9,910 karma · joined September 1, 2011
Or more generally, are Apple's apps as good or better than what is out in the industry?
Yes. There are inconsistencies all over the place. In fact, OPs example of java.io.File is ironic, because that object had a number of issues and was somewhat replaced by java.nio.file.Path [1].
Even outside of that, file equality in general is fraught with a lot of subtlety. For example, should java.io.File equality be case sensitive or insensitive?
[1]https://docs.oracle.com/javase/tutorial/essential/io/legacy....
---
On a tangent, is there a reason why FileInfo does not override `Equals`?
It isn't supposed to protect you from government agencies. Really what this feature is, is 1) e2e of email, and 2) integration with an external enterprise key management service.
#2 means that at very least, your org will have access to your keys and therefore all encrypted mail, and if they have access to that, then they are open to things like subpoenas from law enforcement.
This is the first time I heard of this kind of language 'update'. That's not normal.
Shakespeare is genuinely hard to read and understand but we don't just change random phrases and words to match modern sensibilities. Even modern English translation will keep the original for reference.
>As presented it is just designed to generate outrage,
Because it is outrageous.
The fundamental problem with carbon capture is that 1) carbon comprises a tiny fraction of Air, and 2) requires energy input in some form. This means whatever methodology you use, will require you to expand energy to move huge volumes of air to remove a small number of particles (i.e. ~400 particles of Carbon, for 1 million Air particles).
Client-side rendering isn't immune to this. The server APIs they hit have to render the response in JSON after hitting the same kinds of backend resources (e.g. DB).
Indeed. I'm glad they are, because it is fascinating but very odd. I'm sure it's not hard to identify the customer either.
And they did. The decision by the people was to "nuke" current zoning regulations.
Words have defined meanings and are important for conveying information and communicating. If you just make up definitions to commonly understood terms, it leads to confusion.
>To me something is open source if ...
So you took a precisely defined phrase[1] that many people put a lot of thought and negotiation into (working with various stakeholders), has been in wide use for decades by thousands of companies and organizations, and hundreds of thousands (or millions) of developers, threw that definition out, and created your own definition because of reasons - how does help anything?
>This is going to sound stupid because I didn't put any real thought into it
Hmmm.
You mean in 2019.
>or dashboard which they say adds 25miles of range per day.
They made a prototype. They didn't say how much extra cost it would add to the car (and how it affects reliability, maintenance and safety). The cost of those panels has to be balanced by the fact that 25 miles is 30-60 min charge from your mains vs a day of charging from solar?
They also made a point to state this wasn't for range extension - i.e. when you're driving, that solar panel isn't contributing meaningfully to your range.
>Their design doesn’t look practical, but 5kW/day in sunny areas seem to be a reasonable real world goal.
You and I have different definition of 'reasonable'. Like I said, there's a cost to putting these panels on the car and the benefit is so effin small (even sunny areas have cloudy days and/or your car is frequently parked in the shade or indoors) that it's much more reasonable just to plug the darn thing into your mains and charge that way.
I'm not sure where I've said that because I'm not against solar panels on campers or solar panels in general. Solar panels make a lot of sense in a lot situations. For example, I don't think it's a bad idea for an RV that is frequently off-grid to have them built-in to provide whatever power they can - after all, some power is better than no power. Solar panels on outside parking lots, that makes a ton of sense to me.
Solar panels for EV range extension does not make any sense.
>Toyota built a demo by sticking solar panels on a stock Prius and says it added roughly 25 miles per day of range.
Again, this is under ideal conditions, and it wasn't meant for range extension[0] (i.e. to charge the car while it's moving). But let's go with that for argument's sake .. so you're looking at a day of charging for 25 miles of range. 25 miles is approximately a 30 mins charge connected to the grid. That makes no sense. If you really want to use solar to power your EV just get regular rooftop solar and charge your car from your mains.
[0]https://www.torquenews.com/8113/toyota-prius-solar-game-chan...
Uh huh. Do you want to put some numbers behind your assumptions. How much do you actually think you can generate that would make a difference to a Tesla 60kWh-100kWh battery? How much extra range do you think solar panels would provide?
And finally, what aren't EV manufacturers seeing that you are seeing? It's not like solar panels on an EV are such a novel idea. In fact, it's the very first (naive) idea that everyone has as a potential solution to EV range and charging.
Did you watch that video? The solar panels are not even able to fully handle their appliances and AC, and they still use a generator to supplement. They aren't used for charging a car battery at all.
>but this discussion is about what happens if you optimize the vehicle for solar at the design phase
It still doesn't change the equation because you're not looking at a order of magnitude difference. In the case of RVs and the YouTube videos you posted, you don't need to worry about what happens if you 'optimize' a vehicle for solar during a design phase - just do a back-of-the-napkin calculation by doubling the output and ... nothing changes. The challenges are the same. The use-cases are still the same (namely, hope for sunny days to generate power to run some appliances). You're still not making any meaningful progress towards extending EV range - and that's assuming double output (and you're not going to get double in the real world).
Because a 400W solar panel is basically the size of a car (~1mX2m). And under IDEAL CONDITIONS, you're looking at a 150 to 250 hour charge [1] ... and you're not going to get ideal conditions most of the time.
Maybe you can stick 5 of those panels on a trailer and have the EV haul that around, and now you've improved your charging time from 250 hours to 50 hours (still, under ideal conditions) ... congrats, you still made negligible difference in extending EV range or making it practical.
>Cars are large 3D objects, you aren’t going to get nearly as much power from side panels or the dashboard as the roof ...
You're guaranteed to get 0 power from the sides that aren't facing the sun. So now you're horribly complicating the manufacturing process and increasing the EV price, all for an approach that would provide, at best, miniscule improvement to range.
>How effective this would be in Alaska is irrelevant if nobody buys it in Alaska.
It won't work in California either.
But let's try something else ... with EV manufacturers being obsessed with squeezing out every km of range, why do you think approximately 0 of them are actually building an EV with built-in solar panels? What do you know, that they don't?
[1] Assuming a 60kWh-100kWh battery and dividing by 400W = 150h to 250h
Wouldn't we all.
>It would be a large offset, and it would go to a technology that could scale.
Hope is not a policy. We can't replace carbon today. We can't even replace fossil fuels today. There is no technology coming that is able to do that.
So ... what now?
I doubt it. Open-sourcing anything is a lot of work. Managing open-source projects is a lot of work. There are no guarantees that that project will even get any external development traction or mindshare, and if this is still an important component to you, you'll be paying developers to build it out anyway.
Partly this the fault of Apple. They championed the idea that UI is an artistic expression and therefore 'configurability' and 'customizability' is akin to heresy. This view has now infected many existing products.
Part of the reason why many companies jumped on this bandwagon is also because 'customizability' is hard(er) to build in, and certainly more expensive to maintain.
The problem with carbon offsets and carbon credits is that they try to incentivize moving off of carbon, but we don't have a way to actually replace carbon - so it becomes this little marketing and accounting trick.
I don't think anyone disagrees with the general sentiment. The problem is that it isn't clear what the 'correct technologies' are. For example, you don't want carbon offset money going to 'bullshit' initiatives like funding already growing trees - but I've seen compelling arguments that even planting new trees is generally a colossal waste of time.
OK - you can make that argument. The point I'm disputing is OP's statement that "Tesla, and even more Uber, were priced as if self driving cars are almost here." I don't believe that statement. That is, I don't believe that the valuation of either company was based on the idea that FSD was almost here.
That's all I meant to clarify. You'd be surprised how many people today actually think that the native population was wiped out through deliberate and intentional action. Your wording made it seem you believed that as well, but that seemed to not be the case.
>Obviously the settlers would have preferred to keep the natives alive since then they would not have needed to ship vast quantities
That's a caricature.
The native population was not killed but rather decimated by disease. Pre-colonial population of North America was on the order of 60 million - there was zero chance European powers being able to hold that size of population over a period of time. Contrast that to Africa, which today has a minimal population of European descendants ... because that native population had immunity.
In another thread, I also made an argument for another major mitigating factor with respect to Americas, namely, the native populations were wiped out by old-world diseases which prevented local rebellions from succeeding and allowed Europeans to establish large population centers.