I think it's much more simple than that. People trust hardware - they can see it, they can see that it looks sturdily built. Sturdily built hardware means that the whole thing is of good quality... right? I mean, no one would put bad quality software in a good looking machine like that.
Meanwhile, a bank's AI for figuring out how you should invest is just some etherial bit of software that runs in the cloud somewhere, and everyone knows that software is really unreliable, so clearly this bank AI is really unreliable too.
To back up your "high HP is not the same as low efficiency" argument, just look at current F1 engines.
They're as far as I'm aware, the most efficient internal combustion engines on the planet (at greater than 50% thermal efficiency), and yet, still produce close to 1000 horse power.
If a turbo + hybrid setup can generate enough power for a Formula 1 car, while still being 50+% efficient, I'm pretty sure that it'll do just fine for my family car.
Plus, modern turbos are often paired with a hybrid engine of some kind, which can be used to get the turbo spinning while no exhaust gasses are currently flowing.
With very light traffic, traditional lights that turn green when they detect an approaching vehicle are already optimal. With very heavy traffic, traditional lights that let each queue go in turn are already optimal
Not even close.
Roundabouts have significantly higher bandwidth for the same area of ground covered, and also don't require the input and output roads to be as large, due to having a peak traffic flow closer to the average traffic flow.
It's amazing how well the map of the worst life expectancy matches the map of places that repeatedly elect republicans.
It's almost like republican policy on how you treat people of low socio-ecenomic status, and how you deal with health care has a significant impact on areas of the US looking more like the 3rd world than the 1st.
Typically such languages have well documented "your destructors can happen in any order" semantics, and it's up to the programmer to make sure that they're robust to that.
Thankfully, the most common resource that a destructor cleans up is memory that the object references, which makes this somewhat a non issue.
The amount of memory GC uses isn't a problem if you have infinite performance.
GC uses more memory than manual memory management exactly because you can't run it all the time - you have to let the heap grow, and then do a collection when you stand a chance of actually freeing a bunch of memory.
With infinite performance, you can run it after every single line of code that might possible have changed which bits of the heap are referenced still, that means you actually get *improved* memory usage over manual memory management (since no one gets that perfect, in general).
Yeh, I was thinking exactly this. The valid reasons for getting rid of garbage collection are along the lines of "it causes the application to end up using a shit ton of memory if you want it to be any way performant", and "you can't get sensible real time guarantees when your whole program might pause to execute GC".
GC is exactly what you would want if you can guarantee that it executes in 0ms.
If Trump doesn't want a select few organizations to have control over the message that gets out to people, and in doing so have huge political sway, perhaps he should consider whether a law guaranteeing that all messages have equal priority over an internet connection...
Lack of net neutrality is exactly what gets you Comcast, Verizon and AT&T carefully controlling what news people see.
Because being able to shed weight easily isn't evolutionarily advantageous. In general, until extremely recently, and only in humans, the problem has been "how do you store enough energy", not "how do you not store this energy".
That's not how economics works. There's always more things to be done. If there's spare capitol, then there's spare ability to start doing new things, and hiring people to do them.
You cite all these oppressive taxes, and yet, people keep moving there, and getting rich.
Somehow, your world view that taxes are oppressive, and counter to being able to better yourself; and the reality that California is the home to many people who are being incredibly successful need to end up unified, and I'm struggling to see how.
Instead, could it simply be that said oppressive taxes aren't oppressive at all. Instead, they're supporting education, environment, health, and wealth.
You know... It might turn out that supporting people, and making sure that the group as a whole operates well actually improves conditions more than saying EVERYONE FOR THEMSELVES!
For the same reason as the SanFranciscans on high wages are subsidizing Tennessee's shitty economy. Remember - CA is a net contributor to the US economy, it takes out less from the tax pool than it puts in.
Why should Telsa spend money developing support for CHAdeMO or CCS?
Because CCS supports 350kW charging, while Tesla's charger only supports 120kW, and because CCS is the de-facto standard across the world at this point. It's on 90% of the chargers, and 90% of the vehicles.
Slashdot Mirror
Hahaha, you think $50k is enough for a downpayment in SF or NYC?
Try $300k
$50k is your downpayment for a house out in the middle of no where, so many hours away from any city that you can't possibly earn a reasonable amount.
Yes, how dare they expect to have a device that's crucial for being a normal, successful person in the modern age!
I think it's much more simple than that. People trust hardware - they can see it, they can see that it looks sturdily built. Sturdily built hardware means that the whole thing is of good quality... right? I mean, no one would put bad quality software in a good looking machine like that.
Meanwhile, a bank's AI for figuring out how you should invest is just some etherial bit of software that runs in the cloud somewhere, and everyone knows that software is really unreliable, so clearly this bank AI is really unreliable too.
To back up your "high HP is not the same as low efficiency" argument, just look at current F1 engines.
They're as far as I'm aware, the most efficient internal combustion engines on the planet (at greater than 50% thermal efficiency), and yet, still produce close to 1000 horse power.
If a turbo + hybrid setup can generate enough power for a Formula 1 car, while still being 50+% efficient, I'm pretty sure that it'll do just fine for my family car.
Plus, modern turbos are often paired with a hybrid engine of some kind, which can be used to get the turbo spinning while no exhaust gasses are currently flowing.
Well, given that this affects non-single payer nations too... no.
http://www.bbc.com/news/techno...
With very light traffic, traditional lights that turn green when they detect an approaching vehicle are already optimal. With very heavy traffic, traditional lights that let each queue go in turn are already optimal
Not even close.
Roundabouts have significantly higher bandwidth for the same area of ground covered, and also don't require the input and output roads to be as large, due to having a peak traffic flow closer to the average traffic flow.
It's amazing how well the map of the worst life expectancy matches the map of places that repeatedly elect republicans.
It's almost like republican policy on how you treat people of low socio-ecenomic status, and how you deal with health care has a significant impact on areas of the US looking more like the 3rd world than the 1st.
Typically such languages have well documented "your destructors can happen in any order" semantics, and it's up to the programmer to make sure that they're robust to that.
Thankfully, the most common resource that a destructor cleans up is memory that the object references, which makes this somewhat a non issue.
No - it's still more correct than reference counting in that it manages to resolve reference cycles correctly.
It just also requires a massive scan of the heap rather than just a simple decrement of an integer though.
The amount of memory GC uses isn't a problem if you have infinite performance.
GC uses more memory than manual memory management exactly because you can't run it all the time - you have to let the heap grow, and then do a collection when you stand a chance of actually freeing a bunch of memory.
With infinite performance, you can run it after every single line of code that might possible have changed which bits of the heap are referenced still, that means you actually get *improved* memory usage over manual memory management (since no one gets that perfect, in general).
Yeh, I was thinking exactly this. The valid reasons for getting rid of garbage collection are along the lines of "it causes the application to end up using a shit ton of memory if you want it to be any way performant", and "you can't get sensible real time guarantees when your whole program might pause to execute GC".
GC is exactly what you would want if you can guarantee that it executes in 0ms.
If Trump doesn't want a select few organizations to have control over the message that gets out to people, and in doing so have huge political sway, perhaps he should consider whether a law guaranteeing that all messages have equal priority over an internet connection...
Lack of net neutrality is exactly what gets you Comcast, Verizon and AT&T carefully controlling what news people see.
Because being able to shed weight easily isn't evolutionarily advantageous. In general, until extremely recently, and only in humans, the problem has been "how do you store enough energy", not "how do you not store this energy".
That's not how economics works. There's always more things to be done. If there's spare capitol, then there's spare ability to start doing new things, and hiring people to do them.
You cite all these oppressive taxes, and yet, people keep moving there, and getting rich.
Somehow, your world view that taxes are oppressive, and counter to being able to better yourself; and the reality that California is the home to many people who are being incredibly successful need to end up unified, and I'm struggling to see how.
Instead, could it simply be that said oppressive taxes aren't oppressive at all. Instead, they're supporting education, environment, health, and wealth.
You know... It might turn out that supporting people, and making sure that the group as a whole operates well actually improves conditions more than saying EVERYONE FOR THEMSELVES!
For the same reason as the SanFranciscans on high wages are subsidizing Tennessee's shitty economy. Remember - CA is a net contributor to the US economy, it takes out less from the tax pool than it puts in.
$100,000 a year does not equal $8333 a month after taxes.
I guess we'll just not have anyone serving us in any of our supermarkets or restaurants then.
I'd like to see that law, since it directly contradicts a European directive that proclaims Mennekes/CCS
You do realize that CCS *is* J1772 + Combo, right?
No it's not - J1772/CCS is standardized in law across all of Europe too.
I kinda doubt the Tesla superchargers suck at what they do.
They do actually - they only support 120kW, compared to the J1772+Combo standard which supports 350kW.
They also have far fewer vehicles with their weird connector on the road, and far fewer charging stations supporting their weird standard.
Why should Telsa spend money developing support for CHAdeMO or CCS?
Because CCS supports 350kW charging, while Tesla's charger only supports 120kW, and because CCS is the de-facto standard across the world at this point. It's on 90% of the chargers, and 90% of the vehicles.
All the auto-makers *have* adopted the standard. Specifically, everyone other than Tesla has adopted the J1772 + Combo connector.
Importantly, Tesla's connector only supports 120kW charging. J1772+Combo supports up to 350kW.
J1772+Combo accounts for 90% of the charging stations, and 90% of the vehicles. It's Tesla that need to adopt the standard, not everyone else.