Never really understood the "luxury" interiors with huge number of details, materials, mixes of leathers, wood, different kinda of metal, etc.
The interior that stood out to me was porsche 911 from around 1970. Not distracting, simple, robust, and lasts 30 years (when I saw it).
A larger display for excellent situational awareness (map, gps, dozen or so cameras, ultrasonic, and radar). What were you hoping for? A few dozen chrome knobs sprinkled around?
There's already two knobs on the right and left of the steering wheel, hopefully you can customize them for whatever you use the most. They didn't mention speech recognition. But if my phone can manage to be woken up and nav to wherever I need to go, seems like it shouldn't be too far behind for tesla. Two knobs, big screen, and voice prompts sounds good to me.
Touch screens are terrible to use while driving, especially for frequent operations (volume, change stations, climate control, hazard lights, wipers, etc). The current trend is to push more into these touch interfaces, but most car manufactures have still left some of the more important ones as physical buttons.
For tesla the matter is not ergonomics, but simply cost.
I love automatic wipers. They turn on in the wierdest situations. Particularly when you've been on a road trip and your windshield is covered with a nice smattering of bug guts.
Thats why you have the two scroll-wheel knobs on the steering wheel. You select a function and then you can adjust them with a physical control while driving.
"terrible" seems overdramatizing. "Slightly inconvenient at first, but fairly convenient a few weeks down the road after the muscle memory develops" is a more apt description. Volume and wipers have been duplicated to steering wheel knobs and levers, hazard lights do have a physical button (as electrical system failure and touch screen outage are a possibility), and climate control defaults to the last desired temperature (and that's if you chose to go off auto).
It might be great functionally, but it looks like there's no design or aesthetics at all - kind of like an iphone made with matte plastic and without rounded corners.
I was struck how sad the interior of the Tesla S looks compared to a mid-priced Audi.
I understand how people can be excited about the driving experience and the fossile-fuel-vision of a Tesla. But interior wise they are not anything special.
This sounds eerily similar to an experience I had. The CEO of a 10 year old company that kept growing in revenue and profits (even during the recession) went from being the most level headed and inspiring person to totally incompetent. He suddenly gave up and stopped coming to the office and and gave the employees a free reign to do what they wanted. Things actually worked but every time we needed his involvement he would show up and just fuck everything up.
After months of declining business he told me privately that the reason for his behavior was because he was burned out but felt everything could be fixed in 6 months. I didn't stay to find out and quit immediately. 6 months later those who remained ended up working 3 months without pay and found themselves out of a job while the CEO declared bankruptcy. Towards the end I heard he got more erratic and started blaming the employees, the board and everyone but himself for his situation.
It still baffles me how someone who seemed like he could turn anything to gold and had such good judgement could suddenly lose everything and become so hopeless because of burnout. Over a year later he still hasn't recovered and is being sued by several people.
Since you're an engineer - I'd say tell the board (verbally) what you think and put in a notice of resignation. If they change things for the better they might ask you to reconsider your resignation. If they take offense and side with the CEO - you're better off quitting anyway.
It seems to be a common mindset among python developers. You often hear the reason you can't have something in Python is because it's theoretically impossible, impractical and too difficult - but then it happens in another language. I was convinced that dynamic languages would always be slow (see https://wiki.python.org/moin/Why%20is%20Python%20slower%20th...) but then Google gave us V8.
The tool doesn't look like it's meant to be run within a cloud. Instances in a VPC without internet access would have only private IP addresses within the CIDR range of the subnet in which they are launched.
It's to find out which cloud a public IP address belongs to, for which the public data source/whois lookup seems the only option.
PS: the metadata (in case of AWS) can be accessed only within the instance itself.
We're in the process of moving to GovCloud, but that's a relatively small part of the overall compliance...fun...that goes into getting a service FedRAMP-approved.
Bootcamps have become more about cash and I know quite a few that are in trouble financially. Though they've gotten postive reviews lately it seems they will eventually be viewed in the same vein as Online degrees.
Not sure if you're considering this or not but there are two sizes of watch so at least screen size is different. Which is pretty much inline with the differences between MacBook Pros and iPhones where screen size is the main delimiter.
Yes developers your developer-time is the most precious thing in the universe but please consider your user's time and their computing resources as well.
It's a customer's decision, not a developer's one. A one liner like the one in the post should be added at zero cost by any developer, but more important optimizations compete with the budget of the features that sell the product of the customer. In my experience customers want features first, optimizations last and only if the unoptimized app/site runs too slow on their devices. And developers don't like to work for free.
Even if the customer doesn't demand it, you should have your own standards for quality and performance and never compromise on them when it comes to your deliverables.
You're actually harming your business if you choose to do shitty work for small bucks and good work for big bucks. If you take your standards very seriously it improves the capabilities of your team and let's you take on more lucrative contracts.
> And developers don't like to work for free.
Oddly enough, the highest earning developers I know don't think like that.
I understand your feelings but I don't think they match the reality of many places around the world.
Maybe those developers earn so much that they can provide quality even if their customers don't explicitly demand it. But we can look at it in another way: their customer pay so much because they also pay for that quality and take it for granted. Deliver to them an unpolished product (in any way) and somebody else will code the next one.
Unfortunately not all customers are like that. Many of them fight for every single dollar/euro/whatever. They know they are compromising on quality and accept the tradeoff. After all, it's their privilege to decide the limits of their budget and maybe there is nothing they can do about it. The developer must accept it too, get the job done as quickly as possible and take another job. Or do very few and very long high quality jobs at unbearable costs and end up bankrupt quickly (and possibly piss off the customer because you're taking so long to deliver.)
Btw: customers give constraints also on time. There is no time to provide much quality when they want a feature delivered in a couple of days on a system you never saw before. It happened to me a few weeks ago. I made it but I could have done it better if I had at least one week? Sure. Would they pay me twice as much? Nope.
> A lot of people are evaluating too much based on the ideas, rather than the background of the founders and whether that background gives them the experience to execute the idea.
I don't want to accuse you of backpeddaling, but your point would have been more clear if you had said "overlooking the background" instead of "rather than the background"
Teams are important, but recent events have shown that we've been giving teams with bad ideas more credit than they deserve because of their credentials or alma matter. Maybe YCF will help someone with a great idea build a great team :)
> A lot of people are evaluating too much based on the ideas
I could have been more clear, but I think the original comment I made is still accurate, even from a pedantic point of view.
How have recent events shown that? I don't think recent events have shown that. Also, you can't build a great team if there's nobody good on the founding team from the start.
