If you've drunk the pets-vs-cattle koolaid to the point where your instances are all (or mostly) ephermal then you're probably also using auto-scaling groups and don't care if a particular single instance falls over.
As someone who's driven both a 2011 M3 GTS and a 2012 Model S Performance around a track, they may be in the same class, and the around same speed on paper, but they feel very different. I'd classify both as brutal, but the Model S accelerates more explosively without seeming like it's even trying. I'm sure the relative silence has a lot to do with it but the car absolutely feels faster. It's difficult to explain, you've got to drive it to understand.
Even if fuel economy, maintenance, reliability, etc. were not factors I would go with the Model S every day of the week.
> I'm sure the relative silence has a lot to do with it but the car absolutely feels faster. It's difficult to explain, you've got to drive it to understand.
See my earlier post in this thread with a series
wound electric motor has infinite torque at stall (not
yet rotating). So, standing still or moving slowly,
an electric car, with a lot of power, can feel like
it has instant, effortless, and amazing acceleration
compared with an internal combustion engine that
has to use gears and a clutch or torque converter.
> fuel economy, maintenance, reliability,
Yup, a Tesla could have some advantages especially
since its engine really has only one
moving part, the armature of the electric motor,
or two for the D model. That's a long way from
the number of parts in an internal combustion
engine with camshaft, push rods, rocker arms,
valve springs, valves, pistons,
connecting rods, ....
But, for a Tesla, there's a chance
that in time the battery will need to be
Long ago a Ford executive said, "You
build me a good battery, and I will
build you a good electric car.". Apparently
Tesla has made a lot of progress on the
battery, but it remains an issue,
for cost, weight, charging time,
But, no joke, an engine with just one
moving part, and no transmission,
has one heck of an advantage in
maintenance and reliability.
The Wankel was asking a lot of the
seals at the edges of its
special rotor; apparently it
was asking too much.
> Fuel economy wise though, the traditional piston engine outperforms the Wankel engine.
Yes, piston rings work a lot better than the
seals Wankel needs. And, now with pistons,
we can use high compression ratios;
the Wankel seals have problems which get
much worse at higher compression ratios.
Why high compression ratios? Simple, classic
Carnot cycle physics: The higher the compression
ratio, the more get out of the fuel.
Why higher compression ratios now? Because now
we can have direct fuel injection, directly
into the combustion chamber, much as in a
Diesel. So, then can do all the turbo charging
and supercharging want, for still higher total
compression ratios because don't have to
worry about pre-ignition from the air being
too hot from the compression it got
before entering the cylinder. So, don't
have to use an intercooler to
cool the compressed air.
Why supercharging or turbocharging?
Because get more power out of the
same basic engine of pistons, cylinders,
etc., that is, more power without
more friction from larger pistons.
So save on friction. So two savings
for fuel economy: Higher compression
ratios and less friction.
That's what Volvo and others are doing:
Small engine, lots of boost, good
power and good fuel economy.
I suspect a good way to get both
range and fuel economy with an electric
car is to have a hybrid: So, have
an internal combustion engine drive a
generator to charge the batteries.
Here can have an advantage: The
engine need run at only one power setting,
its most efficient. Then for such
an engine? Sure, use a gas turbine
so that we are back to basically just
one moving part. Yes, in an axial flow
gas turbine, the part that rotates,
at, say, 30,000 RPM or so, is darned
expensive, but that part is also
designed for the engine to have some
ability to have a throttle. If give
up the idea of a throttle and have only
one power setting, then we can return
to centrifugal force for both the
compressor and the turbine. Then
the metal for the high temperatures
is expensive, so can use some ceramic.
Now we're talking: Just one major moving part,
cheap ceramic, centrifugal force,
single power setting (where the aerodynamics
for the compressor and turbine work best).
Might get 200 HP in a small package.
Then run it only when charging the battery.
Then never bother plugging the car to
charge the batteries. When
driving around town, nearly never run the
turbine. On the highway at 65 MPH, occasionally
run the turbine. Blasting across, say,
Nevada at 110 MPH, run the turbine a lot.
At top speed of 150 MPH or so, sure, run the
turbine 100% of the time and still have the
battery run down.
Sure, get some losses when generate the
electric power, when stuff it into the
battery, when draw it out of the battery,
and when drive the electric motor. Yup,
Agreed, 0-60 in 5 seconds isn't slow, but it's not brutally fast by any stretch of the imagination.
I'm less interested in the speed and more interested in the handling. I am a BMW guy through and through because they are just so much fun to drive and just feel right. How would you compare taking a Model S through the twisties to say an M3 or even a regular 3 series?
Well, there's always the Tesla P85D, which they briefly mention in the article. That's the real performance version. It's quite a bit faster at 0-60 mph than the M3, roughly 3.2 seconds vs 3.9 seconds.
It will never hold up on the track. The battery can only handle the max load for a short amount of time, before the computer limits the engine and make the car more of a sunday driver. That's not a problem for every day driving, it just isn't comparable to other supercars on the track. It however means that for normal usage, it means you have the efficiency of an EV and the "burst" ability of a supercar.
Cornering on the P85D is pretty amazing due to the low centre of mass. I got to drive it on public roads rather than the track, so I didn't get to push too hard, but even then I was surprised how quickly I could hustle it through bends (for comparison my usual drive is a BMW Z3M Coupe, and I've been lucky enough to drive most of the present M cars on the Spartanburg track).
I believe this is to be a bit more educative about how to build a pipeline. Also, iteratively building such solutions quickly often leads to such "inefficiencies" but makes things easier to reason with. Besides, the awk step may have been factored out in the end so it wouldn't make sense to optimise early. Also, by the time the author reaches the end, he gets IO-bound so there's not much need to optimise further (in the context of the exercise).
My wife has an N4 running 5.0.1 with no issues re calling, so if there is an issue for these users it's an isolated one and not a systemic problem with all N4s.
Most of the Android phones on the page you linked are not Google phones. Whether or not they get updated is up to the manufacturers and carriers, not Google. You'll note that the Nexus phones have more update support in general.
Whether providing major updates to a phone is a good thing is debatable. My wife hated getting the 5.0 update. She saw it as a major inconvience that changed how her phone worked for no good reason. She would prefer to have the phone work the same way for the entire time she owns it.
If there is one device which is not impacted then it is not a problem with all devices. The problem is therefore isolated to a subset of all devices. Perhaps that subset is the majority of all N4s, perhaps it is a small fraction. We don't have enough data to say one way or another.
The AWS status page not showing anything isn't unusual. They'll probably update in half an hour to describe it as a partial failure then revise it to an "all OK" 10 minutes before it's actually fixed then retroactively downgrade it to a minor quality of service disruption.
Not that I've noticed they tend to lie through their teeth on the status page or anything....