That isn't a "new" model with all of the uncertainty that goes along with it though. Rav4 and CR-V have established reputations, entrenched supply chains, etc... A better comparison would be brand new models, not refreshed old models.
Which models did you look at? I don't remember a lot of models that are new to the market recently. I checked the Mazda CX-3 and the Nissan Leaf, and the Model 3 does appear to have crushed both of those based on first year numbers.
I tried to find "truly new" models (rather than generation refreshes or name changes). The first five I thought of were the Lexus RX SUV, the Fiat 500, the Mini Cooper, the 1965 Mustang, the 2015 Mustang (a ground-up re-platform, not a restyling effort).
It would be possible to argue that Tesla outproduced the Mini Cooper (depending on how exactly you shade the first year of production).
The others handily beat them, with the 1965 Mustang crushing Tesla...
Which year Lexus RX are you referring to? The Lexus RX SUV has been around a long time, and was originally based on a car platform which I believe was the Toyota Camry / Lexus ES platform.
Is the Model 3 just a cheaper Model S by the same argument?
(It's a genuine question. Yes, the Mustang was based in part on the prior Falcon platform. Wouldn't Tesla sensibly base the 3 in part on the S in the same way Ford continued to sell the Falcon alongside the Mustang? If Tesla is sharing literally nothing across models, that seems like a non-sensical way to run a car company to me.)
They're sharing what they can obviously, but the platform will be different. There are a lot of cars that are like 90% similar, especially sedans and crossovers sharing the same platform. To that extent, the Model X apparently used the Model S platform as its starting point (but no idea if it's still shared). The Model 3 however is a mid-sized sedan compared to S's full-size, so the sharing would mostly be limited to tech and components, but not platform.
It's a lot harder to quantify "ramp-up" for these models too, because they almost never have a bare starting point. E.g. CX-3 is (IIRC) based on the Mazda2 platform, so do you include the preceding Mazda2 ramp-up in the number?
Still it's the pro-Tesla person that's making the claim; the onus is on them to provide the numbers or if it's not a fair comparison, to avoid it (or clarify it).
I guess that is fair, but according to this carsalesbase.com site, it isn't even remotely close. Tesla has built/sold more Model 3s in its first year of production than anything else I can find...by a lot. They built/sold more in the past few months than entire years for all of the other models I have checked.
That's why I asked what models the other person looked at because so far all of the information I can see from the site that they linked confirms the "pro-Tesla" person's statements.
Ford sold ~559,500 1965 Mustangs in a much smaller overall market.
Chevy sold over 200K Corvairs each of the three first years of launch.
First 12 months deliveries of Tesla Model 3 were a little over 26K. First 15 months deliveries (which is more apples-to-apples with other company "first year" launches) were a little over 80K.
It's not even close, IMO... Do you see the figures differently?
Those are high numbers, wow, and Tesla hardly started producing them in mass until mid year 2018. They could get to 50k a calendar year if Q3 holds. Just for estimation purposes let's use that. It's hard to believe they'd do as well as one of the best selling cars of all time, but they are in a different segment too. Tesla is selling cars that are more expensive than average, maybe a more fair comparison is the bmw 3 series, audi 3 or 4 series type cars. At least Tesla is doing pretty well at the current moment, but they are not doing as well as Mustang or Corvair - some of the best selling cars of all time.
Tesla has been limited by production of batteries and cars, now they have scaled those a lot. But they aren't the fastest of history, that seems clear. Unless they suddenly sell 125k cars a quarter they won't catch Mustang.
Obviously we don't know yet, but I would be absolutely shocked if they don't basically flag everything about well-known politicians as "political", and paying to boost something like that should fall under the new restrictions. It would be trivial for most large tech companies to make an automatic "political post" classifier at this point. The post "boosting" use case is a pretty easy target too because blocking someone from paying to boost something is fairly low-risk.
I have thought for awhile, and continue to think, that developers avoid "premature" optimization too fiercely. Yes, there are diminishing returns with optimization effort, but too often people interpret "avoid premature optimization" as "never optimize unless it feels slow, and even then only if it feels slow when it's the only thing running. Otherwise, blame everything else that is running first!"
"Zero cost abstraction" is like a sarcastic joke at this point in web development. If you pull up performance comparisons for web backends, a lot of the popular ones based on interpreted languages are absolutely abysmal when compared to c++ or Java code (Node is a good example). Many definitely have streamlined development workflows and have nice, high-level abstractions, but at a cost to performance. I don't mean that Node is useless or something, sometimes it makes sense, but it still forces you to compromise.
Front-end frameworks are even worse. A lot of older (but not "ancient") PCs are unusable on the modern web because of poorly-optimized JS or Adobe Flash (a decent portion of this issue is also due to the inherent inefficiency of JS and Flash as well). Fortunately, Google has been making strides with V8, Mozilla did awesome with Firefox "Quantum" and everyone is slowly ditching Flash, but performance still seems to be an ever-present issue.
This is a really good point, I hadn't thought of this before. Because of how many other options there are, the "scarcity" of Bitcoin is only real if there is something that is going to prevent other cryptocurrencies from being used, or promote Bitcoin above all others. Given that Bitcoin has been demonstrated to be inferior at scale vs. some of the other options, I don't see a reason to expect that it will continue to be the most prolific in the long term. By extension, there doesn't seem to be an obvious indication that any of them will see a lot of use in the long term.
It’s especially important when you think about mainstream adoption: the assumption is that the whole world will pile on board and make the early adopters fabulously rich but it seems at least as likely that some major companies would create their own alternative – possibly using the same software — and heavily promote it through their existing merchant accounts, cards, etc. rather be than letting someone else capture that profit.
Right now, the lack of consumer demand means there’s no reason to bother but if that changes I’d be surprised if nobody tried and there’s little lock-in to prevent people from bailing to whoever gives better terms.
To piggy back on something you said: a big issue I noticed recently is that it seems a lot of the websites people use to track this stuff have charts in <other coin> vs. BTC rather than <other coin> vs. USD (or some other established currency). As BTC goes up and down, these charts are extremely misleading due to the volatility. This dramatically pushes things into fantasy speculation land since people are valuating their speculative investments based on another very speculative investment. If BTC drops in USD price, and your altcoin of choice gains slightly vs BTC, these charts would show a "gain" when I think in reality it is still a loss.
within roughly 5 years or so (very rough guess on my part), all of the available Bitcoin will have been mined. At that point, the mining part of the equation will be moot, leaving only the blockchain infrastructure to consider. Note that this may not hold true for various "forks" of the bitcoin blockchain, or for other cryptocurrencies.
Not true at all. The security of the bitcoin blockchain is fundamentally based on mining; after the inflation schedule runs low enough that it's not the major component of mining rewards (which won't be for decades), miners will continue mining, but for the transaction fees instead.
The Java performance was the most interesting part of the results for me. I'm glad it got some attention. I have been developing the opinion for awhile that, as an industry, we've become far too avoidant of "pre-mature" optimization. It is astonishing to me how much slower a lot of this stuff is than Java.
Granted, I also think considering Java to be "not compiled" is a slight misrepresentation since it does get compiled to Java bytecode.
This is a fair point, but most vocational programs last years not months, so that is where the analogy breaks down here. I think "vocational" code schools offering 2-year degrees would be very, very attractive as an alternative to a traditional CS degree (both for students and hiring managers), but that's not what we're looking at.
According to a quick Google search, the average program length for these boot camps in 2015 was 11 weeks. That is on par with a single semester at a university. Even if you take a heavy course load of only practical CS courses, one semester is not nearly enough to prepare someone fully for a full-time dev position at top-tier companies. Sure, they may be able to answer the interview questions...but then what? I'm pretty skeptical of this trend and don't see it ending well for most of the boot camp graduates or companies who hire a large number of them.
Also to be fair, learning how to select elements by CSS class is so trivial that it doesn't effectively separate levels of developers. Whether you choose the basic JavaScript version or one from a popular framework, it should take less than a minute to look up if you don't already know it. I imagine that seasoned developers (and possibly recent CS grads, depending on school) are much, much less likely to waste time wondering why $(".myClass") is giving them a "$ is undefined" error in their Angular/React/etc... project.
I might be wrong, I don't have any direct experience with boot camps, but stripping dev skills down to just the minimal, core, practical skills needed to build a working prototype in the language-of-the-month seems like just the latest version of the same short-sightedness that has been plaguing businesses for years. Low-risk, long-term success will always come from building on experience, not "hacks" and short cuts. There will be exceptions/outliers, but they're just lucky, not a model to be copied.
CSS is not only selecting elements (like JS is not only "defining functions"). Creating complex CSS layout can be hard the same way complex JavaScript system is.
