IMO the sign-off culture would be a problem at MS with or without triads. When you have such a large middle-layer (especially ones with ranks like 'partner' who seem to mostly be faking it) there are going to be loads of people whose chief role is to be a gatekeeper who needs to 'sign-off' on something. There are going to be layers of management who want to perform that filtering and relaying you mention, even though it does nothing for the company. And until some kind of purging happens, that won't change.
Relative to battery-powered fully-electric vehicles, some advantages are:
- Quick re-fueling (like with a gasoline vehicle)
- No loss of range in cold weather (and seems like earlier freezing issues have been addressed)
- No deterioration of a battery's performance over time
> Hydrogen vehicles are just plain stupid from an efficiency stand point - where are you going to get the hydrogen exactly? Purifying it is too expensive - and since it's lighter than air - there is no economical source of hydrogen on earth. It'd be cheaper to fuel your car with coal.
No, it is expensive _today_. Which is different from saying it would be expensive at scale.
> According to former U.S. Department of Energy official Joseph Romm, "A hydrogen car is one of the least efficient, most expensive ways to reduce greenhouse gases." Asked when hydrogen cars will be broadly available, Romm replied: "Not in our lifetime, and very possibly never." The Los Angeles Times wrote, in February 2009, "Hydrogen fuel-cell technology won't work in cars. ... Any way you look at it, hydrogen is a lousy way to move cars." A 2007 article in Technology Review stated, "In the context of the overall energy economy, a car like the BMW Hydrogen 7 would probably produce far more carbon dioxide emissions than gasoline-powered cars available today. And changing this calculation would take multiple breakthroughs – which study after study has predicted will take decades, if they arrive at all. In fact, the Hydrogen 7 and its hydrogen-fuel-cell cousins are, in many ways, simply flashy distractions produced by automakers who should be taking stronger immediate action to reduce the greenhouse-gas emissions of their cars."
The Wall Street Journal reported in 2008 that "Top executives from General Motors Corp. and Toyota Motor Corp. Tuesday expressed doubts about the viability of hydrogen fuel cells for mass-market production in the near term and suggested their companies are now betting that electric cars will prove to be a better way to reduce fuel consumption and cut tailpipe emissions on a large scale." The Economist magazine, in September 2008, quoted Robert Zubrin, the author of Energy Victory, as saying: "Hydrogen is 'just about the worst possible vehicle fuel'". The magazine noted the withdrawal of California from earlier goals: "In March [2008] the California Air Resources Board, an agency of California's state government and a bellwether for state governments across America, changed its requirement for the number of zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs) to be built and sold in California between 2012 and 2014. The revised mandate allows manufacturers to comply with the rules by building more battery-electric cars instead of fuel-cell vehicles." The magazine also noted that most hydrogen is produced through steam reformation, which creates at least as much emission of carbon per mile as some of today's gasoline cars. On the other hand, if the hydrogen could be produced using renewable energy, "it would surely be easier simply to use this energy to charge the batteries of all-electric or plug-in hybrid vehicles."
The Washington Post asked in November 2009, "But why would you want to store energy in the form of hydrogen and then use that hydrogen to produce electricity for a motor, when electrical energy is already waiting to be sucked out of sockets all over America and stored in auto batteries"? The paper concluded that commercializing hydrogen cars is "stupendously difficult and probably pointless. That's why, for the foreseeable future, the hydrogen car will remain a tailpipe dream". A December 2009 study at UC Davis, published in the Journal of Power Sources, found that, over their lifetimes, hydrogen vehicles will emit more carbon than gasoline vehicles. In July 2011, the Chairman and CEO of General Motors, Daniel Akerson, stated that while the cost of hydrogen fuel cell cars is decreasing: "The car is still too expensive and probably won't be practical until the 2020-plus period, I don't know." GM's Vauxhall Motors spokesman Bill Parfitt expects the HydroGen4 in 2016.
The Obama Administration sought to reduce funding for the development of fuel cell vehicles, concluding that other vehicle technologies will lead to quicker reduction in emissions in a shorter time. Steven Chu, the US Secretary of Energy, stated in 2009 that hydrogen vehicles "will not be practical over the next 10 to 20 years". In 2012, however, Chu stated that he sees fuel cell cars as more economically feasible as natural gas prices have fallen and hydrogen reforming technologies have improved.
I'm glad you are skilled at being snarky and rude, but it has no place here on Hacker News (or really anywhere).
Now onto your post:
Writing off something as DOA because of current technologies is not a good argument at all. People made similar arguments about electric cars just a few years back (as shown in 'Who Killed the Electric Car'). A long time ago, no one ever thought computing would be cheap enough to be inside consumers' homes. There is always the possibility of a break-through technology, of a reduction in cost, increase in efficiency, etc.
The quote above cherry-picks some statements in 2008 regarding GM and Toyota's views at the time on fuel-cell vehicles. However, there is a long list of companies who have publicly talked about their investment (and upcoming production vehicles as well) in the fuel-cell space just this year (2012!). A quick search through fuel-cell news this year brought up the following: Honda, Hyundai, Mercedes-Benz aka Daimler, Audi aka VW, Toyota, GM, BMW. There are probably others as well, but that already covers the vast majority of vehicle manufacturers.
Secretary of Energy and Nobel Laureate Steven Chu reversed his view on fuel-cell cars and noted recently (mentioned towards the end of your quoted text as well) that there may be a higher feasibility for fuel-cell-based vehicles now.
There is ample proof that fuel-cells deserve more attention and research before closing the discussion. It is worth investigating this space if only to have alternatives - electric vehicles have some issues (range, cold weather performance, environmental impact of producing batteries) that perhaps other technologies could address.
And to be clear, I'm not being rude, I'm merely stating the facts.
I would do the same if you were racist or sexist - so don't feel too special. Truth is not snark unless it disagrees with your view of the world - it's merely fact vs. fiction.
I don't deal in fiction - facts alone are wanted in life.
How does the Model S solve the longer trips issue? On a road-trip I might drive 500 miles in a day. The priciest Model S gets 300 miles at 55 miles an hour. And with climate control on that is likely to be less in reality. If this trip were in cold weather (ski trips and such) the range would be SIGNIFICANTLY less.
As a comparison, my gasoline-hybrid can squeeze out over 500 miles on a tank at 55 miles an hour. And I never worry about being 'stranded' as I might with a fully-electric car.
Another issue I have with battery-based solutions is the potential lifespan of the batteries - they are warrantied only for 8-years. A new pack costs ~30k (pulled this unofficial figure from discussions in the Tesla forums).
So let's do some math. I drive a Toyota truck that goes anywhere and does everything. It gets 20mpg average (I have a ScanGauge for monitoring this). It's 14 years old, and it cost me $5000 when I bought it. So at an average daily commute for Americans of 16 miles [1] (my commute is 5 miles one direction), that would give me an average of 400 bidirectional gallons used per year (16 miles one direction times 250 working days divided by the mpg) for work use. At $3.50 for a gallon of gas, that's $1400/yr, plus a one-time cost of $5000. Once per year, I take an 8000 mile journey, assuming that's bidirectional. That's another $1400 in gas. We're now looking at $7800 the first year, and $2800 every year after that. If I have the truck for 5 years, I'm out $19,000 in total.
Now instead, I buy a Tesla Model S. It costs $100k, but electricity is free at their chargers. Now I want to make my cross country journey, so I rent a minivan at 8000 miles, I'll be gone a week to fully enjoy the resort with the wife and kids. A minivan from Enterprise is $110/day plus gas. Looking at the fuel economy of a minivan [2], looks like I can expect 20mpg. I might get more, but that's what I'll budget for. Same as my Toyota truck, I'm spending $1400 in gas once per year, plus the $770 to rent the van for a week. Which means, in total, I'm spending $100k the first year, and $2170 every year after that. So unless you can spot an error in my math, in terms of fuel cost per year the poster boy electric car only saves me ~$700/yr.
Here's the results:
Toyota truck: $19,000 over 5 years.
Electric car plus a rental one week: $108,680 over 5 years.
Maybe you want to be more reasonable and go for the base Model S: $66,080 over 5 years.
Wait, now you are comparing a luxury car to a Toyota truck. That doesn't make any sense at all, so your question "Which one makes more economic sense?" doesn't make sense.
By your logic, everyone who buys a BMW M3 or a Porsche Boxster ... or whatever ... is dumb because they should have bought a Toyota truck because it is only $19,000 over 5 years.
If I compared it to a Leaf, it still wouldn't make sense. A Leaf is $35,000 MSRP. The Leaf is built on the same platform as a Nissan Cube ($14,000) and the Nissan Micra ($17,000). I could run the same comparison between the Leaf and the Cube and come up with the same results.
Except, if I did that, it might even be worse. See, I picked the Tesla Model S for a few reasons. One being that it's the subject of the debate here on HN, and second is because the Leaf gets 100 miles in range. The Model S gets 250. The Model S is also capable of being mostly recharged in 30 minutes (for free), and while the Leaf can also be recharged in 30 minutes at one of Nissan's charging points, they are not free. You would end up paying a fuel cost for a Leaf, no matter how marginal.
I was using a Toyota truck as an example, but also noted that the rented minivan in the example cost just as much in gas. Minivans secondhand are also generally cheaper than trucks in my experience. The difference between a Model S and a Porsche is simple in my opinion: if you don't like the Porsche, the BMW is a comparable option. The Ferrari is nice at that price point as well. But you can't swap out the Model S with a comparable option. Like I noted in the first and second paragraph, the cheap competition isn't much cheaper at all, and in all honesty is a much worse value for the money.
If you're buying an electric car, it doesn't make sense to not go with the Model S. And if you can't swing the extra $30,000 for the Model S, just realize that the Leaf is ($35,000 + $100/yr in electricity + $1400/yr to rent a car) $42,500 for 5 years compared to $66,000 for the base Model S compared to $19,000 for the gas-guzzling 4x4. The cheap mainstream competition still doesn't beat a 5,000lb, 14 year old truck with a V6 engine. How many years would it take to break even on that investment? Trading in your old car for a new electric car isn't going to save you money. It just isn't. Especially if you're renting another car as well.
Okay, but ... did anyone ever say that it would save you money? I don't see that in the thread anywhere.
I certainly wouldn't make that argument for cars of today. But I see how rapidly the price is coming down, and I see what price targets Tesla is aiming for, and that is pretty interesting.
(And if you really want to compare price, it's probably a good idea to try to account for externalities. It's hard to estimate those for gas cars because so much is kept secret, but they are substantial.)
Actually, I own a Leaf and it does save me money against buying a comparable compact car like a new Sentra. His math fails to account for the full range of costs associated with a gas-powered vehicle including oil changes and engine maintenance. Also, I drive considerably more than my 17 mile one way commute, so it makes a lot of sense for me.
Congratulations on your 3,50$ per gallon. Where I live -Europe- it's about 8 us$. With these prices, the comparison between two luxury sedans -tesla S against BMW 535 or Mercedes E 320- is not that much skewed. Gas isnt getting cheaper and battery tech is better every year, so, even on financial terms, it makes some sense.
You can't compare a toyota pickup and a model S in any criteria but overall length. Acceleration, top speed, comfort... Apples and oranges.
Have a look at a ten year history for gas prices. See if you think your $3.50/gallon is going to hold. Car leases are usually between 10k and 15k miles per year for a reason. Run the numbers with 12k miles per year, $5.50 gas over 5 years. Comparison to a Tesla is, of course, ridiculous (but you knew that). Consider separating the fixed costs from the variable costs.
Oh I definitely can agree with the notion of renting a car for the edge case. Others have also suggested that families could have two cars, one electric for daily use and the other gasoline-powered for road trips or tasks that require more utility perhaps.
But my point simply was that purely electric technologies cannot satisfy all needs (yet?) and that the range capabilities of electric vehicles is not on part with fossil-fuel vehicles (which is what was seemingly claimed by the parent post). And yes, this might mean that fossil-fuel vehicles don't disappear entirely, but simply play a smaller role in our future society.
The Model S solves the issue via the ability to charge at Tesla's "supercharger" stations (much faster recharge than any other EV), and via the supercharger network that Tesla is currently building (some stations in California are currently open, and they recently presented their expansion plan for this network).
Running the air conditioning compressor creates more work for the engine, but not so with the heater--essentially it circulates the already-hot water+coolant through an additional small radiator.
What about for IDE features that are 'non-intrusive'. A lot of the editor features Visual Studio (+ Resharper) or IntelliJ provide don't get 'in my way'. To be honest I can't think of many ways in which tools get in my way to be honest, except perhaps initially having to define a 'project' that the IDE understands (versus just files on disk).
I always used Java with Eclipse or IntelliJ personally. But in the Microsoft world it is not uncommon for coders to use tools that are very 'plain text' and 'ungraphical' like WinDbg even with languages like C#, alongside other tools like Visual Studio.
I guess because I fall into the first category. I use the same text editor for a wide spectrum of languages that I fiddle with, and feel like the time spent by core language devs on an IDE is better spent on the language itself.
People who work on IDEs / text editors can work on tooling and integrating with languages as they become popular (or before), but developing an IDE from scratch with a language and continuing to support it seems like a waste of time when I personally would never really consider using it and its chances of being a decent text editor are slim.
Which is all not to say that I definitely do like coordination between the two camps.
So I guess I made two arguments, one that I like what I use and prefer to keep using it over having some new perhaps questionable tool, and two that it's a non-trivial amount of work that has already been done, which I feel is better spent by other external parties rather than core devs.
The PL designer can always customize an editor off the shelf (e.g., Eclipse), and this is what happens mostly. However, I find myself implementing an editor now simply because the idea I want to show off requires many features current editors don't support, like projecting code onto program execution rather than have separate windows for code and inspecting run-time state.
He just explained it with the semicolon in Python example. The moment when language designer starts making compromise with the language just because it would be easier to implement an _official_ editor or IDE is the moment that language is effectively stopping to advance.
The history has shown that languages developed without concerns of IDE were the most successful or the most influential languages.
Whoa. That is a crazy assertion. First, not many languages have been designed with the IDE as a concern, and second, all the industrial PL design teams that I know of definitely work closely with their IDE team to ensure harmony between tooling and language. I'm a bit more radical, all of my recent languages have been heavily tied to the IDE, to the point that there is know real boundary between the implementation of the compiler and IDE.
Working closely with the IDE team is a good thing, but core language developers focusing on the IDE and the language in the same time can indeed lead to some compromises that hurt the language.
That's an interesting contention. Any chance you could share some examples?
I don't doubt you, but I do wonder at your benchmarks for success and influence.
FWIW, I use Emacs, which is an editor with a programming language embedded. So does that make me a language maven (as I like emacs lisp and playing with it) or a tool maven, because I am learning about the tool I use to edit code (and almost everything else textual)?
I don't agree that it stops the language from advancing. What is your definition of advancement here, exactly? Lots of successful, productive languages pay attention to tooling as well. I see it as just weighing the costs and benefits of various trade-offs.
I don't think things have to be mutually-exclusive. The article suggests that you have to be in either the language camp or tools camp because of the time-investment developers have to make in either - but in reality the investment is smaller than portrayed IMO.
As for parallel programming - that itself is a wide-spectrum of different types of programming, and again I don't think we have to paint it as choosing one or the other.
For example, when I worked on parallel algorithms for very large clusters, I was really missing some of the things IDEs provide like graphical debuggers. While a better-designed language may have made some parts of my task easier, it would also have made low-level optimization much harder.
tl;dr - different things needed for different situations
And yes, we do need to agree at a global level and be willing to pay more for certain goods/services as a result. The entire economic system will just re-balance itself around that, if we as a global society agree that the costs of inaction are greater.
