calafrax

Tesla's statement is very interesting. They say: "Despite repeatedly receiving special treatment at the expense of others, Ms. Vandermeyden nonetheless chose to pursue a miscarriage of justice by suing Tesla and falsely attacking our company in the press"

So Tesla is claiming that they discriminated against other employees and harmed them at this woman's behest.

Strange claim, since it is actionable by these supposed people who they harmed and admits that Tesla's management is incompetent and engages in gender discrimination.

It seems that like Uber most people with real skill and talent are jumping the Tesla ship before it goes down.

This is a side show compared to Tesla's other problems (just like Uber) but it is in these cases where there is an emotional impact as opposed to boring numbers that people actually take notice of how incompetent the management of a company really is.

I would have more confidence in this announcement if it was not made a day before Tesla announced that they are experiencing falling demand for their existing line and barely hit the bottom of their production forecast.

Their initial "hand over" is to employees, not real customers, so it is really just internal testing and does not indicate anything about when actual deliveries will begin.

Hitting delivery deadlines is actually worse than missing them if you are hitting them by pushing an unfinished product which is losing tons of money per unit due to inefficient production processes and creating huge future liabilities for warranty repairs, recalls, and negligence lawsuits if someone gets injured by a defect.

There is a reason why Goldman is revising their price target down on this news and their target is half the current stock price.

The first professor who I took a programming class from told us that anytime we needed to indent something we should be asking ourselves if we needed to create a new function and most times the answer would be yes.

It was good advice.

It all depends on how you define "reasonable" bitrate. I am running ~40mbit h265 videos. I have a Pentium G4400 which can only do a few frames per second and I have tested on an i5 also and it still drops frames on high complexity scenes.

More to the point, why would I want to burn 100 watts decoding this in software when I can do it in single digits with fixed function hardware?

[edit]

You may be talking about videos that can use Intel's own fixed function video decoding hardware, which will work just fine on an i3. I am talking about 10bit h265 which Intel Skylake didn't support when I was building my system. Kaby Lake supports it now so if you are building a new system Kaby Lake would be the way to go.

> if you need more than 3 levels of indentation, you’re screwed anyway, and should fix your program.

I hope some JS programmers read this

Intel's entire business is based on high margins. Trying to take that orientation and apply it to low-margin markets like mobile and IOT has been a complete failure for them.

I don't think they actually care (yet) because a few billions is peanuts to them as long as they have their high margin business but the wolves are at the door.

AMD is actually much better positioned because they have gone through a very painful restructuring and reorientation toward a business model that works with low-margins and they now seem to be coming out the other side.

Intel will eventually have to go through the same restructuring and it will be even more painful for them because they have a lot further to fall.

I like mini-itx systems and have a very nice mini-itx htpc myself but it is not because I need an Intel CPU.

UHD blows out any dual-core CPU (maybe quad can do it?) so dedicated hardware is an absolute necessity for that.

Even if you could decode video in software the power efficiency is so much worse than using dedicated hardware that it is really impractical.

I am using the video decoder on an Nvidia GTX-1060 and I am paying a huge price for a lot of wasted hardware in order to get access to that. And I am forced to use Windows anyway since I can't get Kodi to sync the refresh rate properly on Linux and a couple hours of wasted time trying to fix that is the limit of my patience.

IMO fixed hardware based on ARM (which costs about $100 vs $1000+) is obviously the better solution for price/performance on video.

What I am paying for is the aesthetic (HDPLEX HD5 case) and the enjoyment of having something I built myself, not technical superiority.

Mass adoption can never happen because bitcoin was never designed to be a payment system for mass adoption.

Look at the history: circa 2000 E-Gold was the go-to currency for illegal activity online. In 2008 E-Gold got shut down.

A few months later the bitcoin proposal surfaces and coincidentally solves the "problems" with E-Gold by making it impossible to shut down, impossible to indict the owners, and easier to hide money flows if you are sophisticated enough to write programs to move your money through webs of anonymous proxy accounts.

Bitcoin was designed from the beginning to be ideal for illegal activity and the features that make it good for illegal activity also make it expensive, inefficient, and poorly suited to legitimate commerce (non-repudiation is basically a deal breaker).

Throw in the risk created by price fluctuations and the whole thing is just totally impractical for real world use at scale.

But hey, I was saying the same thing back then too, and I could be a millionaire now, so you probably shouldn't take my advice.

I hear this "you just don't understand" claim a lot: from my teenage kids and *coin proponents.

You have to wonder how much insider trading goes into this.

I would assume there are some big bitcoin/ether holders from the early days now who are sitting on billions in theoretical worth and the ICOs provide an inflow of cash that allows them to cash out.

If you have a big bitcoin/ether position then you can make these ICOs pop and then the momentum ends up pulling more people into ether/bitcoin which allows you to exit your position.

People under 40 are not a protected group under Federal law. People over 40 are.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_discrimination_law_...

You might want to add to the list that you are required to by law if they are equally qualified.

True, but if we are facing massive climate change with unpredictable catastrophic effects then isn't that a good reason to build up as much industrial and military capacity as possible to withstand those unpredictable effects?

That certainly seems to be what most people are doing even if they are saying something different.

So the Paris climate accord will have the same impact as all previous international climate agreements: zero. That is shocking, positively shocking.

This basically seems like an H1-B in the US. The US has had H1-B for 25 years now and is doing 100,000+ per year.

This seems like too little too late.

So someone with low salary who goes into debt buying luxuries is perceived as being more successful and gets promoted as a result? What you point out is that without real knowledge people are forced to rely on less accurate proxies.

Yes, but what amount of exposure is necessary to have an adverse health effect?

Just because something is dangerous at a certain exposure does not make it dangerous at all exposure levels.

Failing to highlight this difference is what separates FUD from actual science.

Interesting question which is then used to spread a lot of unsupported FUD about "second hand smoke" and imply that marijuana is as dangerous as Tobacco and state without any support whatsoever that the marijuana market will become dominated by mega-corporations the same as tobacco was.

IMO salary secrecy is a weird fetish and probably counter productive.

If the differences between employee salaries are not economically defensible then they should not exist.

If employees cannot accept the way that their employers have measured their relative value then they should get a different job.

Nothing new here. GANs still are not nearly as good at creating fakes then humans.

For Nevada Question 2 of the $3,771,500 spent in opposition $3,650,000 (96.7%) of that came from Sheldon Adelson. https://ballotpedia.org/Nevada_Marijuana_Legalization,_Quest...

For California Prop 64 of the $2,077,438 spent in opposition $1,364,000 (65.6%) came from Julie Schauer.

The only other major donor was Smart Approaches to Marijuana Action (SAM Action) which donated $489,150 (23.5%)

The California Teamsters Public Affairs Council donated $25,000 (1.2%) and the Peace Officers Research Association of Claifornia PIC donated $25,000 (1.2%).

https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_64,_Marijuana...

In both cases the majority of support for the opposition came from a SINGLE WEALTHY INDIVIDUAL - not "private individuals."

I am not sure if the Teamsters directly represent police officers but they are a union and Peace Officers Research Association sounds police related so you are right that some vaguely "police" and "union" related groups did donate a relatively insignificant 2.4% to the opposition campaign, but that is it.

That would be nice but it is like asking a heroin junkie really nicely to stop getting high and then leaving them sitting there with a needle in their hand.

Road is more expensive but a lot more people want to use roads then want to use railroads so it doesn't matter what the price is.

It doesn't matter if something is cheaper or more efficient if people don't want to use it.

This is like asking why doesn't everyone use Linux?

Just read The Baroque Cycle - you can learn all this and more in much more entertaining form.

Every real world performance/watt benchmark I have seen shows Intel winning so I am not sure how ARM will breakthrough.

The only competitive opportunity that Intel leaves open is by artificially limiting its CPUs to jack up its margins and it seems that AMD Epyc has been designed from the ground up to exploit this opportunity.

Between Intel and AMD I don't see any niche left for an ARM solution to get off the ground.

It is nice to see an actual economic study on the subject.

While net neutrality sounds nice it is important to remember that it is being pushed by companies like Google that already own their own private global networks to which net neutrality rules do not apply.

If Google can prevent the other owners of national/global networks from giving preferential treatment to their potential competitors then they can exploit the competitive advantage of owning their own global network to which those rules do not apply to prevent competition.

Yeah this seems like an attempt to demonstrate that Facebook can act as a supranational regulatory institution which seems like a bit of an overreach.

Keep in mind that regulatory agencies exist to protect corporations by giving them immunity from product liability lawsuits.

Just like California's labeling everything as a known carcinogen has nothing to do with protecting consumers but only serves the purposes of making corporations more immune from liability because they have duly warned you in compliance with the law that their products are harmful.

Creating ways to allow users to control their own groups and block content they don't want is cheaper, less controversial, and probably more effective in terms of user satisfaction.

Seems like a personal problem for the media. Is the point of this article just to say what a shitty job they do on informing their readers about things that actually matter.