Maybe you're right, but not for the reasons you state:
We now have supercomputers built with ARM CPUs.
Yes, but we also have SPARC powered supercomputers and we haven't had SPARC laptops since Tadpole in the 1990s. What makes for a good supercomputer and a good laptop are quite different things. Part of what makes for a good supercomputer is a fast, very wide floating point unit. But even more, supercomputers live and die on the interconnect. One thing you'll notice is that The Riken, stil very competetive and #1 on some benchmarks has an on die interconnect. Those things add up to making a good supercomputer.
What makes ARM useful in this regard is that it's a flexible enough design that they can add on their fast, wide vector FP unit and the interconnect, not to mention a fast, wide memory bus, but no longer have to maintain a now ageing CPU core.
In the other direction, Intel are already targeting the power balance for laptops. So, it doesn't mean we won't see ARM laptops, but the fact they're good for supercomputers has little bearing.
This is why we need more Republicans and Trump people in office!
Exactly! This whole ethics things is just stupid. We don't want law-abiding people in office, we want the finest criminals money can buy! I mean how else is my ship going to come in? I figure that any day now I'll get a bit rich and then I want to be able to bribe my way into getting sweet government lucre using ethics violations and then I'll be super rich.
There's much less chance of me being able to do that if we get rid of Trump and his ilk.
In a number of industries, like ISPs and energy providers, you just start buying elsewhere and they have to let the new company cancel the old contact automatically. For others if you want to cancel the easy way, send a snail mail letter. They seem to pay much more attention to those, and it takes way less time than waiting on hold.
A lot of people seem to think coding is "easy" and don't realize how sometimes you can work VERY VERY long hours to meet deadlines. I have been working since 8 in the morning, and it's now past 9 in the evening, and yes, I am taking a break to eat and read some slashdot, but after that I am going back to work.
You should spend your time polishing your resume and finding a new job instead. Working those hours is a failure of management. Unless the management is changed (it won't be because you're delivering) then you'll see the same shit over and over again.
You have one life: don't waste it working heroic hours for an asshat.
Is the point you're trying to make "if you're writing a new web browser, consider Rust for the C-ish parts?"
That's literally what Rust was created for.
If someone is building a new web browser, of course they'll use XUL
You what? Firefox abandoned XUL.
and it makes sense to consider Rust for other parts.
Tha that is precisely what Mozilla is doing right now. They're slowly replacing C++ bit with Rust bits.
Not quite. Most of the comments and questions about Rust, here on Slashdot and many other places, either state or assume that using Rust will magically make your software much safer than other languages.
I think you're wildly exaggerating there.
You mentioned Heartbleed. Heartbleed was an input validation error - as in the input wasn't validated at all.
It was a buffer overflow overflow error triggered by lack of input validation. But if it had been in a memory safe language it would have been a simple DOS attack, not the single biggest security issue of the year.
That's in no way language specific.
Yes it is. How the fuck would heartbleed have allowd you to extract someone else's keys in Python, Java, Haskell, Rust..., well anything other than C or C++? It says here in the CVE that it's a buffer over-read (TIL there was a different term for read vs write in this context):
That would not happen in not C or not C++, because other language you know, check bounds and do other things.
Which brings us on to the other topic. Why do people write major bits of infrastructure like SSL libraries and web browsers in unsafe languages like C and C++?
In Rust the function would be called std::ptr::copy_nonoverlapping instead of memcpy - it does the same thing, dump random memory back to the attacker.
Well done! You picked an unsafe function. You can get the same effect in, say, python or Java by using a C module and scribbling all over memory too. Kinf od the point is to stick to safe code. And it's auditable.
The fact you can manage unsafe things in just about any language no matter how hard you try does not mean that C is very unsafe by default and that C++ has quite a number of cases where it's eay to foul up. It's much harder.
Make no mistake: if you manage to do something memory unsafe in Rust you have either subverted it (by explicitly doing unsafe things) or have found a genuine bug.
I didn't say that.
I didn't say you said that, I said you are arguing that. And you are because you kept repeating the point about the number of CVEs only while not taking into account their performance.
I said I study vulnerabilities for a living, full time, and for the last several darn few of them have anything to do with anything Rust would help with.
You seem to think that anything other than C or C++ would not have prevented heartbleed either. I don't know how you can study these things full time not know that. Other languages crash or throw exceptions when overstepping the end of an array. C and C++ don't.
Have a look at the OWASP Top 10 - the most significant types of vulnerabilities that happen nowadays.
That's great and still doesn't invalidate anything I said. Sure you're more likely to make your web application insecure with an injection bug. But if you get a CVE in Chrome, half of everyone on the intire internet is vulnerable in one go.
You seem to be intentionally ignoring the distinction between infrastructure and applications. Rust is and always has been aimed at the same space as C++ (and C[*]). The claim that Rust magically makes your code safe against things inrelated to C++ specifically seems to have been invented by you.
It's possibly you've simply misunderstood people: when people talk about rust being "safe" it's almost always in the context of memry safety and in c
You're arguing three silly points. The first is more or less "someone on a forum said something I don't like therefore Rust is crap". Secondly, you're ignoring that the main aim of Rust is the same space as C and C++. And thirdly, you're arguing that all CVEs are equal.
The thing is, most infrastructure is built in C and C++. If there's a CVE in Chrome, it affects 58% of internet users. If there's a CVE in OpenSSL, it affects an *awful* lot of services. Remember heartbleed?
What we should do is not pretend it's any safer than Python, JavaScript, Perl, etc.
Firstly it's irrelevant because no one would write a major web browser in any of those. Remember what Rust if for, and remember how many people a CVE in a web browser affects?
As I said, 99% of all security issues are unrelated to anything Rust does any better
Yes you keep saying it but it doesn't make your point any more accurate. None of those supposed other languages you keep harping on about compete with C++. It doesn't matter how safe a Haskell based browser would be it it takes 10 minutes to render a web page.
so to pretend that Rust will solve your security problems
Stop denying that a lot of infrastructure is in C and C++ and that those languagea are not safe.
or even a significant percentage of security problems, is dishonest.
Eh I mean how important was heartbleed anyway? I mean that hardly affected anyone, nulike that CVE against that obscure wordpress plugin that affected positively 10s of sites...
What's different about Rust is a very clever marketing thing they did.
No.
They took the fact that most languages, including Rust, don't have buffer overflows
But most languages can't operate in the same spaces as C and C++.
That specific issue is mostly just seen in C.
And C++. And it just so happens that most of the high performance software in the world is written in one of those two languages.
Particularly web browsers (until Rust).
Write all your software in Rust and you'll never have another bug!"
That sounds like an invented claim.
The problem then is that newbies who don't understand much about programming *think* they're safe because they're using tigers.
Right so we should neuter everything we use to build the major bits of infrastructure in the world because newbies?
I maintain a database of every CVE (security bug) ever reported. Well under 1% of them are buffer overflows, so it's a tiny percentage of problems that Rust protects against.
That's a very disingenuous claim. Firstly you should only compare to large C++ programs, because that's what Rust is competing with. It's vapid to compare to other languages because no one has written a major web browser in anything other than C++ because C is far too hard for the task and nothig else is remotely fast enough.
Rust's sole purpose is to provide a C-like machine model with memory safety, which includes safety from data races, use-after-free, dangling reference bugs and so on. The goal is to allow people to write in that machine model, i.e. not lose performance, but without all the potentials for foot-shooting in C++.
Those cliams are rather subtle and it seems a bit hard for many people to understand so they often get simplified.
Mozilla have developed and continue to work on an open source, non spying speech recognition system. If you want to build speech controlled stuff, that wouldn't be a bad place to start.
We know that Google is controlled by some highly political people.
I can see where this is going, and it's going somewhere pretty silly. Google's actions are simly no that coherent. They block people you like, also people you hate and plenty of random shit for no apparent reason that you're ambivalent about.
All of the XKCD-citing
And yet you don't in fact have the right to spew venom in my living room or indeed on a forum I run.
hipsters
I know you think it's an insult, but they don't. Hipsters have better food fewer gears (just one!) and seem to enjoy life a great deal by choosing to not have the same priorities as you.
This makes a lot of people angry because they seem to be winning at life (i.e. being happy) by not putting in the soul crushing grind to make tons of money.
More power to them, I say. And I shall continue to get excellent coffee while enjoying the fine selection of beards on display.
This is a good time to remind people that XKCD wrote that comic to justify the forceful expulsion from the entire Internet of ordinary people
No it's a good time to remind people you've gone way off the deep end, mate.
It does however prove that just aobut anything in favour of gamergate no matter how batshit insane will get modded up here. Like this bit:
of al-Qaeda.
Aside: isn't that sort of old news even for the crazies? Aren't ISIS responsible for chemtrails now or are they merely a false flag perpertrated by the deep state t ostop us knowing the truth about how a chemtrail spraying plane actually did 9/11?
All of that "Gamergate harassment?" There was one tweet.
Gamergate was one tweet: +3 Insightful. I think that might be a new low for slashdot moderation.
Restaurants are crappy jobs at entry level. they will likely screw the candidate around a great deal. It seems a bit rich whining about a minor ghosting.
Indeed. On threads about employment there seem to be some people who almost brag about how badly their company treats employees. Like making them jump through inane hoops at interview or escorting thme instantly off premesis without letting them collect their stuff when they give notice, to continual crunch times with atrocitious behaviour from bosses and co workers and so on. There's also the incredibly aggressibe "buisness" crowd who justify almost any shitty behaviour as "business".
I could say that former or potential emplyees not wasting a second of time on those clowns is just good busines from their point of view.
Meredith Jones, an Indianapolis-based director of human resources for a national restaurant operator, now overbooks interviews, knowing up to 50 percent of candidates for entry-level roles likely won't show up."
An entry level role at a restaurant chain is going to be an incredibly shitty job. And likely to be taken by candidates who need the work pretty ASAP. If they've found something else they're at leat extending the restaurant more respect than they would have got if they'd been employed by ghosting rather than wasting a lot of their time over a long period.
I was going to come here to say something about recruiters.
I've come to the asusmption that the default state of recruiters is to waste my time. In fairness to some recruiters who I know and who are very good, it's the bad 90% giving the good 10% a bad name.
Mostly they are a pain in the arse who are very coy about important details and string you along as long as possible on the belief that once they've "sold" you the job, you'll happily take something at under half the market rate...
I'd say my coversations usually end with either me or the recruiter ghosting each other (i.e. not replying). Usually it happes when my opening reply is SHOW ME THE $$$: either they fail to reply or fail to answer the question in which I fail to reply.
I can't imaging ghosting an employer however, mostly this is because I'm currently at a stage where I don't think I'd take a job that would end that way.
WTF is wiht today's meme of "papers please" trolls on HTTPs websites.
Something that stops the goverenment, the phone company and the hotel WIFI from snooping on your traffic and potentially injecting malicious content is now equivalent to "papers please"? What the ever-living fuck?
If you hate HTTPs so much just blindly accept every single certificate ever and you'll be exactly in the situation you're in right now. I would say there's a browser extension out there to do that but I doubt anyone who has the wherewithal to write such an extension would be stupid enough to believe it was worth doing.
It is not misguided at all. Google wants a monopoly. They don't want any other company to have the ability to monitor what users are doing. Forcing https achieves this goal.
I'm as suspicious of google as the next guy but this is a huge pile of bullshit, frankly, because you're setting up one of the craziest oppositions I've seen which is:
Google want to monitor everything therefore we should let the government, the phone company and any other random yahoo do it.
Forcing HTTPs everywhere doesn't do anything to stop google, but it sure stops a lot of other unsavouries. Basically you're rejecting a step which helps a lot becuase it's not perfectly solving everything.
Wow straid from a discussion on server to security to "herp derp muh freedumz" and invoking China. Well done for a completely hyperbole laden over reaction.
All sane places which means most of the US (WTF New Mexico, WTF??), and just about every first world country require your car is tested to ensure it's not an utter menace before it's allowed on public roads. Freedom does not generally include freedom to forcible be a nusiance (or danger) to others, because they have freedoms too.
it's a pretty common attitude here and comes up on every subject from programming, tech in general, discrimination, climate change, pollution, electric cars, space progress and politics and privacy, namely if we can't have a solution instantly which does everything perfectly, then we shouldn't bother at all. Taking steps towards a better solution seems right out.
Yes but not entirely: it's probably closer to half than a third. I expect the bulk shipping of goods from the factory to the port is much more efficient than delivery of individual items.
Making more products local to the market and not having to transport them long distances is how you do that.
I crunched the numbers a while back. Shipping an item of white goods from China to the UK takes about as much fuel as delivering it from a localish warehouse.
Slashdot Mirror
They are politicians. They screw the entire population. That should be more than enough for anyone.
Should be, but somehow it never is.
Maybe you're right, but not for the reasons you state:
We now have supercomputers built with ARM CPUs.
Yes, but we also have SPARC powered supercomputers and we haven't had SPARC laptops since Tadpole in the 1990s. What makes for a good supercomputer and a good laptop are quite different things. Part of what makes for a good supercomputer is a fast, very wide floating point unit. But even more, supercomputers live and die on the interconnect. One thing you'll notice is that The Riken, stil very competetive and #1 on some benchmarks has an on die interconnect. Those things add up to making a good supercomputer.
What makes ARM useful in this regard is that it's a flexible enough design that they can add on their fast, wide vector FP unit and the interconnect, not to mention a fast, wide memory bus, but no longer have to maintain a now ageing CPU core.
In the other direction, Intel are already targeting the power balance for laptops. So, it doesn't mean we won't see ARM laptops, but the fact they're good for supercomputers has little bearing.
This is why we need more Republicans and Trump people in office!
Exactly! This whole ethics things is just stupid. We don't want law-abiding people in office, we want the finest criminals money can buy! I mean how else is my ship going to come in? I figure that any day now I'll get a bit rich and then I want to be able to bribe my way into getting sweet government lucre using ethics violations and then I'll be super rich.
There's much less chance of me being able to do that if we get rid of Trump and his ilk.
In a number of industries, like ISPs and energy providers, you just start buying elsewhere and they have to let the new company cancel the old contact automatically. For others if you want to cancel the easy way, send a snail mail letter. They seem to pay much more attention to those, and it takes way less time than waiting on hold.
A lot of people seem to think coding is "easy" and don't realize how sometimes you can work VERY VERY long hours to meet deadlines. I have been working since 8 in the morning, and it's now past 9 in the evening, and yes, I am taking a break to eat and read some slashdot, but after that I am going back to work.
You should spend your time polishing your resume and finding a new job instead. Working those hours is a failure of management. Unless the management is changed (it won't be because you're delivering) then you'll see the same shit over and over again.
You have one life: don't waste it working heroic hours for an asshat.
Yet another variable not counted for in climate models.
This is called "making shit up to support your beliefs".
Is the point you're trying to make "if you're writing a new web browser, consider Rust for the C-ish parts?"
That's literally what Rust was created for.
If someone is building a new web browser, of course they'll use XUL
You what? Firefox abandoned XUL.
and it makes sense to consider Rust for other parts.
Tha that is precisely what Mozilla is doing right now. They're slowly replacing C++ bit with Rust bits.
Not quite. Most of the comments and questions about Rust, here on Slashdot and many other places, either state or assume that using Rust will magically make your software much safer than other languages.
I think you're wildly exaggerating there.
You mentioned Heartbleed. Heartbleed was an input validation error - as in the input wasn't validated at all.
It was a buffer overflow overflow error triggered by lack of input validation. But if it had been in a memory safe language it would have been a simple DOS attack, not the single biggest security issue of the year.
That's in no way language specific.
Yes it is. How the fuck would heartbleed have allowd you to extract someone else's keys in Python, Java, Haskell, Rust..., well anything other than C or C++? It says here in the CVE that it's a buffer over-read (TIL there was a different term for read vs write in this context):
https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/...
That would not happen in not C or not C++, because other language you know, check bounds and do other things.
Which brings us on to the other topic. Why do people write major bits of infrastructure like SSL libraries and web browsers in unsafe languages like C and C++?
In Rust the function would be called std::ptr::copy_nonoverlapping instead of memcpy - it does the same thing, dump random memory back to the attacker.
Well done! You picked an unsafe function. You can get the same effect in, say, python or Java by using a C module and scribbling all over memory too. Kinf od the point is to stick to safe code. And it's auditable.
The fact you can manage unsafe things in just about any language no matter how hard you try does not mean that C is very unsafe by default and that C++ has quite a number of cases where it's eay to foul up. It's much harder.
Make no mistake: if you manage to do something memory unsafe in Rust you have either subverted it (by explicitly doing unsafe things) or have found a genuine bug.
I didn't say that.
I didn't say you said that, I said you are arguing that. And you are because you kept repeating the point about the number of CVEs only while not taking into account their performance.
I said I study vulnerabilities for a living, full time, and for the last several darn few of them have anything to do with anything Rust would help with.
You seem to think that anything other than C or C++ would not have prevented heartbleed either. I don't know how you can study these things full time not know that. Other languages crash or throw exceptions when overstepping the end of an array. C and C++ don't.
Have a look at the OWASP Top 10 - the most significant types of vulnerabilities that happen nowadays.
That's great and still doesn't invalidate anything I said. Sure you're more likely to make your web application insecure with an injection bug. But if you get a CVE in Chrome, half of everyone on the intire internet is vulnerable in one go.
You seem to be intentionally ignoring the distinction between infrastructure and applications. Rust is and always has been aimed at the same space as C++ (and C[*]). The claim that Rust magically makes your code safe against things inrelated to C++ specifically seems to have been invented by you.
It's possibly you've simply misunderstood people: when people talk about rust being "safe" it's almost always in the context of memry safety and in c
You're arguing three silly points. The first is more or less "someone on a forum said something I don't like therefore Rust is crap". Secondly, you're ignoring that the main aim of Rust is the same space as C and C++. And thirdly, you're arguing that all CVEs are equal.
The thing is, most infrastructure is built in C and C++. If there's a CVE in Chrome, it affects 58% of internet users. If there's a CVE in OpenSSL, it affects an *awful* lot of services. Remember heartbleed?
What we should do is not pretend it's any safer than Python, JavaScript, Perl, etc.
Firstly it's irrelevant because no one would write a major web browser in any of those. Remember what Rust if for, and remember how many people a CVE in a web browser affects?
As I said, 99% of all security issues are unrelated to anything Rust does any better
Yes you keep saying it but it doesn't make your point any more accurate. None of those supposed other languages you keep harping on about compete with C++. It doesn't matter how safe a Haskell based browser would be it it takes 10 minutes to render a web page.
so to pretend that Rust will solve your security problems
Stop denying that a lot of infrastructure is in C and C++ and that those languagea are not safe.
or even a significant percentage of security problems, is dishonest.
Eh I mean how important was heartbleed anyway? I mean that hardly affected anyone, nulike that CVE against that obscure wordpress plugin that affected positively 10s of sites...
What's different about Rust is a very clever marketing thing they did.
No.
They took the fact that most languages, including Rust, don't have buffer overflows
But most languages can't operate in the same spaces as C and C++.
That specific issue is mostly just seen in C.
And C++. And it just so happens that most of the high performance software in the world is written in one of those two languages.
Particularly web browsers (until Rust).
Write all your software in Rust and you'll never have another bug!"
That sounds like an invented claim.
The problem then is that newbies who don't understand much about programming *think* they're safe because they're using tigers.
Right so we should neuter everything we use to build the major bits of infrastructure in the world because newbies?
I maintain a database of every CVE (security bug) ever reported. Well under 1% of them are buffer overflows, so it's a tiny percentage of problems that Rust protects against.
That's a very disingenuous claim. Firstly you should only compare to large C++ programs, because that's what Rust is competing with. It's vapid to compare to other languages because no one has written a major web browser in anything other than C++ because C is far too hard for the task and nothig else is remotely fast enough.
Rust's sole purpose is to provide a C-like machine model with memory safety, which includes safety from data races, use-after-free, dangling reference bugs and so on. The goal is to allow people to write in that machine model, i.e. not lose performance, but without all the potentials for foot-shooting in C++.
Those cliams are rather subtle and it seems a bit hard for many people to understand so they often get simplified.
Mozilla have developed and continue to work on an open source, non spying speech recognition system. If you want to build speech controlled stuff, that wouldn't be a bad place to start.
That solves nothing.
Add a Poisson random number of seconds to the trade (say, mean value of 20 seconds) and then process them in order of time placed + random number.
We know that Google is controlled by some highly political people.
I can see where this is going, and it's going somewhere pretty silly. Google's actions are simly no that coherent. They block people you like, also people you hate and plenty of random shit for no apparent reason that you're ambivalent about.
All of the XKCD-citing
And yet you don't in fact have the right to spew venom in my living room or indeed on a forum I run.
hipsters
I know you think it's an insult, but they don't. Hipsters have better food fewer gears (just one!) and seem to enjoy life a great deal by choosing to not have the same priorities as you.
This makes a lot of people angry because they seem to be winning at life (i.e. being happy) by not putting in the soul crushing grind to make tons of money.
More power to them, I say. And I shall continue to get excellent coffee while enjoying the fine selection of beards on display.
This is a good time to remind people that XKCD wrote that comic to justify the forceful expulsion from the entire Internet of ordinary people
No it's a good time to remind people you've gone way off the deep end, mate.
It does however prove that just aobut anything in favour of gamergate no matter how batshit insane will get modded up here. Like this bit:
of al-Qaeda.
Aside: isn't that sort of old news even for the crazies? Aren't ISIS responsible for chemtrails now or are they merely a false flag perpertrated by the deep state t ostop us knowing the truth about how a chemtrail spraying plane actually did 9/11?
All of that "Gamergate harassment?" There was one tweet.
Gamergate was one tweet: +3 Insightful. I think that might be a new low for slashdot moderation.
Restaurants are crappy jobs at entry level. they will likely screw the candidate around a great deal. It seems a bit rich whining about a minor ghosting.
Turnabout's fair play.
Indeed. On threads about employment there seem to be some people who almost brag about how badly their company treats employees. Like making them jump through inane hoops at interview or escorting thme instantly off premesis without letting them collect their stuff when they give notice, to continual crunch times with atrocitious behaviour from bosses and co workers and so on. There's also the incredibly aggressibe "buisness" crowd who justify almost any shitty behaviour as "business".
I could say that former or potential emplyees not wasting a second of time on those clowns is just good busines from their point of view.
I wonder how much correlation there is?
Meredith Jones, an Indianapolis-based director of human resources for a national restaurant operator, now overbooks interviews, knowing up to 50 percent of candidates for entry-level roles likely won't show up."
An entry level role at a restaurant chain is going to be an incredibly shitty job. And likely to be taken by candidates who need the work pretty ASAP. If they've found something else they're at leat extending the restaurant more respect than they would have got if they'd been employed by ghosting rather than wasting a lot of their time over a long period.
I was going to come here to say something about recruiters.
I've come to the asusmption that the default state of recruiters is to waste my time. In fairness to some recruiters who I know and who are very good, it's the bad 90% giving the good 10% a bad name.
Mostly they are a pain in the arse who are very coy about important details and string you along as long as possible on the belief that once they've "sold" you the job, you'll happily take something at under half the market rate...
I'd say my coversations usually end with either me or the recruiter ghosting each other (i.e. not replying). Usually it happes when my opening reply is SHOW ME THE $$$: either they fail to reply or fail to answer the question in which I fail to reply.
I can't imaging ghosting an employer however, mostly this is because I'm currently at a stage where I don't think I'd take a job that would end that way.
WTF is wiht today's meme of "papers please" trolls on HTTPs websites.
Something that stops the goverenment, the phone company and the hotel WIFI from snooping on your traffic and potentially injecting malicious content is now equivalent to "papers please"? What the ever-living fuck?
If you hate HTTPs so much just blindly accept every single certificate ever and you'll be exactly in the situation you're in right now. I would say there's a browser extension out there to do that but I doubt anyone who has the wherewithal to write such an extension would be stupid enough to believe it was worth doing.
Are you a bot that's simply been trained on a dictionary of tech terms?
It is not misguided at all. Google wants a monopoly. They don't want any other company to have the ability to monitor what users are doing. Forcing https achieves this goal.
I'm as suspicious of google as the next guy but this is a huge pile of bullshit, frankly, because you're setting up one of the craziest oppositions I've seen which is:
Google want to monitor everything therefore we should let the government, the phone company and any other random yahoo do it.
Forcing HTTPs everywhere doesn't do anything to stop google, but it sure stops a lot of other unsavouries. Basically you're rejecting a step which helps a lot becuase it's not perfectly solving everything.
Wow straid from a discussion on server to security to "herp derp muh freedumz" and invoking China. Well done for a completely hyperbole laden over reaction.
All sane places which means most of the US (WTF New Mexico, WTF??), and just about every first world country require your car is tested to ensure it's not an utter menace before it's allowed on public roads. Freedom does not generally include freedom to forcible be a nusiance (or danger) to others, because they have freedoms too.
it's a pretty common attitude here and comes up on every subject from programming, tech in general, discrimination, climate change, pollution, electric cars, space progress and politics and privacy, namely if we can't have a solution instantly which does everything perfectly, then we shouldn't bother at all. Taking steps towards a better solution seems right out.
Yes but not entirely: it's probably closer to half than a third. I expect the bulk shipping of goods from the factory to the port is much more efficient than delivery of individual items.
Making more products local to the market and not having to transport them long distances is how you do that.
I crunched the numbers a while back. Shipping an item of white goods from China to the UK takes about as much fuel as delivering it from a localish warehouse.
veryone knows that ICEs are grossly inefficient, even if they are powerful, but let's face it: they're over 100 year old technology at this point.
An replace them with what? electric motors are over 100 year old technology too.