This is a good book. It covers most common concepts and techniques in a fairly accessible way. At they end it also shows builds up a highly optimized version of some algorithms and data structures and does explains every optimization.
Win11 and it's various disappointments is what finally pushed me to make the jump to Ubuntu. It's been a couple months now and there have been some educational challenges here and there, sure, but I'm finally quite happy. Most of my games even run. Good luck, Windows.
So it starts from the generic untyped lambda calculus and then shows that it is possible to reach erroneous states: so far so much like any dynamically typed language (so javascript, lua, python). Bear in mind javascript is also quite weakly typed, but that doesn't matter much for the point I am trying to elucidate.
You introduce types to try to describe the program state in a way that a static analyser is able to prove that the program will not reach erroneous states. You learn that types limit computing: the simply typed lambda calculus always halts. Note that a human reader is a type of static analyser.
You start introducing more advanced types to try to get back that unbounded possibility: to be a real programming language, you need the halting problem--a real server doesn't halt.
Anyways, after some chapters you learn that you may need a lot of rather advanced type theory to truly describe some of the complex things that some crazy people did in previously dynamically typed languages. That's why python type hints and typescript sometimes (but not usually) need some really crazy stuff: people were able to and did do all kinds of crazy things.
Arguably, there are easier ways to solve a problem than the way that requires advanced type theory to describe. The dynamic languages don't make it easier to write, verify and reason about such code other than the fact that many static languages prevent it outright.
It isn't like VW is much behind Tesla in EV sales: 171k BEV plus 171k PHEV vs. 386k for Tesla in H1 2021, and VW had faster EV growth than Tesla compared to last year.
I suspect this is more about interoperability, e.g. a charging station deal or something similar.
VW is a far larger company, including when it comes to sales networks, distribution networks, and manufacturing. If there is any scenario - looking out a decade or so - where they don't always outsell Tesla in EVs, it means a horrible disaster has befallen VW as an operating business.
Given the size of the global automotive industry and the major players, most of them will end up outselling Tesla in EVs. It's an inevitability. And it says nothing inherently about who the best EV makers are (that goes for Tesla as well). Plenty of mediocre vehicles get sold in volume every year (just look at the garbage sedans GM and Ford produced for a couple of decades).
How often does the CEO of one company address management of its biggest competitor? How often can you even get said CEOs to public acknowledge the name of their competitors?
Elon started Tesla to bring about the EV revolution. He's not throwing dust in the face of the competition, but rather telling them how to catch up, because he wants their joint goal to be realized: ubiquitous EVs.
> How often does the CEO of one company address management of its biggest competitor? How often can you even get said CEOs to public acknowledge the name of their competitors?
Not often enough! I work for Capital One. We are a decently large player in the US banking market (perhaps number 5 depending on how you count). I would love to have Jamie Dimond (of Chase) come speak to us.
But it goes the other way too. If Dimond were too invite Rich Fairbank (our CEO) to present to his executives they would definitely benefit. Rich would describe the ways in which we excel: things like the relationship we have between the business and tech sides of the organization.
In general, one would be a fool not to want to hear from one's competitors.
But also, is one not a fool to just casually give one's competitor advice? I think it must be based on the expectation of an improved relationship - which means a lot for the two companies.
A meaningless correction given the relatively early date in Tesla's history that Musk took control of the company, the fact that he substantially changed the trajectory of the company for the better and was the primary reason it was able to survive financially to be here today. The present incarnation of Tesla was clearly founded by Musk. It's quite well known that Musk didn't technically found Tesla.
> He only popularized it in the US. The rest of the world was already building EVs.
The rest of the world was not already building EVs. That's plain false. The rest of the world is still not mass producing EVs, 18 years later. One look at EV sales vs ICE sales reveals that story.
There was Nissan and there was Tesla doing serious scale EV manufacturing in the early days of Tesla. That's it. All you have to do is go back and look at the best selling EVs in the automotive industry at the time the Model S launched into manufacturing. Global automotive EV sales by vehicle were still largely measured in the low thousands of units circa 2012, a decade after Tesla's founding. That was the year the industry finally started its ongoing upward trajectory, with the Volt moving 31k units and the Leaf moving 26k units.
You shouldn't be so dismisive. Tesla's battery technology is superior.
If indeed other countries were so into EVs, as you claim, one must wonder what is lacking in the other countries that all their years of expertise building EVs for the general public, they weren't able to replicate Tesla (which at the time was quite the ragged automotive startup) and its energy management system.
Teslas strong dominance in the EV market is quite US-specific it seems. E.G. in France Renault sold more cars, and Peugeot is head to head with Tesla. In Germany VW sold multiple times as much as Tesla. In China BYD sold more than Tesla etc. (all BEV, not plugin hybrids).
Let's say that tesla and VW announce, next month; a new "Quick Swap Standard for Vehicle Batteries" and EV's suddenly become refillable at service stations. That would be a market mover in many senses.
Of course such a thing would be sane; so there's no chance of anything like it happening.
Especially if it meant the batteries were themselves more easily serviceable. Making batteries less a part of a car and more like a durable good like a keg could have serious economies of scale.
Tesla already tried battery swapping. Technically it is possible but there are some logistical issues and it's not cost competitive with fast charging.
This is a good book. It covers most common concepts and techniques in a fairly accessible way. At they end it also shows builds up a highly optimized version of some algorithms and data structures and does explains every optimization.