Tesla don't generate a massive loss. Teardowns suggest they'll make a profit, even from the $35,000 base model whenever that car eventually materialises. They sure as hell are making money from the $49,000 model, the cheapest they sell at this time. Especially when many people are nickel and dimed into spending even more. The biggest risk they face is that they might start losing money from sales of the model S & X (even more profit) if people end up buying $35k model 3s.
It would be fair to say their business model required a massive upfront investment and may take years to turn a profit, but that isn't the same as claiming the cars are lossmaking.
I really don't see a major difference between Apple or Tesla brands. They both sell products at a premium in excess of their production costs, their business model involves building vertical markets and they both suffer from the cult of personality.
Tesla cars are very nice overall and finally overcoming some production issues but it's funny to make valid critical points about the car, the company or Musk and watch all the defenders leap out of the woodwork.
Winters are already miserable and shitty enough without suffering it getting dark at 4:30 in the afternoon. I think most people with the exception of farmers won't mind if there is an hour's more darkness at the beginning of the day instead.
Yes expensive. Most phones come with earbuds included for the princely sum of $0 on the price of the phone. Even if they didn't, then chances are people have some laying around. Even if they were FORCED to buy a pair, $20 would acquire a very reasonable set. Configuring those earbuds is quite easy too - plug them in.
Conversely, I'm sure you could obtain a shitty pair of bluetooth earbuds for $20 but more likely you're spending a lot more, on top of which now you have two devices to charge, inferior lossy sound quality (pay a premium if you want aptX) and the added hassle of pairing the devices together.
More to the point, removing a 3.5mm jack is just a cynical attempt to upsell customers to branded earbuds. Nothing else. That little fingernail's worth of internal space is negligible compared to the utility of the feature.
Maybe for you but that's not universally true. I almost never used the headphone jack so it was a total waste of space for me.
Yeah removing that barely a finger nail's worth of internal space is really vital isn't it?
That's because you are only looking at the issue from your own perspective.
Yes, as a user of a phone who wants to plug any old pair of inexpensive earbuds into the phone.
Of course, if I were a greedy handset manufacturer who didn't want to bundle buds with the phone and wanted to upsell users to some wireless buds, then I might have a different opinion. But I'm not.
The reality is the headphone jack takes up an insignificant amount of internal space, and there is zero technical reason to remove it. Any excuse by manufacturers to the contrary is exactly that - an excuse.
"That little adapter that comes free with iphones isn't a big deal. "
Except if you lose it or reasonably expect to use a phone without a stupid dongle sticking out of the bottom of it. The only reason there is no headset jack and an ugly, losable dongle is to strongly compel people to fork out for expensive wireless earbuds.
Master and slave exactly describe the roles of a design pattern - one thing tells the other things what to do and they do it.
I very much doubt ANYBODY takes genuine offence at these terms although I'm sure a few liberal arts types might feign offence. For those, the correct answer is GTFO.
That's an issue for WebGL, not the mechanism by which a browser renders standard HTML content. For WebGL, most browsers would maintain a driver whitelist / blacklist although IMO it is still sailing dangerously close to the wind - a driver could declare itself WebGL capable (basically OpenGL ES 2/3 with the ability to reset state) and still be vulnerable in some way. Reminiscent of ActiveX controls self declaring themselves safe for scripting.
When you buy a digital app, movie, song or book, you are NOT buying a digital app, movie, song, or book. Instead you are buying a license to use that content and the license is subject to a lengthy set of terms and conditions that nobody reads.
If the platform holder so wishes they could yank that license for a multitude of reasons and you have practically zero recourse. I'm sure if you tried to sue them you'd even discover an arbitration clause. Perhaps none of this would be so bad if the digital copy were substantially cheaper than the physical one, but usually it isn't. Sometimes it costs more than the physical product.
At least with a physical product (with the exception of some software) it's yours to do with as you wish. Sell it, lend it, burn it. If a store loses the rights to sell that product, your product doesn't vaporise.
It boggles my mind that some institution like the EU hasn't sought to imbue digital property with as many rights as physical property has. If crypto currency can be a thing, then why not a transferrable rights to digital property?
Well more people got burned for one thing and possibly its the first time that the collapse has entered the public consicousness. Previous times were more niche and fewer people knew or cared.
Eventually people might furnish themselves with a clue that cryptocurrencies are hyped as an "investment" when in actuality they're just crowd-sourced ponzi / pyramid schemes or in some instances outright scams (many ICOs).
I recall watching a BBC documentary about a large town, in Africa IIRC, and people just slung their garbage in the river. Just dumped it all in. Human waste, glass, plastic, metal, everything. And the factories dumped pollutants like dyes and other assorted toxic materials in there too. Consequently the river downstream to this craphole was completely dead and covered floating garbage.
I don't think there is an easy solution to this. However a good start might be to require countries receiving foreign aid to demonstrate advances in sanitation and pollution control and hold them to it.
I know if I were in that business, I'd definitely be putting money into developing drones. The US coast guard probably can't even detect a small naval drone carrying a 5-10 kilos of product. And if the drones had solar panels and GPS they could travel large distances, even up river inlets to be picked up. Good luck trying to stop that.
Seems to be a person who is a republican in the traditional sense - small government, free market etc. and is exasperated by the idiot at the helm. Writing an op-ed, even anonymously comes with a great deal of personal risk so I have to assume they're sincere in what they wrote. Although to be honest, I don't get the "adults in the room" argument unless the person is ex-military and feels honorbound to do what they can to blunt the stupidity coming from the top.
All of these things could be done in a lab on Earth, far more easily in fact - string a wire between two points, to any tension and oscillate to your heart's content. Not that it would have much bearing on a space elevator in that context either given the complexity of the problem.
This seems more like a pointless stunt than anything of real scientific value.
It isn't true that you have to write from scratch. Rust and C link together quite easily allowing code to be a mix of both. e.g. Mozilla ripped out the mostly single threaded CSS engine written with C and C++ and replaced it with a multi-threaded one written in Rust. Mercurial is replacing chunks of Python and C over time with Rust with the end goal of making hg a compiled binary. And so on. A C compiler just sees a lib with a header and compiles and calls it, even though the code inside was written in Rust and therefore a lot safer.
As for Julia, we'll have to see but I visited the project's site and it seems designed more as an academic / mathematical replacement for C, Fortran, R etc.
Approximately 50% of all CVEs related to the kernel are DIRECTLY caused by the language the kernel is written in - buffer overflows, double frees, null pointers etc. If arguably some of the most seasoned, experienced programmers of C can make these mistakes what does it say of code written elsewhere? And that's with the benefit of code reviews, coverage tools, and independent scrutiny.
So all this talk of C/C++ being big boy's language and only a manly man should program it and it's your own fault if you write bugs is just so much bollocks. C and C++ are old languages and they have flaws that can be mitigated but not eliminated. That's Rust is so worthy of consideration - it eliminates that 50% of bugs by design and compiles with performance equivalent to C. Rust also makes it easier to write safe concurrent code, so performance can even exceed C/C++.
That said, I understand why the Linux kernel is kind of stuck where it is, but for new projects, or existing projects undergoing major rewrites, I would at least evaluate Rust first before defaulting to a C language.
Slashdot Mirror
It would be fair to say their business model required a massive upfront investment and may take years to turn a profit, but that isn't the same as claiming the cars are lossmaking.
Tesla cars are very nice overall and finally overcoming some production issues but it's funny to make valid critical points about the car, the company or Musk and watch all the defenders leap out of the woodwork.
If he does go to prison, I will regard him as a political prisoner, same as Phillip Danks and the founders of the Pirate Bay.
I'll regard him as a dumbass who openly broke the law, bragged about it, was arrested, indicted and will soon be sentenced for his troubles.
Why should I do that, when polls show the majority of people just want to abolish daylight savings, and now the EU agrees with that?
Winters are already miserable and shitty enough without suffering it getting dark at 4:30 in the afternoon. I think most people with the exception of farmers won't mind if there is an hour's more darkness at the beginning of the day instead.
Your heroes are jackasses and you only had to pay a small fortune to be on some shitty cruise in their presence to find out for yourself.
Conversely, I'm sure you could obtain a shitty pair of bluetooth earbuds for $20 but more likely you're spending a lot more, on top of which now you have two devices to charge, inferior lossy sound quality (pay a premium if you want aptX) and the added hassle of pairing the devices together.
More to the point, removing a 3.5mm jack is just a cynical attempt to upsell customers to branded earbuds. Nothing else. That little fingernail's worth of internal space is negligible compared to the utility of the feature.
Maybe for you but that's not universally true. I almost never used the headphone jack so it was a total waste of space for me.
Yeah removing that barely a finger nail's worth of internal space is really vital isn't it?
That's because you are only looking at the issue from your own perspective.
Yes, as a user of a phone who wants to plug any old pair of inexpensive earbuds into the phone.
Of course, if I were a greedy handset manufacturer who didn't want to bundle buds with the phone and wanted to upsell users to some wireless buds, then I might have a different opinion. But I'm not.
The reality is the headphone jack takes up an insignificant amount of internal space, and there is zero technical reason to remove it. Any excuse by manufacturers to the contrary is exactly that - an excuse.
Except if you lose it or reasonably expect to use a phone without a stupid dongle sticking out of the bottom of it. The only reason there is no headset jack and an ugly, losable dongle is to strongly compel people to fork out for expensive wireless earbuds.
I very much doubt ANYBODY takes genuine offence at these terms although I'm sure a few liberal arts types might feign offence. For those, the correct answer is GTFO.
A headphone jack takes up a neglible amount of space compared to its use. I don't see any legitimate argument for dumping it.
That's an issue for WebGL, not the mechanism by which a browser renders standard HTML content. For WebGL, most browsers would maintain a driver whitelist / blacklist although IMO it is still sailing dangerously close to the wind - a driver could declare itself WebGL capable (basically OpenGL ES 2/3 with the ability to reset state) and still be vulnerable in some way. Reminiscent of ActiveX controls self declaring themselves safe for scripting.
If the platform holder so wishes they could yank that license for a multitude of reasons and you have practically zero recourse. I'm sure if you tried to sue them you'd even discover an arbitration clause. Perhaps none of this would be so bad if the digital copy were substantially cheaper than the physical one, but usually it isn't. Sometimes it costs more than the physical product.
At least with a physical product (with the exception of some software) it's yours to do with as you wish. Sell it, lend it, burn it. If a store loses the rights to sell that product, your product doesn't vaporise.
It boggles my mind that some institution like the EU hasn't sought to imbue digital property with as many rights as physical property has. If crypto currency can be a thing, then why not a transferrable rights to digital property?
Eventually people might furnish themselves with a clue that cryptocurrencies are hyped as an "investment" when in actuality they're just crowd-sourced ponzi / pyramid schemes or in some instances outright scams (many ICOs).
I don't think there is an easy solution to this. However a good start might be to require countries receiving foreign aid to demonstrate advances in sanitation and pollution control and hold them to it.
I know if I were in that business, I'd definitely be putting money into developing drones. The US coast guard probably can't even detect a small naval drone carrying a 5-10 kilos of product. And if the drones had solar panels and GPS they could travel large distances, even up river inlets to be picked up. Good luck trying to stop that.
Seems to be a person who is a republican in the traditional sense - small government, free market etc. and is exasperated by the idiot at the helm. Writing an op-ed, even anonymously comes with a great deal of personal risk so I have to assume they're sincere in what they wrote. Although to be honest, I don't get the "adults in the room" argument unless the person is ex-military and feels honorbound to do what they can to blunt the stupidity coming from the top.
Just another meaningless logo to tick a box.
This seems more like a pointless stunt than anything of real scientific value.
Probably some worker ran a power tool into the lining and then either they or their superiors tried to patch it up paint over it to conceal the error.
What exactly is the experiment meant to prove? Moving little devices over a 10 metre taut wire isn't exactly pushing the boundaries of science.
As for Julia, we'll have to see but I visited the project's site and it seems designed more as an academic / mathematical replacement for C, Fortran, R etc.
Maybe you should read how C and C++ started life before writing something so dumb.
Perhaps you should read what I wrote again. I didn't say rewrite everything from scratch.
So all this talk of C/C++ being big boy's language and only a manly man should program it and it's your own fault if you write bugs is just so much bollocks. C and C++ are old languages and they have flaws that can be mitigated but not eliminated. That's Rust is so worthy of consideration - it eliminates that 50% of bugs by design and compiles with performance equivalent to C. Rust also makes it easier to write safe concurrent code, so performance can even exceed C/C++.
That said, I understand why the Linux kernel is kind of stuck where it is, but for new projects, or existing projects undergoing major rewrites, I would at least evaluate Rust first before defaulting to a C language.