This has been extremely worrying. What's more worrying are the number of 'security researchers' regurgitating Intel's bullshit verbatim. We have yet to fully see the fallout from this.
He's also dead right in that Intel has been mixing up the two issues, Meltdown and Spectre, deliberately, so they could tell everyone that it wasn't just Intel that was affected, and they also gave the impression that Spectre had been fixed when it was Meltdown that had been mitigated - with a patch that creates unacceptable performance problems, to a lesser or a greater extent.
Yes, all processor manufacturers are affected by Spectre, but it is Intel that is mostly affected because they implemented speculative loads badly without much attempt at segregation. They've also attempted to pass this off as 'historical architectural decisions we can do nothing about, but it is working as designed'.
I think that the market the Model 3 is in isn't really that competitive. Very few people are looking at a Model 3 or a Camry.
This is an average sized, family car that most people in the world are driving to work. It's the Volkswagen Golf segment, and I mention the Golf because this is a worldwide market Tesla is in. This is not just a US car they are making. To describe that as not really competitive is one of the most laughable things I've heard frankly.
They are either Tesla fanboys, who don't care, or people who want an EV with a 200+ mile range.
No, they are not Tesla fanboys and they are not going to be appeased by a downloadable Easter egg. Far from it, as I said in my original comment. Those who buy these cars in this segment, and those Tesla need to buy in massive volume, are not fans emotionally invested electric vehicles, not Tesla fanboys, they are used to the build quality of established auto makers and they will cut Tesla no slack whatsoever. Tesla need to make a vehicle that competes way beyond being a novelty electric vehicle. They're competing in the biggest car segment in the world with a lot of established manufacturers and brands and against existing combustion engine powered vehicles.
Range even when using air con and heating, charging stations, the time it takes to charge versus filling up (whatever did happen to those quick replace batteries?), build quality, everything has to be spot on perfect.
Ramping up production like this to the required volume is hugely capital intensive, even when you are just producing a single model, which is what they should be concentrating completely on. They will likely have to cut many corners, and given the build quality of many Model S and X cars they have already been doing so.
The trouble is, the Model 3 is a mass market car that will need to work and need to be spot on in every respect. Those who would be looking to buy a Model 3 in the heavily competitive market it operates in are not Tesla fanboys who will cut them slack. It's a completely different ballgame.
This is a CPU problem, and yes, in reality they are reducing the performance of the system. What should be happening is a recall, but Intel obviously don't want to do that. If the impact of the performance hit is noticeable for many, and this includes desktops, servers and every conceivable workload where an Intel CPU is used, expect an absolute shitstorm.
....but if there was a legitimate 5-30% performance decrease, you can bet there would be a far different solution in the works that would suitably fix the problem.
There is, and there isn't. Intel obviously does not want to recall hardware and they really don't give a shit. If they slip this under the radar then they're hoping CPUs will just get replaced as an answer to performance problems.
They're always likely to get hit with things like this and you're always likely to wake up one morning, play your favourite playlist only to realise most of it isn't there.
If it can go 300 miles on a charge it really isn't; not for the overwhelming majority of times. for the few times it is lacking you can rent an ICE with money to spare from fuel savings.
They haven't improved significantly over the "last several years", much less dramatically. A "decade" and "several" are different things. Furthermore, "better that the ones we have today" is a given. Yes, they keep getting better, slowly. There needs to be a breakthrough in charge speed, not just incremental improvements every few years, like what has happened recently, and we need to have the infrastructure to charge them or else they will be worthless.
Indeed so. What's also a still a major problem with electric vehicles that get their electricity from battery power is that the lovely range figure goes totally out of the window when it comes to air con and heater usage making things impossible to estimate. You then add the charge time required on top to get that energy back. These are problems that still need solving, despite the blind optimism.
Worrying, isn't it? Thankfully, Mauro Forghieri is one of the greatest engine engineers ever and he is right because he had to be.
The essential truth is I can produce more torque with a wrench and my bare hands than any engine you'd care to mention. Sadly, it doesn't mean anything without angular speed and it won't move a vehicle.
I don't understand why this has become a talking point amongst the handfull of grouches obsessed with criticising Tesla.
Tesla and Musk's fanboys never seem very interested in results, or with the obvious problems other companies have been dealing with for some time that magically don't apply to them.
Do you honestly think that that's how manufacturing works? That a reduction in R&D can somehow magically eliminate production line problems?
Let me clue you in to how things work in the vehicle manufacturing world since you obviously haven't the faintest idea. Releasing any new vehicle model, even for the Toyotas and VWs of this world, is hugely capital intensive in terms of money, resources, time and any variable you care to mention. Massive. These are companies who are making something called a 'profit' and aren't relying on their share prices to churn cash;-). For any of these companies, to announce two or three new models while they're still trying to increase production to get a brand new model out the door, and one Tesla didn't even have a prototype for in March of this year and have had no prototype testing for when they filed, is so stupid it isn't even funny.
How exactly did you manage to convince yourself that the two are in any way related? It seems like you're just flailing blindly, grasping at whatever random phrases you can find to justify your hatred of Tesla / Musk.
Because they are, but you aren't the only one to want to hallucinate these problems away. Unless of course, all Musk is announcing are R and D projects and not actual vehicles that will go into production and that people are going to use:-).
Torque does not move anything I'm afraid sweetie, but you're not the only one I encounter who doesn't understand what actually matters in that equation, experienced engineers among them. I still encounter people, like the total nonsense you've posted, who think acceleration is all about torque and somehow top speed is about power. That crap comes up all the time. Hilarious.
As Mauro Forghieri famously said, "Power comes from speed; torque without speed is nothing."
I think they are delivering... just slowly at first.
You deliver on what you say, then you move on to the next shiny new thing. Tesla and Musk are promising half a dozen shiny new things every few months, and what's even more laughably funny is they are doing it in the most capital intensive thing imaginable.
My point being, they have to announce plans 2 or 3 models in the future to keep the buzz about them alive to keep attracting investors.
We should all have no difficulty in finding historical examples where the rope runs out on that strategy. At some point you have to deliver what you say you would otherwise it all unravels.
By that definition, every company which started off by getting venture capital is a pyramid scheme.
Correctamundo. Tesla is more like a ponzi however, with some exceptionally dodgy accounting practices to boot.
The difference between a pyramid scheme and a legitimate venture is that the former creates nothing of value and must inevitably collapse when it runs out of new suckers, while the latter uses borrowed money to develop legitimate products, improve efficiency, and reduce costs.
As time goes on it becomes increasingly clear that Tesla is not the latter. How many Model 3 orders have been fulfilled so far before Musk goes on yet another magical mystery tour of the next terribly exciting product he's dreamed up to drum up more investor cash and deposits?
Slashdot Mirror
If The Register hadn't kicked Intel then the narrative Intel wanted to spin would have prevailed.
This has been extremely worrying. What's more worrying are the number of 'security researchers' regurgitating Intel's bullshit verbatim. We have yet to fully see the fallout from this.
He's also dead right in that Intel has been mixing up the two issues, Meltdown and Spectre, deliberately, so they could tell everyone that it wasn't just Intel that was affected, and they also gave the impression that Spectre had been fixed when it was Meltdown that had been mitigated - with a patch that creates unacceptable performance problems, to a lesser or a greater extent.
Yes, all processor manufacturers are affected by Spectre, but it is Intel that is mostly affected because they implemented speculative loads badly without much attempt at segregation. They've also attempted to pass this off as 'historical architectural decisions we can do nothing about, but it is working as designed'.
I think that the market the Model 3 is in isn't really that competitive. Very few people are looking at a Model 3 or a Camry.
This is an average sized, family car that most people in the world are driving to work. It's the Volkswagen Golf segment, and I mention the Golf because this is a worldwide market Tesla is in. This is not just a US car they are making. To describe that as not really competitive is one of the most laughable things I've heard frankly.
They are either Tesla fanboys, who don't care, or people who want an EV with a 200+ mile range.
No, they are not Tesla fanboys and they are not going to be appeased by a downloadable Easter egg. Far from it, as I said in my original comment. Those who buy these cars in this segment, and those Tesla need to buy in massive volume, are not fans emotionally invested electric vehicles, not Tesla fanboys, they are used to the build quality of established auto makers and they will cut Tesla no slack whatsoever. Tesla need to make a vehicle that competes way beyond being a novelty electric vehicle. They're competing in the biggest car segment in the world with a lot of established manufacturers and brands and against existing combustion engine powered vehicles.
Range even when using air con and heating, charging stations, the time it takes to charge versus filling up (whatever did happen to those quick replace batteries?), build quality, everything has to be spot on perfect.
Ramping up production like this to the required volume is hugely capital intensive, even when you are just producing a single model, which is what they should be concentrating completely on. They will likely have to cut many corners, and given the build quality of many Model S and X cars they have already been doing so.
The trouble is, the Model 3 is a mass market car that will need to work and need to be spot on in every respect. Those who would be looking to buy a Model 3 in the heavily competitive market it operates in are not Tesla fanboys who will cut them slack. It's a completely different ballgame.
This is a CPU problem, and yes, in reality they are reducing the performance of the system. What should be happening is a recall, but Intel obviously don't want to do that. If the impact of the performance hit is noticeable for many, and this includes desktops, servers and every conceivable workload where an Intel CPU is used, expect an absolute shitstorm.
That's OK. If you'e on SPARC you've already taken the performance hit many, many times over!
That's how they want this to go.
....but if there was a legitimate 5-30% performance decrease, you can bet there would be a far different solution in the works that would suitably fix the problem.
There is, and there isn't. Intel obviously does not want to recall hardware and they really don't give a shit. If they slip this under the radar then they're hoping CPUs will just get replaced as an answer to performance problems.
Now you have a performance hit to factor into that analysis.
Temperature trends that continue for years are climate.
Try thousands of years, at a minimum.
They're always likely to get hit with things like this and you're always likely to wake up one morning, play your favourite playlist only to realise most of it isn't there.
Once you realise that everything makes sense.
Sure, and Musk has been delivering cars people want, albeit behind schedule.
He hasn't delivered anything. It's amusing that some seem to think he has.
If it can go 300 miles on a charge it really isn't; not for the overwhelming majority of times. for the few times it is lacking you can rent an ICE with money to spare from fuel savings.
300 miles carrying what load?
They haven't improved significantly over the "last several years", much less dramatically. A "decade" and "several" are different things. Furthermore, "better that the ones we have today" is a given. Yes, they keep getting better, slowly. There needs to be a breakthrough in charge speed, not just incremental improvements every few years, like what has happened recently, and we need to have the infrastructure to charge them or else they will be worthless.
Indeed so. What's also a still a major problem with electric vehicles that get their electricity from battery power is that the lovely range figure goes totally out of the window when it comes to air con and heater usage making things impossible to estimate. You then add the charge time required on top to get that energy back. These are problems that still need solving, despite the blind optimism.
I mean, it's almost like gearboxes don't exist to some people. ROTFL.
Worrying, isn't it? Thankfully, Mauro Forghieri is one of the greatest engine engineers ever and he is right because he had to be.
The essential truth is I can produce more torque with a wrench and my bare hands than any engine you'd care to mention. Sadly, it doesn't mean anything without angular speed and it won't move a vehicle.
I don't understand why this has become a talking point amongst the handfull of grouches obsessed with criticising Tesla.
Tesla and Musk's fanboys never seem very interested in results, or with the obvious problems other companies have been dealing with for some time that magically don't apply to them.
Do you honestly think that that's how manufacturing works? That a reduction in R&D can somehow magically eliminate production line problems?
Let me clue you in to how things work in the vehicle manufacturing world since you obviously haven't the faintest idea. Releasing any new vehicle model, even for the Toyotas and VWs of this world, is hugely capital intensive in terms of money, resources, time and any variable you care to mention. Massive. These are companies who are making something called a 'profit' and aren't relying on their share prices to churn cash ;-). For any of these companies, to announce two or three new models while they're still trying to increase production to get a brand new model out the door, and one Tesla didn't even have a prototype for in March of this year and have had no prototype testing for when they filed, is so stupid it isn't even funny.
How exactly did you manage to convince yourself that the two are in any way related? It seems like you're just flailing blindly, grasping at whatever random phrases you can find to justify your hatred of Tesla / Musk.
Because they are, but you aren't the only one to want to hallucinate these problems away. Unless of course, all Musk is announcing are R and D projects and not actual vehicles that will go into production and that people are going to use :-).
Torque does not move anything I'm afraid sweetie, but you're not the only one I encounter who doesn't understand what actually matters in that equation, experienced engineers among them. I still encounter people, like the total nonsense you've posted, who think acceleration is all about torque and somehow top speed is about power. That crap comes up all the time. Hilarious.
As Mauro Forghieri famously said, "Power comes from speed; torque without speed is nothing."
I think they are delivering... just slowly at first.
You deliver on what you say, then you move on to the next shiny new thing. Tesla and Musk are promising half a dozen shiny new things every few months, and what's even more laughably funny is they are doing it in the most capital intensive thing imaginable.
Amazon is very profitable now.
Amazon is not profitable ;-).
If Musk never produced anything he claimed to have made, I'd throw him in the bin of scammers and charlatans. But he fucking does what he says!
I'm afraid he hasn't, but he's done a very skilful job of making suckers think that he has.
My point being, they have to announce plans 2 or 3 models in the future to keep the buzz about them alive to keep attracting investors.
We should all have no difficulty in finding historical examples where the rope runs out on that strategy. At some point you have to deliver what you say you would otherwise it all unravels.
By that definition, every company which started off by getting venture capital is a pyramid scheme.
Correctamundo. Tesla is more like a ponzi however, with some exceptionally dodgy accounting practices to boot.
The difference between a pyramid scheme and a legitimate venture is that the former creates nothing of value and must inevitably collapse when it runs out of new suckers, while the latter uses borrowed money to develop legitimate products, improve efficiency, and reduce costs.
As time goes on it becomes increasingly clear that Tesla is not the latter. How many Model 3 orders have been fulfilled so far before Musk goes on yet another magical mystery tour of the next terribly exciting product he's dreamed up to drum up more investor cash and deposits?
The penny seems to be dropping with a lot of people on that one, doesn't it? You can only keep making big promises for so long.
Torque does absolutely nothing. It's power that matters.