Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | foobazgt's commentslogin

> I like Teslas a lot, but gave you ever been on a road trip in one? It's pretty brutal.

Maybe 50 road trips? Usually hundreds of miles, with the longest at 1000mi. Literally the easiest road trips I've done in my life.


Okay! Cani ask, how long did it take? Every one I've been on took far, far longer


They take about the same time as with an ICE. I stop and charge for 20m whenever I need a restroom break or some food (every couple hours or so). My car generally goes longer without stopping than I do.

If you're stopping often or long, something is wrong with your setup.


I routinely traverse Monteagle with no substantive loss in efficiency. Sounds like something goofy with the mach-e?


I just drove 100mi in freezing temps (around 25F) at mostly interstate speeds (70+) mph. I completed my trip around 95% of EPA. Maybe a function of the quality of your EV.


I know congestion can be an issue at some sites, but I have never waited in line to charge in seven years of EV ownership.

In addition, for superchargers, you can see real-time stall availability, so if a particular site was crowded, you could just opt for the next. (Easy enough to do since there are so many).


Is that legally enforceable? If a mod doesn't contain code / assets from the game itself, what legal rights does Microsoft have over the distribution of that mod?


Yes courts have found that game mods, even if they don't directly include any content from the original game in their distributable, count as derivative works under copyright.

> The ruling continues to apply to the legal status of video game modding, with mods viewed as derivative works that require the consent of the copyright holder. While this may legally limit the creation of mods, machinima, broadcasts, or even cheats, many game developers have authorized and encouraged some of these activities.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micro_Star_v%2E_FormGen_Inc%2E


It's copyright infringement by being a derivative work. Maybe. I don't think it's ever been tried in court. They can still blacklist you.


Teslas illuminate brake lights based on deceleration (until reaching a stop), which is the desired behavior. I use regen braking aggressively to slow down, and different light behavior would give people seizures or make them brake-light-deaf.

If you're annoyed by the braking lights on a Tesla, it's because you're following too (dangerously) closely.


Slava mentions both bidirectional inferencing and overloading as two of the big culprits.

I've been doing some language work recently, and I'm quite sympathetic to bidirectional inferencing. I think, though, that modern PLs need better solutions for adhoc overloading. It's notorious for its complexity, blowing up algorithmically, and confusing users with surprising results (why oh why did the compiler select this function over the one I intended). That said, I haven't discovered a good alternative (for my purposes) yet.


The paper The Simple Essence of Overloading: Making Ad-Hoc Polymorphism More Algebraic with Flow-Based Variational Type-Checking, should help with the overloading part hopefully


> I think, though, that modern PLs need better solutions for adhoc overloading.

So, something like "How to make ad-hoc polymorphism less ad hoc"?


Orphanless typeclasses FTW


No joke, that's just wild. I'd expect an expression like that to type-check literally a million times faster - at the least. Even after reading the article, it's not clear why that particular expression is so egregiously poor.


From the post they link to:

> The Swift standard library has 17 overloads of + and 9 types adopting the ExpressibleByStringLiteral Protocol. This leads to an exponential combination of types and operators for the constraint solver to try.

I think the ExpressibleBy thing means that a string literal can be interpreted to mean any of those 9 types. Personally I agree with you; I would actually suggest that the compiler error out if there are anywhere near this many interpretations of an expression. Apparently the corrected expression compiles in 0.19s, which is unacceptable to me. I would much rather pay the cost once of adding a few type annotations or intermediate expressions than pay that fifth of a second over and over and over again for every recompile of that file. Since the types a pretty global constraint system, the expression is a landmine as well: you could fiddle with some distant overload which causes it to attempt the permutations in a different order and suddenly start timing out again.


I would rather just have a flag to require type annotations to simply not have to worry about this. I find code much harder to read without them anyway.


> Even after reading the article, it's not clear why that particular expression is so egregiously poor.

I'm glad I'm not the only one wondering why this is not instant to type check.


Plus is heavily overloaded


At first I read this as "Apple doesn't implement Touch ID, because they found it to be insecure", which really confused me. Was that the intent?

On second reading, I'm thinking this might mean, "since Apple only implements Face ID, biometrics on Apple devices is less secure", which makes more sense (to me).


Yeah, the latter. All kinds of reports of siblings (including fraternal twins and non-twins) being able to unlock each others phones.

https://duckduckgo.com/?origin=funnel_home_google&t=h_&q=fac...

Fingerprints are much more non-deterministic and therefore more secure.


Aren't fingerprints obsolete as biometrics? Last I remembered fingerprints can be lifted if high resolution pictures. I.e. any picture where your thumb is visible.


JOOQ (http://jooq.org) is pretty fantastic for this, and it's my go-to for working with RDBMs' on the JVM. It provides a DSL-like API that lets you write pretty much any SQL you need in a type-safe way (without string concatenation).


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: