsive.

Nevertheless, it's still better than other systems I've used before. The Google-based system effortlessly adds charging stops, telling you what percentage you'll arrive with and how long you'll need to charge, but for a fresh-faced automaker, it trails behind Rivian and Tesla.

Verdict

I liked many things about the Polestar but wouldn't buy a new one. If I were looking at the new market, the updated Tesla Model 3 Long Range RWD is the better buy. It offers 363 miles of range, better charging, more standard features, and a lower price tag.

If you're buying used with a budget in the mid to upper-$20,000 range, the Polestar 2 is worth a look. Just due to the sheer number of Teslas on the road, the 2 is refreshing. It drives well, has a decent range, and has an alluring Scandinavian aura.

While the Model 3 started it all, the Polestar is a solid alternative that checks different boxes. There's a lot to like about it, and I will miss my time driving it.

• The Front Man in "Squid Game" is Hwang In-ho, detective Hwang Jun-ho's brother.
• One fan theory suggests that In-ho could be related to another character in the series.
• It's not impossible, but the evidence isn't overwhelming.

In season two of "Squid Game," the game's steward — known as the Front Man, or Hwang In-ho under the mask — enters the game himself. Though he's already related to one other character in the show, a new theory suggests he could be further tied to the games.

In season one, detective Hwang Jun-ho (Wi Ha-jun) infiltrated the games in search of his older brother In-ho (Lee Byung-hun). In-ho wasn't a player in the games with Seong Gi-hun (Lee Jung-jae), however — he was the one running them. But in season two, In-ho infiltrates the games as player 001 using the name Oh Young-il.

In-ho mostly seems to be there to break Gi-hun's spirit, treating him like a comrade until he sabotages Gi-hun's rebellion in the season finale. He's not the first player 001 to betray Gi-hun's trust: In season one, the game's creator Oh Il-nam plays alongside Gi-hun as well before revealing his true identity in the outside world.

One moment in season two has fans thinking that In-ho and Il-nam may be further connected — but it's far from conclusive.

Fans speculate that Il-nam is In-ho's father — because of two lines about milk

In season one, episode three, Gi-hun asks one of the guards distributing snacks to players if he could trade his regular milk for chocolate milk, saying that he's never been able to digest plain milk. The guard refuses, but Il-nam remarks on Gi-hun's preferences.

"I bet your father spanked you a lot when you were young," Il-nam says.

"How did you know?" Gi-hun asks.

"My son was just like you," Il-nam replies.

In season two, episode five, In-ho doesn't drink his plain milk either. After the guards serve the players a similar bread and milk snack, In-ho passes his milk to the pregnant Jun-hee instead of drinking it.

"I don't drink plain milk," he tells her.

The "milk theory" has proliferated on social media platforms like Reddit and X. However, one image in support of the theory being circulated online includes inaccurate dialogue.

The above screenshot, which was also posted to the r/squidgame subreddit, simplifies the dialogue in both scenes. Il-nam never tells Gi-hun, "you are just like my son he couldn't drink milk too," and In-ho never says, "here, I can't drink it anyway."

To be fair, the original dialogue in each respective scene isn't that different — but it is slightly more nuanced.

The 'milk theory' raises some other questions

A twist like this would feel a bit out of character for "Squid Game," particularly given that the show has already pulled a secret-family-member twist with the Front Man already. That doesn't necessarily mean it couldn't happen, but the evidence isn't overwhelming.

First, Il-nam says several times in season one that he has a son, singular. In the season finale, he tells Gi-hun on his deathbed that "long ago, I once lived in a house in an alley just like that one with my wife and son."

However, in season two, we learn that In-ho and Jun-ho are half brothers who share a father because Jun-ho's mother refers to In-ho as her stepson. If Il-nam was In-ho's father, he should be Jun-ho's as well.

That doesn't fully rule out the theory: it's possible that Il-nam abandoned In-ho with Jun-ho's mother, and that he didn't raise Jun-ho or consider him a son. Still, there's not much to go on.

If In-ho were Il-nam's son, the implications would be severe depending on the strength of their relationship as adults and if they knew of the others' existence before In-ho entered the games. At worst, it would mean that Il-nam didn't provide his son the money to save his wife's life, and knowingly let him participate in the games. At best, it would mean that they reunited after In-ho joined, and won, the games in 2015.

Furthermore, Il-nam and In-ho give the same surname, Oh, in the games, but they don't share one in real life. Il-nam tells Gi-hun in the season one finale that he didn't lie about his name in the games, but as far as we know, In-ho is lying about his: In-ho's true last name, which he shares with his brother, is Hwang.

Ultimately, it's not impossible that In-ho is Il-nam's son, but the evidence is far from conclusive. The milk thing is weird, sure — but lactose intolerance does not a paternal relationship make. After that cliffhanger ending, we'll have to wait for season three to see if the show goes any further with this particular thread.

"Squid Game" is streaming on Netflix.

• Microsoft managers use forms to requests retention bonuses for employee they can't afford to lose.
• One such document, viewed by BI includes, a field specific to employees' AI contributions.
• Microsoft AI employees earn a lot more than colleagues, according to payroll data viewed by BI.

Some managers at Microsoft may be trying harder to retain talented employees with AI know-how, according to an internal document viewed by Business Insider.

Microsoft managers use these types of documents to make the case for retention bonuses. Prompts include questions such as "What harm is done if employee leaves Microsoft?"

Managers can request special stock or cash awards to help keep employees who are most important to the company's strategy. One such document viewed by BI includes a separate field specific to employees' contributions in AI.

"In the context of AI transformation as a key priority, please indicate if this individual is critical AI talent and share the risk to the AI initiative/s if talent is not retained," the document asks Microsoft managers.

This question was added to the document recently, according to a person familiar with the situation. It was prepared for a specific, large group inside Microsoft. However, it's unclear if the AI question is being added to similar retention documents in other parts of the company.

A Microsoft spokesperson said the company does not have a central form for special stock and cash award requests, and organizations and teams can choose whether to add different fields, depending on what their strategic priorities are.

Still, the addition of the AI question to this specific document suggests that the AI talent wars may be pushing some parts of Microsoft to do more to prevent poaching by rivals.

Google, OpenAI, Meta, and other tech companies are racing to develop the most powerful AI models and the best generative AI tools, and they need employees who know the technical details of how to craft these products. That's caused bidding wars for some talent, along with multimillion-dollar compensation packages sometimes.

The company has already prioritized AI talent when it comes to compensation.

As of September, average compensation in Microsoft's AI group was about 37% higher than the average for all of the company's US employees. Software engineers working in AI, for example, earned 48% more than the average software engineer at the company, according to a payroll spreadsheet shared with BI.

In 2023, during a leadership crisis at OpenAI, Microsoft CTO Kevin Scott said the software giant would hire hundreds of OpenAI employees and match their current compensation.

He made the announcement in the midst of job cuts and a salary freeze at Microsoft, which made some employees furious.

Are you a Microsoft employee or do you have insight to share? Contact reporter Ashley Stewart via the encrypted messaging app Signal (+1-425-344-8242) or email ([email protected]). Use a nonwork device.