Nobody buys a Porsche roadster to carry groceries and kids. That is a different market, which Porsche as a brand will never enter, electrically or fossil powered. They do make SUV type vehicles, but even so, their buyers are not thinking kids and groceries.
"SUV"? It looks like a station wagon to me. I can't imagine them not thinking kids and groceries.
Exactly. Having personally be stuck in rush hour traffic for two hours, and a left leg that was getting numb from holding down the clutch, I'll never own another stick for commuting purposes.
I've been driving manuals for the vast majority of 35 years, including decades of commuting. If you are holding the clutch down you are doing it wrong.
Race suspension does exactly nothing to fix the 1000lb+ battery pack. Which is what made the roadster perform so much worse than the Elise.
Going fast in a straight line has never been Porsche's thing.
A lighter smaller sports car would not need the same battery pack. The fact remains that suspension and steering are independent of the power train. Tesla performance has frightened Porsche into investigating all electric.
You keep posting this; are you unaware that taking a car round a track involves more than just raw torque? That some of the joy of driving includes navigation of twisty bends of roads. There's a reason many of the most popular car races involve bends.
Are you unaware of the fact that suspension, steering, etc are independent of the drive train? If an all electric five seater luxury sedan happens to beat a 911 Turbo S image what a car designed to be an all electric sports car can do.
People already tried Model S at Nürburgring. Conclusion: no mechanical grip, steering is numb, can't even finish single lap at sustained full power. Seriously, it is not a sports car and will never be, it is something different. Good 0-60 time doesn't make it sports car. It is heavy sedan styled minivan that is great for commuting, groceries and whatever you want, if you are ready to spend unreasonable amount of money on it.
You have missed the obvious. The question was why would Porsche build an all electric. A big luxury sedan seating five beating a 911 Turbo S explains the interest. Suspension, steering, etc are independent of the drive train and could care less whether it is all electric or internal combustion. Your criticisms are irrelevant.
Also keep in mind that Porsche is also a company that makes station wagons.
I enjoy shifting into turns, and I promise you, my car doesn't "fake" any type of "engine vroom" though speakers.
No, it fakes the cabin audio the old fashioned way, mechanically.
"Electronically synthesized noise is not a Porsche solution, so the engineers developed a new Sound Symposer that is standard on both versions of the car (911). An acoustic channel picks up intake vibrations between the throttle valve and air filter and a membrane incorporated in the channel reinforces the vibrations and transmits them as an engine sound into the cabin. The system is driver activated or deactivated via a “Sport” button that controls a valve ahead of the membrane." http://articles.sae.org/10374/
Okay, so once you've flipped over the sack of groceries in the back seat with g-force and your kid in his car seat is crying because you jarred him. Has the novelty worn off? You also just used a couple miles of your battery's energy. Hope it was 'cool' for you.
Hint: the grocery store is close to home and its charger.:-)
If the blaster shot hits bare skin -- say Princess Leia's arm on Endor -- you'll wince in pain but shake it off and be back to full health within a few seconds.
Obviously the blaster shot was deflected by the midichlorians in the bare skin.:-)
You also drink Budweiser. So let's call it a draw.
Which Budweiser? The American brewer or the Czech brewer that has been at it for several hundred years and owns the "Budweiser" trademark in Europe. If the Czech, they win.
Why are so many trying to compete with a company that is barely profitable,...
Tesla has only explored the very top of the "willingness to pay" (WTP) curve, they have proven their design and engineering skills, they are at an early stage and still figuring out how to scale manufacturing and their supply chain, they have a brand name that is incredibly "aspirational", they can't build them fast enough to satisfy demand,... Now imagine getting the logistics/manufacturing sorted out and moving down the WTP curve.
FWIW, the license plate frame on a friend's Chevy Volt: "I wanna be a Tesla when I grow up". When she posted a picture of the frame to a Chevy Volt owner Facebook page she got a ton of thumbs up. A second friend drives a Chevy Volt and also wants a Tesla, he has a university alumni license plate frame though. The only thing keeping these two friends from a Tesla is affordability and Tesla is working on that.
So as far as promising business ventures go, I think Tesla may qualify.
I'm primarily self-taught and augmented by a BA in CS, and I can honestly say that anyone that is self taught typically does better than anyone holding a CS degree
I assume you are referring to degree holding without the interest/curiosity that leads to learning on one's own, which to be clear is not some temporary habit for college years, more of a lifelong habit.
FWIW I initially learned to program with similarly minded friends, then went to school, left to work on a weird opportunity with previously mentioned friends, went back to school while working (programming) part time and finished, worked a little, went to grad school while working full time. Except for really demanding stretches of time (some school related, some work related) I generally also had some personal project exploring the curiosity of the day. 30 years into this and I'm still doing so, although at the moment its an inexpensive curiosity since its raspberry pi based.
I think I've learned a lot from similarly minded friends, from personal projects, from the university and from work. All made great contributions.
So yes, give me a self-taught programmer over a degree holder any day;
Its not that simple. Just as there are many less than useful degree holders there are also many less than useful self-taught. Self-taught also includes those who are there just for the career benefits and not due to any inherent interest/curiosity. Plus there are also the self-taught who have interest/curiosity but whose studies are way too narrow.
There are many self-taught former colleagues that I would be absolutely happy to work with again, and some I would not. And the same can be said regarding former degree holding colleagues.
Finally, many companies typically will look at degree holders fresh out of college and say "well, we'll hire them but we have to retrain them" versus the self-taught programmer which will normally have prior experience in one form or another, a portfolio, etc that can be evaluated.
I've had no problem screening for degree holders who possess the interest/curiosity, they too often have extracurricular work that can be evaluated.
People who are purely self-taught often have holes in their knowledge.
Everybody has holes in his knowledge.
Holes in their knowledge with respect to likely relevant information that they would have been exposed to in a typical university program. Not holes with respect to any relevant information, of course we are always learning in the software development field. That is one of the reasons why those with the disposition to learn on their own will generally outperform those who wait until they are assigned something to learn.
So the whole degree vs self-taught is sort of a bogus comparison. Many top programmers are both, degree and self-taught are not mutually exclusive.
Actually... the people who are interested enough to learn on their own are the ones that make great programmers. They have the curiosity and drive to do it.
Yes and no. The interest and curiosity are absolutely necessary but often insufficient. People who are purely self-taught often have holes in their knowledge. Their self-study avoided topics that are uninteresting or seem unimportant. Many need that formal environment which forces them to study such topics a little. The person whose self-study covers the full breadth and depth of a formal university program is quite rare. That breadth/depth helps one to become great and many of those with the interest/curiosity need a little external push to get there.
Plus the university provides incredible access to hardware and software one would not have had on one's own. Many professors bemoan the number of students lacking the interest/curiosity, and are happy to assist those with the interest/curiosity. I never had a professor in charge of some equipment deny me access to it, even when what I wanted to do had nothing to do with classwork and was just personal curiosity. Professors perfectly willing to discuss some difficulty I was having even when not in a class of theirs. They genuinely want to assist and encourage those with the interest/curiosity. Also your fellow student with the interest/curiosity are an incredible opportunity, meeting in person, looking over one's shoulder when stuck on something, showing you something new and when offline being able to chat about some problem or something new. A team meeting in person can be more powerful and more educational than one only meeting online. The university environment is a rare region incredibly dense with people with the interest/curiosity.
If one has the opportunity to go to a university they probably should, it will most likely lead them to achieving a higher skill level than they could have on their own.
Anyone who tinkered before starting classes, or takes time to learn or at least experiment with a language not offered in their degree track, the ones that have been coding for years and finally start to formalize their education - those are the ones that make great programmers.
Yes, its been decades since those with an interest in or curiosity for programming have had to wait for the university to start programming.
Formal education (i.e. a Computer Science Degree) teaches you how to think in certain ways and how to generalize problem spaces. It is not the same as job training. "Learning to code" is more akin to job training. Learning both is what makes you an invaluable resource but if you're just looking for a career and to get by then, yes, the job training aspect of "learning to code" does not require formal education and a smart, self-starter who has the job training part down is better then a dumb non-self starter who is formally educated. This is true in just about any field. The best scenario is a smart, self-starter, that has formal education and job training but there aren't near enough of those to go around.
I'm old, started programming when 8-bit machines wandered the land. In those days a formal CS program largely left "learning to code" as an exercise for the student. A certain amount of "self taught" was expected in a university CS program. There would often be an intro to CS class that introduces the rudimentary concepts of computer programming and introduces students to some programming language. Then off to data structures where the professor generally sticks to theory and abstract pseudo-code and its left to the student to learn on their own time the designated programming language for the class well enough to do assignments. At best the TA would reserve a little discussion time for programming examples and questions.
But the preceding is not the "self taught" that I think is the important thing. Those with a genuine interest in programming will learn things and write code purely out of curiosity, to see if they can figure it out and do it, to try something new, etc. Things that are completely unrelated to class assignments. These are the people where formally trained and self taught combine to create some of the better programmers. The others that merely do the class assignments, who are there because someone told them its a good career path. They can graduate, some might be good but lacking that innate interest and curiosity to go learn on their own outside of assigned tasks (work or school) they probably won't be great.
As for those who are only self-taught. Its conceivable to become as well educated in the field as someone taking the classes but to be honest such individuals are very rare. Many self-taught will have gaps because they did not study something that had no interest to them, and miss something unexpectedly important or useful.
Also, having a CS background (I didn't say degree - there is a difference) WILL make you a better programmer because you'll have an understanding of what's going on behind the scenes.
And often a greater breadth of knowledge. One of the advantages of a formal CS program is that one will most likely take classes in topics a student has no interest in. Yet those topics may be important or yield info that unexpectedly solves problem in other areas/topics. Many self taught tend to skip a topic or two and have gaps in their knowledge.
That said, in a formal CS program there are two obvious groups. Those who are there because they have a genuine interest in coding and the problem solving it involves, and then there are those who are there because someone told them it is a good career path. While both can graduate, the former (genuine interest) tend to be far better programmers. They will learn something, or more importantly do something, just for their own curiosity. Things unrelated to class assignments, and they learn more and become more proficient.
So the whole degree vs self-taught is sort of a bogus comparison. Many top programmers are both, degree and self-taught are not mutually exclusive.
I've never understood the hype of the Raspberry Pi because the Pi is only a computer, not a full computer system. After you buy all the other components you need and piece them all together, you've spent way over $25!
No. $5 Pi + $10 USB-wifi adapter. Power adapter, various USB cables, SD-card, probably stuff you have around already from old phones or devices. So what does that give you, a headless Linux box to toss in the closet. One that will use a lot less power than some old repurposed PC.
The Pi is a pretty convenient and inexpensive way to give Linux a try when you can't or don't want to install Linux on your PC. Not a bad environment to learn *nix programming.
Now consider that it is easier to add simple hardware accessories to a Pi than a PC, add in the wirewrap or soldering sense, not plug a card into a slot sense.
Lightweight, low power, makes a Pi more practical to mount on things too.
The Raspberry Pi is not very good for teaching general programming. A "real" computer is better for that.
Not necessarily. An SD card image with Linux (ex Raspbian) can be downloaded and burned using the computer. There are ample instructions getting a beginner from download to a remote console running on the Pi. A *nix console is a great place to learn programming. From the absolutely critical fundamentals like data structures to more advanced topics such as threading and interprocess communications. Yeah, no GUI but to be honest if you don't understand the critical fundamentals you aren't that useful as a programmer.
So yes, a $5 Pi with a $10 USB-wifi adapter is a fine environment to learn programming. Especially for those interested in *nix. The power supply and cable can possibly be from an old phone, or your current phone if you don't need to charge at the moment.
Get a cheap Chromebook or Chromebox, disable security and install Linux. Since its a chromebook/box Linux drivers should not be a problem. We've been successful with those for a few odd linux boxes that we needed at work.
The degree demonstrates two things:
(1) A base level of knowledge, which does not necessarily indicate talent in the field so its not the sole qualification.
(2) An ability to **complete** a long bureaucratic process that includes some uninteresting tasks. That may be the more important thing demonstrated.
Its not just cost/performance. In addition to possibly wasting your time debugging something that is an overclocking induced error, there is the ethics of delivering possibly faulty code to your customers. Real bugs are troublesome enough, no need to plague your customers with a flipped bit in an indexed operation or something.
Also the fact that he believes that testing software indicates stability indicates he doesn't fully understand the failure modes of overclocking. You can gradually increase speed until the software indicates a failure and then reduce speed so that the software runs flawlessly for hours, and there remains a chance that your system has errors. All you may have changed is the prerequisites for an error. At the higher speed the instruction may fail universally, at the slightly lower speed it may only fail selectively depending on preceding instructions and data patterns. Instruction sequences and data patterns that the testing software does not include and can't really be predicted anyway.
Again for casual use not a problem, you only inconvenience yourself. The cost in the cost/performance tradeoff is only paid by you. But for software development you are possibly putting a cost on your customers too. That is unethical.
Slashdot Mirror
Nobody buys a Porsche roadster to carry groceries and kids. That is a different market, which Porsche as a brand will never enter, electrically or fossil powered. They do make SUV type vehicles, but even so, their buyers are not thinking kids and groceries.
"SUV"? It looks like a station wagon to me. I can't imagine them not thinking kids and groceries.
I think you may be misinterpreting Musk's comment that such a battery could be made but would be very expensive.
And that's a problem for Tesla owners? :-)
Exactly. Having personally be stuck in rush hour traffic for two hours, and a left leg that was getting numb from holding down the clutch, I'll never own another stick for commuting purposes.
I've been driving manuals for the vast majority of 35 years, including decades of commuting. If you are holding the clutch down you are doing it wrong.
Race suspension does exactly nothing to fix the 1000lb+ battery pack. Which is what made the roadster perform so much worse than the Elise.
Going fast in a straight line has never been Porsche's thing.
A lighter smaller sports car would not need the same battery pack. The fact remains that suspension and steering are independent of the power train. Tesla performance has frightened Porsche into investigating all electric.
An all electric 4 door luxury sedan that seats 5 is equaling your turbo. Porche 2017 911 Turbo S: 2.8 seconds. Tesla’s Model S P85D: 2.8 seconds. http://www.digitaltrends.com/c... http://techcrunch.com/2015/07/...
You keep posting this; are you unaware that taking a car round a track involves more than just raw torque? That some of the joy of driving includes navigation of twisty bends of roads. There's a reason many of the most popular car races involve bends.
Are you unaware of the fact that suspension, steering, etc are independent of the drive train? If an all electric five seater luxury sedan happens to beat a 911 Turbo S image what a car designed to be an all electric sports car can do.
People already tried Model S at Nürburgring. Conclusion: no mechanical grip, steering is numb, can't even finish single lap at sustained full power. Seriously, it is not a sports car and will never be, it is something different. Good 0-60 time doesn't make it sports car. It is heavy sedan styled minivan that is great for commuting, groceries and whatever you want, if you are ready to spend unreasonable amount of money on it.
You have missed the obvious. The question was why would Porsche build an all electric. A big luxury sedan seating five beating a 911 Turbo S explains the interest. Suspension, steering, etc are independent of the drive train and could care less whether it is all electric or internal combustion. Your criticisms are irrelevant.
Also keep in mind that Porsche is also a company that makes station wagons.
Now try following a gentle curve at that speed.
Porsche: didn't blink Tesla: embedded in concrete barrier.
No, the Tesla's autopilot will keep you in your lane. :-)
I enjoy shifting into turns, and I promise you, my car doesn't "fake" any type of "engine vroom" though speakers.
No, it fakes the cabin audio the old fashioned way, mechanically.
"Electronically synthesized noise is not a Porsche solution, so the engineers developed a new Sound Symposer that is standard on both versions of the car (911). An acoustic channel picks up intake vibrations between the throttle valve and air filter and a membrane incorporated in the channel reinforces the vibrations and transmits them as an engine sound into the cabin. The system is driver activated or deactivated via a “Sport” button that controls a valve ahead of the membrane."
http://articles.sae.org/10374/
Both, I think. But the Budvar/Czechvar I've bought in Trader Joes was kind of skunky, so I can't say if that would be a win.
I had a few glasses at a bar in Prague, that was a win.
Okay, so once you've flipped over the sack of groceries in the back seat with g-force and your kid in his car seat is crying because you jarred him. Has the novelty worn off? You also just used a couple miles of your battery's energy. Hope it was 'cool' for you.
Hint: the grocery store is close to home and its charger. :-)
If the blaster shot hits bare skin -- say Princess Leia's arm on Endor -- you'll wince in pain but shake it off and be back to full health within a few seconds.
Obviously the blaster shot was deflected by the midichlorians in the bare skin. :-)
You also drink Budweiser. So let's call it a draw.
Which Budweiser? The American brewer or the Czech brewer that has been at it for several hundred years and owns the "Budweiser" trademark in Europe. If the Czech, they win.
Why are so many trying to compete with a company that is barely profitable, especially since oil has dropped?
Because a Tesla all electric 4 door luxury sedan that seats 5 is equaling a Porche 2 seater sports car with 580 horsepower at zero to 60mph.
Porche 2017 911 Turbo S: 2.8 seconds.
Tesla’s Model S P85D: 2.8 seconds.
http://www.digitaltrends.com/c...
http://techcrunch.com/2015/07/...
An all electric 4 door luxury sedan that seats 5 is equaling your turbo.
Porche 2017 911 Turbo S: 2.8 seconds.
Tesla’s Model S P85D: 2.8 seconds.
http://www.digitaltrends.com/c...
http://techcrunch.com/2015/07/...
Why are so many trying to compete with a company that is barely profitable, ...
Tesla has only explored the very top of the "willingness to pay" (WTP) curve, they have proven their design and engineering skills, they are at an early stage and still figuring out how to scale manufacturing and their supply chain, they have a brand name that is incredibly "aspirational", they can't build them fast enough to satisfy demand, ... Now imagine getting the logistics/manufacturing sorted out and moving down the WTP curve.
FWIW, the license plate frame on a friend's Chevy Volt: "I wanna be a Tesla when I grow up". When she posted a picture of the frame to a Chevy Volt owner Facebook page she got a ton of thumbs up. A second friend drives a Chevy Volt and also wants a Tesla, he has a university alumni license plate frame though. The only thing keeping these two friends from a Tesla is affordability and Tesla is working on that.
So as far as promising business ventures go, I think Tesla may qualify.
especially since oil has dropped?
Did declining hay prices interfere with Ford?
I'm primarily self-taught and augmented by a BA in CS, and I can honestly say that anyone that is self taught typically does better than anyone holding a CS degree
I assume you are referring to degree holding without the interest/curiosity that leads to learning on one's own, which to be clear is not some temporary habit for college years, more of a lifelong habit.
FWIW I initially learned to program with similarly minded friends, then went to school, left to work on a weird opportunity with previously mentioned friends, went back to school while working (programming) part time and finished, worked a little, went to grad school while working full time. Except for really demanding stretches of time (some school related, some work related) I generally also had some personal project exploring the curiosity of the day. 30 years into this and I'm still doing so, although at the moment its an inexpensive curiosity since its raspberry pi based.
I think I've learned a lot from similarly minded friends, from personal projects, from the university and from work. All made great contributions.
So yes, give me a self-taught programmer over a degree holder any day;
Its not that simple. Just as there are many less than useful degree holders there are also many less than useful self-taught. Self-taught also includes those who are there just for the career benefits and not due to any inherent interest/curiosity. Plus there are also the self-taught who have interest/curiosity but whose studies are way too narrow.
There are many self-taught former colleagues that I would be absolutely happy to work with again, and some I would not. And the same can be said regarding former degree holding colleagues.
Finally, many companies typically will look at degree holders fresh out of college and say "well, we'll hire them but we have to retrain them" versus the self-taught programmer which will normally have prior experience in one form or another, a portfolio, etc that can be evaluated.
I've had no problem screening for degree holders who possess the interest/curiosity, they too often have extracurricular work that can be evaluated.
People who are purely self-taught often have holes in their knowledge. Everybody has holes in his knowledge.
Holes in their knowledge with respect to likely relevant information that they would have been exposed to in a typical university program. Not holes with respect to any relevant information, of course we are always learning in the software development field. That is one of the reasons why those with the disposition to learn on their own will generally outperform those who wait until they are assigned something to learn.
So the whole degree vs self-taught is sort of a bogus comparison. Many top programmers are both, degree and self-taught are not mutually exclusive.
Actually... the people who are interested enough to learn on their own are the ones that make great programmers. They have the curiosity and drive to do it.
Yes and no. The interest and curiosity are absolutely necessary but often insufficient. People who are purely self-taught often have holes in their knowledge. Their self-study avoided topics that are uninteresting or seem unimportant. Many need that formal environment which forces them to study such topics a little. The person whose self-study covers the full breadth and depth of a formal university program is quite rare. That breadth/depth helps one to become great and many of those with the interest/curiosity need a little external push to get there.
Plus the university provides incredible access to hardware and software one would not have had on one's own. Many professors bemoan the number of students lacking the interest/curiosity, and are happy to assist those with the interest/curiosity. I never had a professor in charge of some equipment deny me access to it, even when what I wanted to do had nothing to do with classwork and was just personal curiosity. Professors perfectly willing to discuss some difficulty I was having even when not in a class of theirs. They genuinely want to assist and encourage those with the interest/curiosity. Also your fellow student with the interest/curiosity are an incredible opportunity, meeting in person, looking over one's shoulder when stuck on something, showing you something new and when offline being able to chat about some problem or something new. A team meeting in person can be more powerful and more educational than one only meeting online. The university environment is a rare region incredibly dense with people with the interest/curiosity.
If one has the opportunity to go to a university they probably should, it will most likely lead them to achieving a higher skill level than they could have on their own.
Anyone who tinkered before starting classes, or takes time to learn or at least experiment with a language not offered in their degree track, the ones that have been coding for years and finally start to formalize their education - those are the ones that make great programmers.
Yes, its been decades since those with an interest in or curiosity for programming have had to wait for the university to start programming.
Formal education (i.e. a Computer Science Degree) teaches you how to think in certain ways and how to generalize problem spaces. It is not the same as job training. "Learning to code" is more akin to job training. Learning both is what makes you an invaluable resource but if you're just looking for a career and to get by then, yes, the job training aspect of "learning to code" does not require formal education and a smart, self-starter who has the job training part down is better then a dumb non-self starter who is formally educated. This is true in just about any field. The best scenario is a smart, self-starter, that has formal education and job training but there aren't near enough of those to go around.
I'm old, started programming when 8-bit machines wandered the land. In those days a formal CS program largely left "learning to code" as an exercise for the student. A certain amount of "self taught" was expected in a university CS program. There would often be an intro to CS class that introduces the rudimentary concepts of computer programming and introduces students to some programming language. Then off to data structures where the professor generally sticks to theory and abstract pseudo-code and its left to the student to learn on their own time the designated programming language for the class well enough to do assignments. At best the TA would reserve a little discussion time for programming examples and questions.
But the preceding is not the "self taught" that I think is the important thing. Those with a genuine interest in programming will learn things and write code purely out of curiosity, to see if they can figure it out and do it, to try something new, etc. Things that are completely unrelated to class assignments. These are the people where formally trained and self taught combine to create some of the better programmers. The others that merely do the class assignments, who are there because someone told them its a good career path. They can graduate, some might be good but lacking that innate interest and curiosity to go learn on their own outside of assigned tasks (work or school) they probably won't be great.
As for those who are only self-taught. Its conceivable to become as well educated in the field as someone taking the classes but to be honest such individuals are very rare. Many self-taught will have gaps because they did not study something that had no interest to them, and miss something unexpectedly important or useful.
Also, having a CS background (I didn't say degree - there is a difference) WILL make you a better programmer because you'll have an understanding of what's going on behind the scenes.
And often a greater breadth of knowledge. One of the advantages of a formal CS program is that one will most likely take classes in topics a student has no interest in. Yet those topics may be important or yield info that unexpectedly solves problem in other areas/topics. Many self taught tend to skip a topic or two and have gaps in their knowledge.
That said, in a formal CS program there are two obvious groups. Those who are there because they have a genuine interest in coding and the problem solving it involves, and then there are those who are there because someone told them it is a good career path. While both can graduate, the former (genuine interest) tend to be far better programmers. They will learn something, or more importantly do something, just for their own curiosity. Things unrelated to class assignments, and they learn more and become more proficient.
So the whole degree vs self-taught is sort of a bogus comparison. Many top programmers are both, degree and self-taught are not mutually exclusive.
I've never understood the hype of the Raspberry Pi because the Pi is only a computer, not a full computer system. After you buy all the other components you need and piece them all together, you've spent way over $25!
No. $5 Pi + $10 USB-wifi adapter. Power adapter, various USB cables, SD-card, probably stuff you have around already from old phones or devices. So what does that give you, a headless Linux box to toss in the closet. One that will use a lot less power than some old repurposed PC.
The Pi is a pretty convenient and inexpensive way to give Linux a try when you can't or don't want to install Linux on your PC. Not a bad environment to learn *nix programming.
Now consider that it is easier to add simple hardware accessories to a Pi than a PC, add in the wirewrap or soldering sense, not plug a card into a slot sense.
Lightweight, low power, makes a Pi more practical to mount on things too.
The Raspberry Pi is not very good for teaching general programming. A "real" computer is better for that.
Not necessarily. An SD card image with Linux (ex Raspbian) can be downloaded and burned using the computer. There are ample instructions getting a beginner from download to a remote console running on the Pi. A *nix console is a great place to learn programming. From the absolutely critical fundamentals like data structures to more advanced topics such as threading and interprocess communications. Yeah, no GUI but to be honest if you don't understand the critical fundamentals you aren't that useful as a programmer.
So yes, a $5 Pi with a $10 USB-wifi adapter is a fine environment to learn programming. Especially for those interested in *nix. The power supply and cable can possibly be from an old phone, or your current phone if you don't need to charge at the moment.
Get a cheap Chromebook or Chromebox, disable security and install Linux. Since its a chromebook/box Linux drivers should not be a problem. We've been successful with those for a few odd linux boxes that we needed at work.
Because its the degree that matters...ffs
The degree demonstrates two things:
(1) A base level of knowledge, which does not necessarily indicate talent in the field so its not the sole qualification.
(2) An ability to **complete** a long bureaucratic process that includes some uninteresting tasks. That may be the more important thing demonstrated.
Its not just cost/performance. In addition to possibly wasting your time debugging something that is an overclocking induced error, there is the ethics of delivering possibly faulty code to your customers. Real bugs are troublesome enough, no need to plague your customers with a flipped bit in an indexed operation or something.
Also the fact that he believes that testing software indicates stability indicates he doesn't fully understand the failure modes of overclocking. You can gradually increase speed until the software indicates a failure and then reduce speed so that the software runs flawlessly for hours, and there remains a chance that your system has errors. All you may have changed is the prerequisites for an error. At the higher speed the instruction may fail universally, at the slightly lower speed it may only fail selectively depending on preceding instructions and data patterns. Instruction sequences and data patterns that the testing software does not include and can't really be predicted anyway.
Again for casual use not a problem, you only inconvenience yourself. The cost in the cost/performance tradeoff is only paid by you. But for software development you are possibly putting a cost on your customers too. That is unethical.