And don't forget 3d / layering. Even 14nm is more compact than 5nm if you layer it twice. The whole slashvertisement is amateur hour.
If the measurements are actually 14nm and 5nm (not market-speak that approximates them), you'd actually need 8 layers of 14nm to surpass one layer of 5nm. You get almost 8x as many 25nm^2 (5x5) features in an area of 196 nm^2 (14x14).
The cost of the steel is the same, but making it in the right shape costs money. I'm assuming that the parts are not identical between the battery packs, since things like retainers and supports might need to move based on the number of cells.
It's not all about the assembly, it's partly about SKUs, inventory management, production line scheduling, and long-term replacement parts inventory.
Um, hate to break it to you, but Musk is still the CEO of the company; he's still at the helm. He is not the chairman, but the chairman doesn't run the company - the chairman heads the board which is responsible for ensuring the CxOs and VPs are managing the company correctly.
Good so far, except that boards often won't interfere at a level as low as VP - the CEO/President is in charge of day-to-day operations, including hiring and firing of underlings like VPs..
The directors are the captains; the VPs are the colonels, the CxOs are the generals - and the board are the politicians back home.
This makes no sense, the directors are the board. The board defines goals for the company, and possibly specifics for C-level executives. The CEO/President decides how to achieve those goals (developing strategies and high-level plans), and the VPs (and everyone below them) does the actual work needed to implement the CEO's strategies and plans.
They do not control the company, they hire and manage others to do that.
As far as profits, how can it be more profitable to give away extra batteries? That is literally what is happening here. You buy the $40K model 3, you get a big battery you can use. You pay $5000 less, you get the exact same battery - but it's software crippled so you cannot use it all. I guess giving away hundreds or thousands of dollars worth of batteries makes sense if you're going to build a few thousand cars; if you're going to do the volume that Musk has been talking about (hundreds of thousands a year), that is literally tens of millions of dollars just going away for free.
I'd assume that given the present sales ratio between basic and longer-range models, it's better for Tesla to manufacture just the one battery pack for now. There are complications aside from assembly that increase costs (different SKUs to manage during production, in the showroom, and for years for service parts), and on the plus side, some people may decide to pay the money to unlock the higher capacity, which would be a zero-cost revenue stream in the future.
I would be surprised if Tesla loses money on the $35k car. They probably don't make a lot of profit on it, and if 99% of customers start buying the cheapest model, they should start building them with a smaller battery pack.
It helps to notice that nearly all the articles that show up in that search are hosted by conservative or conservative-leaning organizations. Or hype factories.
This one at Politifact describes how people paint all these defeats as Obama's failures.
TL;DR: 8 of the cases were started by the Bush administration and the Obama administration continued to defend them, which is apparently common. Only one case could be considered Obama "overstepping executive authority".
The visual design (shape) isn't the only factor for acceptance. It also has to do with features, price, popularity (yes, that's a chicken-and-egg thing), and how contemporary products compete on all those points.
Not only do you have the issue that new things become old (as others have pointed out), but there's also some resistance to things that look too different. Somewhat different is good, very different can be considered weird.
I think there's too much of a fad aspect to be able to predict much. It's a chaotic system.
Agreed. If the courts would make such a ruling (or Congress would pass such a law), then I would be required to comply.
This decision doesn't look like that to me though. This decision says that the politician has to treat Facebook as it does any other public forum, and may not censor people simply because they have a different viewpoint. It doesn't look like it says anything about what Facebook must or must not do.
To quote part of a prior post of yours:
Now that there is a right to associate with a politician's official FB page, any action by FB that prevents me from doing so would be a 1st Amendment violation.
I think this is where you went wrong. The decision doesn't provide a "right to associate with a politician" on Facebook. It says that politicians can't censor people on their public FB (and presumably other social media) pages:
Circuit Judge James Wynn rejected Randall’s argument that her Facebook page was a private website, saying the “interactive component” was a public forum and that she engaged in illegal viewpoint discrimination. [emphasis mine]
The judge is only saying that the politician did something wrong, not that there are any more or less "rights" as far as Facebook or its users are concerned.
If your phone gets cut off because you don't pay the bill, the phone company is not infringing your first amendment rights, even though you are no longer able to call your chosen politicians. Similarly, if Facebook bans you for posting hate speech, they may close off this specific means of communication, but they are not preventing you from interacting with your chosen politicians. They're merely saying that you can't use their service to do so.
There's a difference between having me, a private person, refuse to let you ride in my car and having a city bus driver refuse to let you ride. That's the difference between Facebook banning someone and having the government do it.
Government has restrictions, which is good. Politicians are part of government. When they are doing "official" communications, they have more restrictions than they would on a truly private forum, since their being part of the government is more important at that point than the fact they're people too.
When the Republicans took office, one of the first things the thugs did was remove all of the EPA's climate data from the internet. The EPA had massive volumes of data accessible to anyone, and Republican thugs removed it all. Immediately.
Does this new law require them to put it all back?
That's odd. I searched for "meteorite" in the Bible and there weren't any results.
Did you search the original Hollerith version, or were you using the updated Unicode version?
You've got to remember that there have been several translations (through EBCDIC and ASCII, with a short diversion through UTF8), and there's no direct translation for "meteorite" (the closest would be "comet" (U+2604, U+FE0F) or "shooting star" (U+1F320)).
Gotta be careful when electronically searching ancient texts!
But then I researched the term Giggity, (I haven't watched television, except Firefly and Agents of Shield, in almost two decades) and now the AC response makes perfect sense.
...
You might try The Expanse. It's the best TV I've seen in a very very long time.
That entire passage screams SJW. Especially the "harassment-free experience" part. The problem is, that regardless of intentions, the measurement for that statement is purely subjective. It leaves open the idea that if an over-sensitive person has their feeling hurt, they've been harassed. Once the poison of such a statement gets traction, everyone has to be overly cautious and always looking over their shoulder. It's no longer a "open and welcoming environment" for most, except for the over bearing SJW types that believe they own the definition of what's acceptable. Anyone that doesn't adhere, or shows some natural human flaw, becomes harassed by the SJWs that claim to be against harassment.
Anything can be abused. Complaints need to be sent to a board, who will investigate and then decide on what action should be taken.
What will hopefully happen is that the reasonable people on the board will look at what was done and pursue a reasonable course of action. Like asking the "alleged perpetrator" to tone it down, or asking the "alleged victim" to be less sensitive.
Everyone can have a bad day and say something they (probably) shouldn't. Anyone can have a bad day and take something the wrong way. How this works out will depend mostly on how complaints are handled.
It's dismaying to see how many people think it's a bad thing to have a policy that basically boils down to "don't be an asshole". If you really think it's not possible to be both talented and nice, then hopefully you will get a chance to look in a mirror like Linus has done and choose to make yourself a better person.
If what Apple did was so simple and obvious, why did nobody do it before them? Why did it take them several years of R&D to get it done, even in the incomplete way that the original iPhone presented? No third party apps, couldn't even copy and paste, no 3G data, etc.
If you consider the difference in available display, battery, and radio technology, the Simon was actually more advanced (in 1994/1995) than the iPhone was in 2007. It had expandable storage, the ability to run 3rd-party applications (through download or with a card), and had a touchscreen that changed depending on which application was running.
Apple did a lot of work to make their copy work better and look nicer. They had a few advantages with an extra 13 years of advancement in the electronics industry. They also did an excellent job of making the whole package work for the customer - phone, unlimited use plans, lots of hand-holding with their service plans, etc.
Don't think they were the first though. They weren't first in most areas. They made a business of identifying good ideas and making them look nice. They have done very well with that model.
Kind of like the old saying: "the early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese"
> I am as cynical as they come but how is this a failed experiment if you lose nothing but have happier employees?
That's a VERY big assumption. You lose 20% of time they were working, so about 20% of their productivity, unless you have evidence otherwise. The article mentions no such evidence.
From the article: "Jarrod Haar, professor of human resource management at Auckland University of Technology, found job and life satisfaction increased on all levels across the home and work front, with employees performing better in their jobs and enjoying them more than before the experiment." (emphasis mine)
That sure looks like evidence from the article that productivity did not go down.
Competitive pressures may well mean that leads to losing the company, by delivering 20% less value to customers. Studies show it takes people some time to get back into what they were doing, they don't come in Monday morning and reset their brains to remember everything they were thinking on Friday. Rather, they have to spend time re-reading things they read on Friday, getting back into the groove.
The studies I've seen, mostly about programmers or engineers, said that it takes about 20 minutes to recover from an interruption. I haven't seen studies about how difficult it is to get started on Monday mornings, though I don't particular like Mondays myself. Aside from that, If you work 4 days straight, you still have exactly one recovery period per week. You're just recovering from 3 days away rather than 2.
> Also think about this: The work that took five days previously now gets done in four.
What makes you think that? I see no such claim in the article. The article only says that people like having time off - duh. Well, they like certain things about it. Most people don't actually choose part-time work because part-time work means part-time production, and therefore part-time pay. Most people want full-time pay, so they choose to work full-time.
If workers were just as productive, that would be a very interesting result, but the article doesn't claim that.
More quotes from the article:
"Helen Delaney, a senior lecturer at the University of Auckland Business School, said employees’ motivation and commitment to work increased because they were included in the planning of the experiment, and played a key role in designing how the four-day week would be managed so as not to negatively impact productivity." (emphasis mine)
“Employees designed a number of innovations and initiatives to work in a more productive and efficient manner, from automating manual processes to reducing or eliminating non-work-related internet usage”
The summary doesn't talk about productivity, but the article implies in several ways that productivity was not negatively impacted.
That seems to me a lack of fault tolerance in the overall design approach. A major oversight if so. An entire line should not shut down due to one fault.
Well, yes and no. Assembly lines are tuned so that you produce the correct quantity of each item in the same amount of time it takes to complete the "full product". It's called Takt time. There are just over 10,000 minutes in a week, so the production goal of 5,000 cars per week requires a new Model 3 to roll off the line every 2 minutes.
Let's say they're building the battery packs as part of the assembly line, and it takes 60 minutes to build each pack. Just for grins, let's assume that it takes 10 minutes to install that battery pack. This implies that you need 6x as many battery assembly stations (or sub-assembly lines) to make batteries as you need battery installation stations.
If you have a robot installing batteries, and that robot fails, then you want to stop making batteries before you fill up all the available space with battery packs you can't use (because you can't install them). Similarly, you no longer have chassis with batteries to move further down the line, so anything after the battery installation has to stop, at least for that line.
There is slack in the process - it might be 59:30 to build the packs or 9:18 to install them, and there would likely be some parts storage as well, so the line could whether an employee going to the bathroom or something. It couldn't whether a continuous failure or a permanent change in process time (ie, it may take a human 13 minutes to install the pack and inspect their work).
Most assembly lines work this way. The more slack you have, the less efficient your line is (because you have all this extra time...). The less slack you have, the less you can tolerate a fault.
I wonder how much $$$ was lost on that automation equipment now collecting dust.
I'd bet most of the lost money is whatever was spent on programming the units, and the lost opportunity cost for both the hardware and its configuration. The robots themselves are likely still usable, but they'll need to refine how they're used in order to recoup that investment.
I'm not sure where you get the idea that there is a surplus in the nuclear decommissioning funds. This article https://www.utilitydive.com/ne... lists the $64B fund value, but also says that's $41.8B short of the funds needed.
In this report, Callan points out that decommissioning costs were $91B in 2016. They also state that the fund is stable at around 70% (which I assume is 70% of expected decommissioning costs).
So, even if the wind article were true, and there would be some massive apocalypse if some wind turbines stopped working, the $27B gap (gotten by subtracting $64B from $91B - I'm not sure where the other article got the $41.8B number) in nuclear decommissioning costs for 2016 would be enough to decommission 135,000 wind turbines. That's ~40% of the turbines operating worldwide (341,320 - from this page http://gwec.net/global-figures...).
Slashdot Mirror
And don't forget 3d / layering. Even 14nm is more compact than 5nm if you layer it twice. The whole slashvertisement is amateur hour.
If the measurements are actually 14nm and 5nm (not market-speak that approximates them), you'd actually need 8 layers of 14nm to surpass one layer of 5nm. You get almost 8x as many 25nm^2 (5x5) features in an area of 196 nm^2 (14x14).
The cost of the steel is the same, but making it in the right shape costs money. I'm assuming that the parts are not identical between the battery packs, since things like retainers and supports might need to move based on the number of cells.
It's not all about the assembly, it's partly about SKUs, inventory management, production line scheduling, and long-term replacement parts inventory.
Um, hate to break it to you, but Musk is still the CEO of the company; he's still at the helm. He is not the chairman, but the chairman doesn't run the company - the chairman heads the board which is responsible for ensuring the CxOs and VPs are managing the company correctly.
Good so far, except that boards often won't interfere at a level as low as VP - the CEO/President is in charge of day-to-day operations, including hiring and firing of underlings like VPs..
The directors are the captains; the VPs are the colonels, the CxOs are the generals - and the board are the politicians back home.
This makes no sense, the directors are the board. The board defines goals for the company, and possibly specifics for C-level executives. The CEO/President decides how to achieve those goals (developing strategies and high-level plans), and the VPs (and everyone below them) does the actual work needed to implement the CEO's strategies and plans.
They do not control the company, they hire and manage others to do that.
As far as profits, how can it be more profitable to give away extra batteries? That is literally what is happening here. You buy the $40K model 3, you get a big battery you can use. You pay $5000 less, you get the exact same battery - but it's software crippled so you cannot use it all. I guess giving away hundreds or thousands of dollars worth of batteries makes sense if you're going to build a few thousand cars; if you're going to do the volume that Musk has been talking about (hundreds of thousands a year), that is literally tens of millions of dollars just going away for free.
I'd assume that given the present sales ratio between basic and longer-range models, it's better for Tesla to manufacture just the one battery pack for now. There are complications aside from assembly that increase costs (different SKUs to manage during production, in the showroom, and for years for service parts), and on the plus side, some people may decide to pay the money to unlock the higher capacity, which would be a zero-cost revenue stream in the future.
I would be surprised if Tesla loses money on the $35k car. They probably don't make a lot of profit on it, and if 99% of customers start buying the cheapest model, they should start building them with a smaller battery pack.
s/car/bus/
s/car//bus/g
It helps to notice that nearly all the articles that show up in that search are hosted by conservative or conservative-leaning organizations. Or hype factories.
This one at Politifact describes how people paint all these defeats as Obama's failures.
TL;DR: 8 of the cases were started by the Bush administration and the Obama administration continued to defend them, which is apparently common. Only one case could be considered Obama "overstepping executive authority".
It's like saying I got paid today, and I'm now getting $2,000/day versus the earlier trend, and so in a year and some change I'll be a millionaire.
Even better. Your pay is increasing at a rate of $2000/day/day. In just a few short weeks, you'll have all the money in the world.
The death of the PC did not happen.
The death of PC sales may have happened.
I'd say it's a hard problem.
The visual design (shape) isn't the only factor for acceptance. It also has to do with features, price, popularity (yes, that's a chicken-and-egg thing), and how contemporary products compete on all those points.
Not only do you have the issue that new things become old (as others have pointed out), but there's also some resistance to things that look too different. Somewhat different is good, very different can be considered weird.
I think there's too much of a fad aspect to be able to predict much. It's a chaotic system.
Agreed. If the courts would make such a ruling (or Congress would pass such a law), then I would be required to comply.
This decision doesn't look like that to me though. This decision says that the politician has to treat Facebook as it does any other public forum, and may not censor people simply because they have a different viewpoint. It doesn't look like it says anything about what Facebook must or must not do.
To quote part of a prior post of yours:
Now that there is a right to associate with a politician's official FB page, any action by FB that prevents me from doing so would be a 1st Amendment violation.
I think this is where you went wrong. The decision doesn't provide a "right to associate with a politician" on Facebook. It says that politicians can't censor people on their public FB (and presumably other social media) pages:
Circuit Judge James Wynn rejected Randall’s argument that her Facebook page was a private website, saying the “interactive component” was a public forum and that she engaged in illegal viewpoint discrimination. [emphasis mine]
The judge is only saying that the politician did something wrong, not that there are any more or less "rights" as far as Facebook or its users are concerned.
If you ask to borrow my cell phone to call Rashida Tlaib, and I decline to loan it to you, am I violating your 1st amendment rights?
Your argument is a reach, at best.
If your phone gets cut off because you don't pay the bill, the phone company is not infringing your first amendment rights, even though you are no longer able to call your chosen politicians. Similarly, if Facebook bans you for posting hate speech, they may close off this specific means of communication, but they are not preventing you from interacting with your chosen politicians. They're merely saying that you can't use their service to do so.
I think this standard makes a lot of sense.
There's a difference between having me, a private person, refuse to let you ride in my car and having a city bus driver refuse to let you ride. That's the difference between Facebook banning someone and having the government do it.
Government has restrictions, which is good. Politicians are part of government. When they are doing "official" communications, they have more restrictions than they would on a truly private forum, since their being part of the government is more important at that point than the fact they're people too.
When the Republicans took office, one of the first things the thugs did was remove all of the EPA's climate data from the internet. The EPA had massive volumes of data accessible to anyone, and Republican thugs removed it all. Immediately.
Does this new law require them to put it all back?
That data is probably too sensitive.
When Voldemort uses my shampoo
He was bald. [...]
That's what's so annoying. HE DOESN'T EVEN NEED IT!!!
That's odd. I searched for "meteorite" in the Bible and there weren't any results.
Did you search the original Hollerith version, or were you using the updated Unicode version?
You've got to remember that there have been several translations (through EBCDIC and ASCII, with a short diversion through UTF8), and there's no direct translation for "meteorite" (the closest would be "comet" (U+2604, U+FE0F) or "shooting star" (U+1F320)).
Gotta be careful when electronically searching ancient texts!
That's the purpose of all their products, isn't it?
...
But then I researched the term Giggity, (I haven't watched television, except Firefly and Agents of Shield, in almost two decades) and now the AC response makes perfect sense.
...
You might try The Expanse. It's the best TV I've seen in a very very long time.
Would you rather repair a politician or throw one out?
Unfortunately, the comparison is between repairing a politician and getting a new one.
I'm not sure there's an upside.
That entire passage screams SJW. Especially the "harassment-free experience" part. The problem is, that regardless of intentions, the measurement for that statement is purely subjective. It leaves open the idea that if an over-sensitive person has their feeling hurt, they've been harassed. Once the poison of such a statement gets traction, everyone has to be overly cautious and always looking over their shoulder. It's no longer a "open and welcoming environment" for most, except for the over bearing SJW types that believe they own the definition of what's acceptable. Anyone that doesn't adhere, or shows some natural human flaw, becomes harassed by the SJWs that claim to be against harassment.
Anything can be abused. Complaints need to be sent to a board, who will investigate and then decide on what action should be taken.
What will hopefully happen is that the reasonable people on the board will look at what was done and pursue a reasonable course of action. Like asking the "alleged perpetrator" to tone it down, or asking the "alleged victim" to be less sensitive.
Everyone can have a bad day and say something they (probably) shouldn't. Anyone can have a bad day and take something the wrong way. How this works out will depend mostly on how complaints are handled.
It's dismaying to see how many people think it's a bad thing to have a policy that basically boils down to "don't be an asshole". If you really think it's not possible to be both talented and nice, then hopefully you will get a chance to look in a mirror like Linus has done and choose to make yourself a better person.
If what Apple did was so simple and obvious, why did nobody do it before them? Why did it take them several years of R&D to get it done, even in the incomplete way that the original iPhone presented? No third party apps, couldn't even copy and paste, no 3G data, etc.
Even the first iPhone was a copy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
If you consider the difference in available display, battery, and radio technology, the Simon was actually more advanced (in 1994/1995) than the iPhone was in 2007. It had expandable storage, the ability to run 3rd-party applications (through download or with a card), and had a touchscreen that changed depending on which application was running.
Apple did a lot of work to make their copy work better and look nicer. They had a few advantages with an extra 13 years of advancement in the electronics industry. They also did an excellent job of making the whole package work for the customer - phone, unlimited use plans, lots of hand-holding with their service plans, etc.
Don't think they were the first though. They weren't first in most areas. They made a business of identifying good ideas and making them look nice. They have done very well with that model.
Kind of like the old saying: "the early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese"
Or light a torch inside and see which way the smoke goes.
> I am as cynical as they come but how is this a failed experiment if you lose nothing but have happier employees?
That's a VERY big assumption. You lose 20% of time they were working, so about 20% of their productivity, unless you have evidence otherwise. The article mentions no such evidence.
From the article: "Jarrod Haar, professor of human resource management at Auckland University of Technology, found job and life satisfaction increased on all levels across the home and work front, with employees performing better in their jobs and enjoying them more than before the experiment." (emphasis mine)
That sure looks like evidence from the article that productivity did not go down.
Competitive pressures may well mean that leads to losing the company, by delivering 20% less value to customers. Studies show it takes people some time to get back into what they were doing, they don't come in Monday morning and reset their brains to remember everything they were thinking on Friday. Rather, they have to spend time re-reading things they read on Friday, getting back into the groove.
The studies I've seen, mostly about programmers or engineers, said that it takes about 20 minutes to recover from an interruption. I haven't seen studies about how difficult it is to get started on Monday mornings, though I don't particular like Mondays myself. Aside from that, If you work 4 days straight, you still have exactly one recovery period per week. You're just recovering from 3 days away rather than 2.
> Also think about this: The work that took five days previously now gets done in four.
What makes you think that? I see no such claim in the article. The article only says that people like having time off - duh. Well, they like certain things about it. Most people don't actually choose part-time work because part-time work means part-time production, and therefore part-time pay. Most people want full-time pay, so they choose to work full-time.
If workers were just as productive, that would be a very interesting result, but the article doesn't claim that.
More quotes from the article:
"Helen Delaney, a senior lecturer at the University of Auckland Business School, said employees’ motivation and commitment to work increased because they were included in the planning of the experiment, and played a key role in designing how the four-day week would be managed so as not to negatively impact productivity." (emphasis mine)
“Employees designed a number of innovations and initiatives to work in a more productive and efficient manner, from automating manual processes to reducing or eliminating non-work-related internet usage”
The summary doesn't talk about productivity, but the article implies in several ways that productivity was not negatively impacted.
If so, wouldn't you think that the information originated from someone on the Tesla payroll?
From TFS;
That seems to me a lack of fault tolerance in the overall design approach. A major oversight if so. An entire line should not shut down due to one fault.
Well, yes and no. Assembly lines are tuned so that you produce the correct quantity of each item in the same amount of time it takes to complete the "full product". It's called Takt time. There are just over 10,000 minutes in a week, so the production goal of 5,000 cars per week requires a new Model 3 to roll off the line every 2 minutes.
Let's say they're building the battery packs as part of the assembly line, and it takes 60 minutes to build each pack. Just for grins, let's assume that it takes 10 minutes to install that battery pack. This implies that you need 6x as many battery assembly stations (or sub-assembly lines) to make batteries as you need battery installation stations.
If you have a robot installing batteries, and that robot fails, then you want to stop making batteries before you fill up all the available space with battery packs you can't use (because you can't install them). Similarly, you no longer have chassis with batteries to move further down the line, so anything after the battery installation has to stop, at least for that line.
There is slack in the process - it might be 59:30 to build the packs or 9:18 to install them, and there would likely be some parts storage as well, so the line could whether an employee going to the bathroom or something. It couldn't whether a continuous failure or a permanent change in process time (ie, it may take a human 13 minutes to install the pack and inspect their work).
Most assembly lines work this way. The more slack you have, the less efficient your line is (because you have all this extra time ...). The less slack you have, the less you can tolerate a fault.
I wonder how much $$$ was lost on that automation equipment now collecting dust.
I'd bet most of the lost money is whatever was spent on programming the units, and the lost opportunity cost for both the hardware and its configuration. The robots themselves are likely still usable, but they'll need to refine how they're used in order to recoup that investment.
The article cites a 2016 report from Callan LLC, which is here: https://www.callan.com/ndt-stu...
In this report, Callan points out that decommissioning costs were $91B in 2016. They also state that the fund is stable at around 70% (which I assume is 70% of expected decommissioning costs).
So, even if the wind article were true, and there would be some massive apocalypse if some wind turbines stopped working, the $27B gap (gotten by subtracting $64B from $91B - I'm not sure where the other article got the $41.8B number) in nuclear decommissioning costs for 2016 would be enough to decommission 135,000 wind turbines. That's ~40% of the turbines operating worldwide (341,320 - from this page http://gwec.net/global-figures...).