Your understanding of the American beer market is about 30 years out of date. Not the criticism is 'over hopped IPAs' as far as the eye can see. American can beer is still awful, but only hipsters and trailer trash drink it.
Funny you should say that. I was at a wedding this weekend where out of the blue the German groom told me that the US now has better beer than Germany does. Some people like hop heavy IPAs. Sorry you don't but I'm sure you can find other types of beer in the US too.
Now that our sexual mores have gone back to Victorian times, I'm hoping that we are now about to see the good side of the Victorian era
What, like Pony Play, or S&M, or piercing your dick (called a Prince Albert, you know, Victoria's husband), Cocaine, Opium, and the many many things the Victorians did secretly?
What the Victorians did in private, and what they professed in public were often very different things.
Just like today, the louder someone rails against fun sex, the more likely they are to be trying to get a little action in the stall of an airport bathroom, show up with hookers, or be abusing children.
If people would just get over it and stop the hypocrisy and realize that humans are sexual creatures, the world would be a better place. Instead we have moralizing assholes who profess one thing in public, and do completely different things in private, or trying to make people live to an impossible and ridiculous standard in which sex is evil.
Struggled, even when they had not just a majority for 4 of the 8 years, but a super-majority (filibuster-proof) for a good chunk of that, too. Easier to blame failures on the "other side" than the reality that even the President's own party thought much of what he offered was poor...
That's just not true. Obama had a simply majority Dem congress for only his first 2 years. It was majority Rep for the rest of his terms. Obama never had a super majority Dem congress at any point.
Somehow people seem to think it's only possible to enforce high code standards by treating other people like crap. Which is really weird.
Maybe you've never been good at anything and done it at a high level. In just about every aspect of society where there is an "elite" of something (could be ballet or sports or trading stocks, etc), being part of that higher unit has some good points, but a constant pleasant social interaction is never one of them for anything but monks.
On one hand, it's interesting how investors are really interested in companies bing a one trick pony. They are investing in a "ride sharing" (LOL) company. They are not interested in a company that does ride sharing AND self driving. If they wanted a self driving car company, they would invest in a self driving car company.
On the other hand, it's interesting how companies refuse to be one trick ponies. Uber saw the writing on the wall. They know in a few years it will be all about self driving. They wan't to be ready for the change. Being first to game is the key.
Basically you have to shake investors off as soon as you can. These people are interested in "money now" as opposed to "money later". This is why companies that operate at a loss all the time have little future.
I will do you one better. Uber isn't a viable business without self-driving cars. The entire model is to lose money until they can replace their drivers and then recoup those losses when their AVs becomes viable. These investors that want Uber to sell off the AV division basically don't understand any of this. And this is the type of action that is why being a public company is a double edged sword. On one hand you can sell your equity whenever you want, but on the other hand accountants and financial journalists with no understanding of the business will try to intervene at inopportune moments. This is the CEO's version of "the market can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent." While accountants run Wall Street, this will remain the case. But the world is an increasingly complex place and its becoming the case that analysts just don't have enough understand of technology to accurately assess most companies today. Even Uber which is a relatively simple business when compared to some of the business models out there.
I have a Chevy Bolt sitting in my garage that says otherwise. Nissan has sold over 300,000 Leafs to date. If that's not mass production I'm not sure you understand the term. Pretty much every major auto company already has put serious money into electrification but there still is a huge market (much larger than the EV market) in ICE vehicles for them to serve too. EVs are coming and I'm a true believer in them but it's not going to happen overnight and your claim that no automaker could mass produce an EV in the next 5 years is just clearly not true.
The reason for this is while the auto makers can make cars, they can't make the EV batteries.
There are plenty of battery companies and Tesla doesn't really make their own batteries either. Panasonic does the heavy lifting for Tesla on batteries. You were aware that Panasonic is the one that made the majority of the investment for the gigafactory right?
You have a Bolt. How nice...I have a Volt (its my second one). Neither are mass produced cars. Each sell about 2,000 units a month. The Model 3 sells about 2.5X of that in a week. The Leaf sells in similar numbers to the Volt and Bolt. Also, the Bolt is a chastity belt on wheels. If you think the Bolt proves that GM loves EVs, then you don't understand cars at all. If GM had really wanted to sell a lot of Bolts, they would have given it nicer styling and not made it look like a golf cart. The Bolt is a car designed to fail. Also GM looses about $9,000 per car for both the Volt and Bolt.
The battery chemistry used in the Telsa are special to Tesla and not owned by Panasonic or used by Panasonic's other customers. The main reason for this is that the Tesla batteries (by design) need to be kept at a constant temp all the time and wouldn't be suitable for laptops or cell phones. This is different from pretty much all other battery makers who make batteries designed to deal with the stresses of a laptop or cell phone and that makes the batteries more expensive.
and now capital investment will be slower and production will result in profits. Production done using the equipment represented by said capital investments. Simple.
Tesla's market cap is about the same as GM's. GM produces about 8,000 cars per day (averaged over the year), or 56,000 cars per week. An order of magnitude more than Tesla. If Tesla wants to justify its market cap, they need to spend about 10x more capital investment on production equipment as they spent just to get to 5,000 cars per week. If they now slow down investing in production equipment as you're theorizing, they're basically saying "Our stock should only be priced at $35 a share."
Sure, GM makes a lot of cars. But, there is no growth story for GM. There is no real reason to think that GM will be making 2x the revenue in 2 years. But with Tesla, that's not just a possibility...its likely. That's the difference and why there is a difference in the market cap (really a different multiple). The other thing is that people actually want Tesla's cars. GM's cars aren't nearly as desirable to the public and aren't sold with even close to the same margin. Tesla makes about 3x what GM makes per car of profit on the Model S and by the end of the year make that much on a Model 3.
No other auto maker will be able to mass produce an EV in the next 5 years (BWM is the closest and won't be there for about 4 1/2 years at the earliest). The reason for this is while the auto makers can make cars, they can't make the EV batteries. Also, they don't have secured supplies for the Li and other rare earth metals they need. Finally, they don't have the knowledge of the battery chemistry to make those batteries efficient enough to sell them (or the EVs that contain them) at a profit.
This is why Tesla has a huge multiple. Because even the most ardent Tesla Bear will admit that many people want an EV and will be buying them in the next 5 years. Because the EV market will be in the millions by most projections in the next 5-8 years. During that time, Tesla will have the only option on the market. The question is can they hold that lead. Most say yes for a variety of reasons: 1) Auto makers hate EVs to the very core of their soul 2) Dealerships hate EVs because they mess with their business model 3) you need to be the world's largest producer of batteries (Tesla) to make EVs profitably.
Octonions, quaternions and the like are algebras for dealing with dimensions represented by imaginary numbers. But they are special purpose, like most of the algebras used by physicists. They were 1 of 2 ways to represent vectors in math (the other being Vector Algebra). A way of uniting these two methods into 1 framework was discovered by Clifford about 50 years later but by that time there was a big split in math over VA vs Quaternions (which VA won). And most of the field ignored Clifford and his way to unite the two (VA and Quaternions). This is a big reason why its hard to unite multiple parts of physics as some still use Quaternions while most others use VA.
So in the 50s a mathematician named David Hestenes developed a new branch of math called Geometric Algebra (based upon Clifford Algebras) which could subsume all of the different algebras used by physicists (and many others too). Additionally, it can handle contravariance and covariance, any positive integer number of dimensions, and handle algebras over imaginary numbers. Quantum Loop Gravity uses Geometric Algebra for instance. The problem is that Geometric Algebra isn't taught yet except perhaps at a post-doc level to mathematicians. The first textbook covering GA for Computer Science was just published in 2017. There are hopes that reformulating physics in to GA will allow unifications that were either not possible or too difficult when each part of physics uses different types of algebras.
The problem with all of this? GA is really really really hard. There is even an extension to GA called Geometric Calculus that's even more difficult. Given how difficult most students find VA which is much easier than GA, I'm not sure when we can expect most physics to make new theories using GA instead of VA. But when we can climb that hill, we will likely be able to see new physics on the other side. There are also a great many CS applications of GA as well (which is what I do).
My take on TFA, is that this physicist is going down a wrong path because she was never taught GA. If she finds something, it will likely have to be converted into GA to unify it with other algebras used in other parts of physics. But I could be wrong, who knows but some of the greatest physicists in history have gone down this specific rabbit hole with nothing to show for it at the end. I wish her luck.
You know, the one thing I've ever been able to do is tolerate a framework building SQL queries for me. I get that it makes sense if you're using a number of databases, like nosql and the like, so a level of abstraction allows higher code portability, but in general I simply do not trust any framework's ability to generate a SQL query as optimized as the one I can build by hand. Of course this makes for less portable code, but honestly, I'd rather just do whatever variant of #IFDEF any language has and rewrite the query for whatever database the application is hooking in to (yes, I know, lots of reinventing of the wheel) than to trust nameless and faceless framework developers. I know at that point that the SQL is secure, rather than having faith that someone out there knows what they're doing. Besides, I do kind of think in SQL, due to 20+ years of writing SQL code, and it actually helps me at the prototyping stage to get a sense of data flow. I usually work from the database up, because that's just how my brain seems to work.
And you are why SQL injection attacks are still a thing in web dev. And this comes from someone who loves SQL and has written SQL only applications before.
Th post the other day about python brought out all the curmudgeons who damned it as a "toy language" not fit for "anything longer than a page". Meanwhile the comments here are people defending PHP as "the right tool depending on the environment" and "its not the language, there are bad developers using every language."
Slashdot really confuses me sometimes.
Because they are not the same people. These people defending PHP are either PHP programmers or somehow their paychecks are tied to a PHP project of some kind. I've looked at PHP and its a disaster and clearly not suited to making larger or commercial projects. You can with enough skill and effort make that happen but your organization probably doesn't have that level of skill and management to make that happen. So what will happen is cheap, cargo cult programming that drives away good programmers. This results in the dead sea effect for PHP projects.
The other's criticizing PHP probably either don't currently, or never used PHP. The anti side rightly points out all the flaws in the language and runtime. But since we have no skin in the game, we are less likely to post on these types of articles. There are probably many many more anti PHP/.ers out there but since we don't post on PHP very often, our voices are quieter. Those poor souls that write in PHP likely post in PHP articles far more often so their voices are loud. And hence your confusion. Its no different than why governments seems to cater to "special interests" so often, they show up as they have skin in the game.
The thing is, with PHP it's the blind leading the blind. Nobody has a clue, and starts with Rasmus (by his own admission). No skilled programmer would put up with PHP for any significant amount of time, life is too short for that aggravation. The corollary is, PHP crap never gets fixed because nobody with the skill is willing to go sewer diving to the extent that would be necessary.
Fine by me, because the challenge usually is not making something perfect, but dealing with imperfections.
This is pretty much the same war as MySQL vs. real DMBS's debate, recognizing strengths and weaknesses and finding methods how to deal with them the best way.
You are right about this being like the MySQL vs real DBMS debate. On one side we have a real system which scales and behaves reliably. On the other, you have part of a real system that mostly works until it doesn't and doesn't scale very well especially after you are already too deep in to change. To know the difference, you actually have to know what a DB is, how it works, what kinds of features it supplies, and when you need those features. If you don't know anything, you are likely to get your team/company trapped in technology that isn't suitable for your needs. I've seen unicorns get trapped in these mistakes and cost themselves billions in revenue. This is the cost of using cheap developers and when the business history of this period is written, this will be the domain lesson of this age. Cheap developers cost you plenty in the end.
Ford (which is struggling for stock price) and FCA (which is circling the bowl for a broad variety of reasons) the entrenched auto industry can afford to take the wait-and-see position while Tesla figures out what customers want. If they ever actually got desperate, they could use Tesla's patents, and license particular pieces of tech from Tesla.
There are two particularly likely outcomes for Tesla. One, they continue to succeed as an automaker, and make a small percentage of the vehicles on the road. By the time their numbers get at all big, mobility/sharing services will have decimated personal vehicle ownership. Or two, they simply become a tier 1 supplier, providing primarily batteries, electronics, and electric motors. Automakers are already getting into more powerplant sharing because customers of low-end vehicles don't care. Sooner or later, nobody will.
And this is the basic flaw in the bear's arguments. What makes you think that the big auto makers could make an EV profitably? They don't have battery factories. They don't have a supply chain for the EV parts. And they don't have any experience making AVs. GM is probably the closest of the big auto makers to being able to make an EV profitably and its unlikely likely to do so. They lose about $9000 per Bolt today. To make that profitable, they need to scale up to about 10x the sales they currently get. GM couldn't acquire that many batteries on the open market. Even if battery makers agreed to scale up their operations, there isn't enough non-committed Li mined to supply all those batteries. Who has the contracts for all that Li? Tesla, duh. Even if GM's management somehow reverses their course, their dealership network will prevent the adoption of EVs.
Also, the Waze AV system costs about $100K per car to install so I doubt AVs will do much to reduce auto ownership in the next decade or so. They will fuck over taxi and uber drivers though.
Tech companies waging open warfare against the ability of law enforcement to perform basic duties is just *daring* the government to take steps to try and force them to put the same backdoors and such into their phones that you'd expect from countries with ACTUAL oppressive police. Here the corporatocracy is actively trying to assert its dominance over the real, elected government of the United States, and there's no good outcome when that happens.
Though the ability will always exist in one form or another, essentially no one needs end-to-end encryption on their day to day communications - people got by just fine back in the day without using ciphers to write all their letters or emails. Apple managed to turn the minor hassle of having to respond to law enforcement unlock requests into a full-blown marketing campaign based on unfounded and manufactured fears of the feds digging through your phone and throwing you into Gitmo because you complained about Trump too much or something.
So that means your banking and medical records too right? Get real, you are suggesting a world without locks. Encryption has plenty of day to day real world uses. That you don't like this one, doesn't mean they don't exist and that most people use them everyday. And even in the past, letters had wax seals as a security precaution.
Football. When you touch a round ball only with your foot, it's football. When you hold an egg shaped object in your hands, it's hand-egg.
It's Football vs Hand-egg. Not "sucker" vs "football".
Football is called football because its played on foot, not because its played with your feet. See all the various other types of football (Gaelic Football, American Football, Australian Rules Football, etc) for evidence.
Many older cities, especially in Europe, followed a circular diagram, with ray streets outwards and round ones connecting them. At first that would be the result of being squeezed into city walls, then followed expansion outwards, along these streets and filling in the space in between.
And cities located in hilly/mountainous terrain will have streets following curvature of the hills; the steep streets of San Francisco that completely ignore the slopes and make for such iconic scenes in car chase movies are something rarely seen in the world. Usually, you'll have streets that run along the slope, maintaining level or moderate climb/descent, and connecting/branching where terrain allows.
In the bay area, there are many parts where the roads follow the curvature of the hills (Oakland hills, etc). Many times, those parts are just too steep to make a grid a viable solution. The hills in SF just are not that steep by comparison which is why the grid ignores the hills and the sidewalks turn into steps. From being in both parts, I can tell you its far faster to use the grid. Even with all the extra traffic in SF, its still faster to move across the city than the Oakland hills due to the streets being chaotic when a grid isn't used. And that's why grids are used so often, they are just more efficient and when they can be used, they are.
The same as what? Bostons first streets followed the shorelines and built from there. It likely would show up looking like Baltimore in his graphs. As you go away from the city it gets less structured.
Yes, because none of those other cities are on bodies of water. Charlotte is land locked and its the other city that is a mess. You probably didn't see it, but there's another chart of 25 cities from around the world and your correlation between water and organization of the streets just doesn't hold up. Rome it seems is the most chaotic and its not on water. It seems that the age of the city and its willingness to fix infrastructure issues after the fact are the two factors that influence this measure of chaos. In some cases it seems, the city is just very old (Rome). In other cases, it seems the city just is unwilling to fix previous issues with the organisation of its streets and Boston seems to fall into the second category.
But the native americans in those days WERE SAVAGES. Let's keep our language aligned with reality ok? Fuck peoples' feefees.
Political system and organization: check.
Language, culture and arts: check.
Social structure that looked out for all people: check
A couple of tribes (Iroquois, Mayas, Incas, Aztecs and a few others) had political systems, most didn't (their groups were just too small to need them). They all did have a spoken language (obviously) but only the southern empires (Mayan, Aztec and Incas) had a written form of language. The social structure part is present in many groups and isn't really part of any definition of civilization.
In fact, what we use as the "line in the sand" for what defines a civilization is writing. Which would mean only the southern empires would technically be civilizations and not any of the other tribes north of the Rio Grande. Also, as soon as Europeans landed (no matter their intentions) a chain of biological events began which led to the deaths of 90% of the native tribes. The truth is, there is much we don't know w.r.t. the exact nature of pre-Columbian native societies as they were shattered before Europeans showed up. Europeans only saw empty villages and groups that we a shadow of their former selves. But we do have some idea as to their level of technological sophistication (from their artifacts) but not that much else.
And the idea they were "perhaps ahead of European nations in many ways" is entirely false and tells me more about you than history. The Europeans of Columbus's time already had the global navigation, gunpowder (already improved from China's original invention), precision steel casting (cannon), and could make glass for lenses (spyglasses) already. The Italian Renaissance was just starting and while it hadn't really gotten going yet, it was already starting to yield new inventions. The most sophisticated native empires of the day had no large scale metal working and no wheel. Now this might have been due to the lack of a large domesticatable land animal like the horse or cow for doing manual labor, but it still was.
This is really amazing. It is like computers are good at image recognition. I see a lot of potential in this AI.
Actually medical diagnosis was the first challenge AI succeed at...back in the 1970's. It wasn't until the late 90's that AI succeed at another major feat (beating the world champ at Chess). There really isn't anything surprising or impressive about this feat.
The problem with AI systems in medicine are the doctors who don't want to use the technology. Step into a hospital sometime and look at their computer systems which will often be older than what you can see in the computer museum. The second problem is insurance which doesn't really want the current system changed. The problem with utilizing this technology (which has existed in some form for 40 years already) is people, not the abilities of the technology.
How much land would a single 'self-sufficient' farmer require? How much could the farmer grow on that land compared to an automated farm?
Why give the person a job when more food could be grown much more easily by using automation?
Labor isn't the constraining factor for food production. The amount of arable land is a real and the most serious constraint. Water being the second biggest constraint. Automation of farm labor is a solution looking for a problem to solve. There are plenty of other much better uses for automation. For instance, its probably much more hygienic for a robot to prepare food than a person and instead the person just cleans the robot periodically. Automation doesn't really do much to increase the Earth's carrying capacity. It doesn't however allow the possibility for us to clean up some of the larger environmental issues we have caused.
Link, please. I can't find it anywhere. I find a lot of claims that Tesla came up a bit short, but did NOT reach 5000 units per week. Or are you stretching the truth again?
Well, there is this tweet that says "7000 cars, 7 days". Not sure exactly what Elon means here. 7000 total cars or 7000 model 3s but Telsa has registered over 8000 new model 3 VINs in the last week.
Slashdot Mirror
Your understanding of the American beer market is about 30 years out of date. Not the criticism is 'over hopped IPAs' as far as the eye can see. American can beer is still awful, but only hipsters and trailer trash drink it.
Funny you should say that. I was at a wedding this weekend where out of the blue the German groom told me that the US now has better beer than Germany does. Some people like hop heavy IPAs. Sorry you don't but I'm sure you can find other types of beer in the US too.
What, like Pony Play, or S&M, or piercing your dick (called a Prince Albert, you know, Victoria's husband), Cocaine, Opium, and the many many things the Victorians did secretly?
What the Victorians did in private, and what they professed in public were often very different things.
Just like today, the louder someone rails against fun sex, the more likely they are to be trying to get a little action in the stall of an airport bathroom, show up with hookers, or be abusing children.
If people would just get over it and stop the hypocrisy and realize that humans are sexual creatures, the world would be a better place. Instead we have moralizing assholes who profess one thing in public, and do completely different things in private, or trying to make people live to an impossible and ridiculous standard in which sex is evil.
Wish I had mod points today...
You only need to stay in the middle of the hurricane, there is plenty of room there. The eye of the hurricane is pretty comfy!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
That works until the eye moves over land, which never happens right?
Now effort is re-focusing on helping boys reach the same level.
Citation needed...it would be nice if true but nothing in my son's public educational experience (he is 18) bore this out in any way shape or form.
Struggled, even when they had not just a majority for 4 of the 8 years, but a super-majority (filibuster-proof) for a good chunk of that, too. Easier to blame failures on the "other side" than the reality that even the President's own party thought much of what he offered was poor...
That's just not true. Obama had a simply majority Dem congress for only his first 2 years. It was majority Rep for the rest of his terms. Obama never had a super majority Dem congress at any point.
Now go eat a cock you subhuman dick eating shit for brains idiot.
I really hope you forgot that ironic tag there
Somehow people seem to think it's only possible to enforce high code standards by treating other people like crap. Which is really weird.
Maybe you've never been good at anything and done it at a high level. In just about every aspect of society where there is an "elite" of something (could be ballet or sports or trading stocks, etc), being part of that higher unit has some good points, but a constant pleasant social interaction is never one of them for anything but monks.
On one hand, it's interesting how investors are really interested in companies bing a one trick pony. They are investing in a "ride sharing" (LOL) company. They are not interested in a company that does ride sharing AND self driving. If they wanted a self driving car company, they would invest in a self driving car company.
On the other hand, it's interesting how companies refuse to be one trick ponies. Uber saw the writing on the wall. They know in a few years it will be all about self driving. They wan't to be ready for the change. Being first to game is the key.
Basically you have to shake investors off as soon as you can. These people are interested in "money now" as opposed to "money later". This is why companies that operate at a loss all the time have little future.
I will do you one better. Uber isn't a viable business without self-driving cars. The entire model is to lose money until they can replace their drivers and then recoup those losses when their AVs becomes viable. These investors that want Uber to sell off the AV division basically don't understand any of this. And this is the type of action that is why being a public company is a double edged sword. On one hand you can sell your equity whenever you want, but on the other hand accountants and financial journalists with no understanding of the business will try to intervene at inopportune moments. This is the CEO's version of "the market can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent." While accountants run Wall Street, this will remain the case. But the world is an increasingly complex place and its becoming the case that analysts just don't have enough understand of technology to accurately assess most companies today. Even Uber which is a relatively simple business when compared to some of the business models out there.
Multi-core bots are people too.
Hmm, 243 is Venus's rotation period. Coincidence?
Yes. Also, all of these. Put away the tin foil.
I have a Chevy Bolt sitting in my garage that says otherwise. Nissan has sold over 300,000 Leafs to date. If that's not mass production I'm not sure you understand the term. Pretty much every major auto company already has put serious money into electrification but there still is a huge market (much larger than the EV market) in ICE vehicles for them to serve too. EVs are coming and I'm a true believer in them but it's not going to happen overnight and your claim that no automaker could mass produce an EV in the next 5 years is just clearly not true.
The reason for this is while the auto makers can make cars, they can't make the EV batteries.
There are plenty of battery companies and Tesla doesn't really make their own batteries either. Panasonic does the heavy lifting for Tesla on batteries. You were aware that Panasonic is the one that made the majority of the investment for the gigafactory right?
You have a Bolt. How nice...I have a Volt (its my second one). Neither are mass produced cars. Each sell about 2,000 units a month. The Model 3 sells about 2.5X of that in a week. The Leaf sells in similar numbers to the Volt and Bolt. Also, the Bolt is a chastity belt on wheels. If you think the Bolt proves that GM loves EVs, then you don't understand cars at all. If GM had really wanted to sell a lot of Bolts, they would have given it nicer styling and not made it look like a golf cart. The Bolt is a car designed to fail. Also GM looses about $9,000 per car for both the Volt and Bolt.
The battery chemistry used in the Telsa are special to Tesla and not owned by Panasonic or used by Panasonic's other customers. The main reason for this is that the Tesla batteries (by design) need to be kept at a constant temp all the time and wouldn't be suitable for laptops or cell phones. This is different from pretty much all other battery makers who make batteries designed to deal with the stresses of a laptop or cell phone and that makes the batteries more expensive.
Tesla's market cap is about the same as GM's. GM produces about 8,000 cars per day (averaged over the year), or 56,000 cars per week. An order of magnitude more than Tesla. If Tesla wants to justify its market cap, they need to spend about 10x more capital investment on production equipment as they spent just to get to 5,000 cars per week. If they now slow down investing in production equipment as you're theorizing, they're basically saying "Our stock should only be priced at $35 a share."
Sure, GM makes a lot of cars. But, there is no growth story for GM. There is no real reason to think that GM will be making 2x the revenue in 2 years. But with Tesla, that's not just a possibility...its likely. That's the difference and why there is a difference in the market cap (really a different multiple). The other thing is that people actually want Tesla's cars. GM's cars aren't nearly as desirable to the public and aren't sold with even close to the same margin. Tesla makes about 3x what GM makes per car of profit on the Model S and by the end of the year make that much on a Model 3.
No other auto maker will be able to mass produce an EV in the next 5 years (BWM is the closest and won't be there for about 4 1/2 years at the earliest). The reason for this is while the auto makers can make cars, they can't make the EV batteries. Also, they don't have secured supplies for the Li and other rare earth metals they need. Finally, they don't have the knowledge of the battery chemistry to make those batteries efficient enough to sell them (or the EVs that contain them) at a profit.
This is why Tesla has a huge multiple. Because even the most ardent Tesla Bear will admit that many people want an EV and will be buying them in the next 5 years. Because the EV market will be in the millions by most projections in the next 5-8 years. During that time, Tesla will have the only option on the market. The question is can they hold that lead. Most say yes for a variety of reasons: 1) Auto makers hate EVs to the very core of their soul 2) Dealerships hate EVs because they mess with their business model 3) you need to be the world's largest producer of batteries (Tesla) to make EVs profitably.
So in the 50s a mathematician named David Hestenes developed a new branch of math called Geometric Algebra (based upon Clifford Algebras) which could subsume all of the different algebras used by physicists (and many others too). Additionally, it can handle contravariance and covariance, any positive integer number of dimensions, and handle algebras over imaginary numbers. Quantum Loop Gravity uses Geometric Algebra for instance. The problem is that Geometric Algebra isn't taught yet except perhaps at a post-doc level to mathematicians. The first textbook covering GA for Computer Science was just published in 2017. There are hopes that reformulating physics in to GA will allow unifications that were either not possible or too difficult when each part of physics uses different types of algebras.
The problem with all of this? GA is really really really hard. There is even an extension to GA called Geometric Calculus that's even more difficult. Given how difficult most students find VA which is much easier than GA, I'm not sure when we can expect most physics to make new theories using GA instead of VA. But when we can climb that hill, we will likely be able to see new physics on the other side. There are also a great many CS applications of GA as well (which is what I do).
My take on TFA, is that this physicist is going down a wrong path because she was never taught GA. If she finds something, it will likely have to be converted into GA to unify it with other algebras used in other parts of physics. But I could be wrong, who knows but some of the greatest physicists in history have gone down this specific rabbit hole with nothing to show for it at the end. I wish her luck.
You know, the one thing I've ever been able to do is tolerate a framework building SQL queries for me. I get that it makes sense if you're using a number of databases, like nosql and the like, so a level of abstraction allows higher code portability, but in general I simply do not trust any framework's ability to generate a SQL query as optimized as the one I can build by hand. Of course this makes for less portable code, but honestly, I'd rather just do whatever variant of #IFDEF any language has and rewrite the query for whatever database the application is hooking in to (yes, I know, lots of reinventing of the wheel) than to trust nameless and faceless framework developers. I know at that point that the SQL is secure, rather than having faith that someone out there knows what they're doing. Besides, I do kind of think in SQL, due to 20+ years of writing SQL code, and it actually helps me at the prototyping stage to get a sense of data flow. I usually work from the database up, because that's just how my brain seems to work.
And you are why SQL injection attacks are still a thing in web dev. And this comes from someone who loves SQL and has written SQL only applications before.
Th post the other day about python brought out all the curmudgeons who damned it as a "toy language" not fit for "anything longer than a page". Meanwhile the comments here are people defending PHP as "the right tool depending on the environment" and "its not the language, there are bad developers using every language." Slashdot really confuses me sometimes.
Because they are not the same people. These people defending PHP are either PHP programmers or somehow their paychecks are tied to a PHP project of some kind. I've looked at PHP and its a disaster and clearly not suited to making larger or commercial projects. You can with enough skill and effort make that happen but your organization probably doesn't have that level of skill and management to make that happen. So what will happen is cheap, cargo cult programming that drives away good programmers. This results in the dead sea effect for PHP projects.
The other's criticizing PHP probably either don't currently, or never used PHP. The anti side rightly points out all the flaws in the language and runtime. But since we have no skin in the game, we are less likely to post on these types of articles. There are probably many many more anti PHP /.ers out there but since we don't post on PHP very often, our voices are quieter. Those poor souls that write in PHP likely post in PHP articles far more often so their voices are loud. And hence your confusion. Its no different than why governments seems to cater to "special interests" so often, they show up as they have skin in the game.
The thing is, with PHP it's the blind leading the blind. Nobody has a clue, and starts with Rasmus (by his own admission). No skilled programmer would put up with PHP for any significant amount of time, life is too short for that aggravation. The corollary is, PHP crap never gets fixed because nobody with the skill is willing to go sewer diving to the extent that would be necessary.
Fine by me, because the challenge usually is not making something perfect, but dealing with imperfections.
This is pretty much the same war as MySQL vs. real DMBS's debate, recognizing strengths and weaknesses and finding methods how to deal with them the best way.
You are right about this being like the MySQL vs real DBMS debate. On one side we have a real system which scales and behaves reliably. On the other, you have part of a real system that mostly works until it doesn't and doesn't scale very well especially after you are already too deep in to change. To know the difference, you actually have to know what a DB is, how it works, what kinds of features it supplies, and when you need those features. If you don't know anything, you are likely to get your team/company trapped in technology that isn't suitable for your needs. I've seen unicorns get trapped in these mistakes and cost themselves billions in revenue. This is the cost of using cheap developers and when the business history of this period is written, this will be the domain lesson of this age. Cheap developers cost you plenty in the end.
Ford (which is struggling for stock price) and FCA (which is circling the bowl for a broad variety of reasons) the entrenched auto industry can afford to take the wait-and-see position while Tesla figures out what customers want. If they ever actually got desperate, they could use Tesla's patents, and license particular pieces of tech from Tesla.
There are two particularly likely outcomes for Tesla. One, they continue to succeed as an automaker, and make a small percentage of the vehicles on the road. By the time their numbers get at all big, mobility/sharing services will have decimated personal vehicle ownership. Or two, they simply become a tier 1 supplier, providing primarily batteries, electronics, and electric motors. Automakers are already getting into more powerplant sharing because customers of low-end vehicles don't care. Sooner or later, nobody will.
And this is the basic flaw in the bear's arguments. What makes you think that the big auto makers could make an EV profitably? They don't have battery factories. They don't have a supply chain for the EV parts. And they don't have any experience making AVs. GM is probably the closest of the big auto makers to being able to make an EV profitably and its unlikely likely to do so. They lose about $9000 per Bolt today. To make that profitable, they need to scale up to about 10x the sales they currently get. GM couldn't acquire that many batteries on the open market. Even if battery makers agreed to scale up their operations, there isn't enough non-committed Li mined to supply all those batteries. Who has the contracts for all that Li? Tesla, duh. Even if GM's management somehow reverses their course, their dealership network will prevent the adoption of EVs.
Also, the Waze AV system costs about $100K per car to install so I doubt AVs will do much to reduce auto ownership in the next decade or so. They will fuck over taxi and uber drivers though.
Tech companies waging open warfare against the ability of law enforcement to perform basic duties is just *daring* the government to take steps to try and force them to put the same backdoors and such into their phones that you'd expect from countries with ACTUAL oppressive police. Here the corporatocracy is actively trying to assert its dominance over the real, elected government of the United States, and there's no good outcome when that happens.
Though the ability will always exist in one form or another, essentially no one needs end-to-end encryption on their day to day communications - people got by just fine back in the day without using ciphers to write all their letters or emails. Apple managed to turn the minor hassle of having to respond to law enforcement unlock requests into a full-blown marketing campaign based on unfounded and manufactured fears of the feds digging through your phone and throwing you into Gitmo because you complained about Trump too much or something.
So that means your banking and medical records too right? Get real, you are suggesting a world without locks. Encryption has plenty of day to day real world uses. That you don't like this one, doesn't mean they don't exist and that most people use them everyday. And even in the past, letters had wax seals as a security precaution.
Soccer games
Football. When you touch a round ball only with your foot, it's football. When you hold an egg shaped object in your hands, it's hand-egg. It's Football vs Hand-egg. Not "sucker" vs "football".
Football is called football because its played on foot, not because its played with your feet. See all the various other types of football (Gaelic Football, American Football, Australian Rules Football, etc) for evidence.
Many older cities, especially in Europe, followed a circular diagram, with ray streets outwards and round ones connecting them. At first that would be the result of being squeezed into city walls, then followed expansion outwards, along these streets and filling in the space in between.
And cities located in hilly/mountainous terrain will have streets following curvature of the hills; the steep streets of San Francisco that completely ignore the slopes and make for such iconic scenes in car chase movies are something rarely seen in the world. Usually, you'll have streets that run along the slope, maintaining level or moderate climb/descent, and connecting/branching where terrain allows.
In the bay area, there are many parts where the roads follow the curvature of the hills (Oakland hills, etc). Many times, those parts are just too steep to make a grid a viable solution. The hills in SF just are not that steep by comparison which is why the grid ignores the hills and the sidewalks turn into steps. From being in both parts, I can tell you its far faster to use the grid. Even with all the extra traffic in SF, its still faster to move across the city than the Oakland hills due to the streets being chaotic when a grid isn't used. And that's why grids are used so often, they are just more efficient and when they can be used, they are.
The same as what? Bostons first streets followed the shorelines and built from there. It likely would show up looking like Baltimore in his graphs. As you go away from the city it gets less structured.
Yes, because none of those other cities are on bodies of water. Charlotte is land locked and its the other city that is a mess. You probably didn't see it, but there's another chart of 25 cities from around the world and your correlation between water and organization of the streets just doesn't hold up. Rome it seems is the most chaotic and its not on water. It seems that the age of the city and its willingness to fix infrastructure issues after the fact are the two factors that influence this measure of chaos. In some cases it seems, the city is just very old (Rome). In other cases, it seems the city just is unwilling to fix previous issues with the organisation of its streets and Boston seems to fall into the second category.
But the native americans in those days WERE SAVAGES. Let's keep our language aligned with reality ok? Fuck peoples' feefees.
Political system and organization: check. Language, culture and arts: check. Social structure that looked out for all people: check
A couple of tribes (Iroquois, Mayas, Incas, Aztecs and a few others) had political systems, most didn't (their groups were just too small to need them). They all did have a spoken language (obviously) but only the southern empires (Mayan, Aztec and Incas) had a written form of language. The social structure part is present in many groups and isn't really part of any definition of civilization.
In fact, what we use as the "line in the sand" for what defines a civilization is writing. Which would mean only the southern empires would technically be civilizations and not any of the other tribes north of the Rio Grande. Also, as soon as Europeans landed (no matter their intentions) a chain of biological events began which led to the deaths of 90% of the native tribes. The truth is, there is much we don't know w.r.t. the exact nature of pre-Columbian native societies as they were shattered before Europeans showed up. Europeans only saw empty villages and groups that we a shadow of their former selves. But we do have some idea as to their level of technological sophistication (from their artifacts) but not that much else.
And the idea they were "perhaps ahead of European nations in many ways" is entirely false and tells me more about you than history. The Europeans of Columbus's time already had the global navigation, gunpowder (already improved from China's original invention), precision steel casting (cannon), and could make glass for lenses (spyglasses) already. The Italian Renaissance was just starting and while it hadn't really gotten going yet, it was already starting to yield new inventions. The most sophisticated native empires of the day had no large scale metal working and no wheel. Now this might have been due to the lack of a large domesticatable land animal like the horse or cow for doing manual labor, but it still was.
This is really amazing. It is like computers are good at image recognition. I see a lot of potential in this AI.
Actually medical diagnosis was the first challenge AI succeed at...back in the 1970's. It wasn't until the late 90's that AI succeed at another major feat (beating the world champ at Chess). There really isn't anything surprising or impressive about this feat.
The problem with AI systems in medicine are the doctors who don't want to use the technology. Step into a hospital sometime and look at their computer systems which will often be older than what you can see in the computer museum. The second problem is insurance which doesn't really want the current system changed. The problem with utilizing this technology (which has existed in some form for 40 years already) is people, not the abilities of the technology.
How much land would a single 'self-sufficient' farmer require? How much could the farmer grow on that land compared to an automated farm?
Why give the person a job when more food could be grown much more easily by using automation?
Labor isn't the constraining factor for food production. The amount of arable land is a real and the most serious constraint. Water being the second biggest constraint. Automation of farm labor is a solution looking for a problem to solve. There are plenty of other much better uses for automation. For instance, its probably much more hygienic for a robot to prepare food than a person and instead the person just cleans the robot periodically. Automation doesn't really do much to increase the Earth's carrying capacity. It doesn't however allow the possibility for us to clean up some of the larger environmental issues we have caused.
it'll stop all the whiners who said they'd never do it. i bet the shorters are a bit worried now.
Ya think. Tesla closed at $344 on Friday. In pre-market trading its $366.
Link, please. I can't find it anywhere. I find a lot of claims that Tesla came up a bit short, but did NOT reach 5000 units per week. Or are you stretching the truth again?
Well, there is this tweet that says "7000 cars, 7 days". Not sure exactly what Elon means here. 7000 total cars or 7000 model 3s but Telsa has registered over 8000 new model 3 VINs in the last week.