I have merely a passive interest in economics, but my two cents:
There was an (anonymous) article a while back from someone who ran an [I believe a small] exchange, whereby he could manipulate the buy/sell prices to his advantage (driving up BTC price) - and I can see that happening very easily; I don't know what sort of algorithms Mt Gox (or any exchange) runs for it's immediate buy/sell spot price, but a simple variation of the weighted average over the past hour * 1.05 would easily provide a price that is always rising, unless a user manually gives a lower buy / sell price - and even then that would have to be beat the current price by 5% to make any impact on the spot price. Hell, you could just inflate the prices you show to users by a certain % to create that sort of meteoric rise, even if they do place lower/higher bids - those bids are somewhat based on what the value they see in that moment.
Is this a bubble? We just don't know. Currently there are people who are willing to part quite a lot of money for a scarce virtual currency, so by all accounts if there's a demand - the value will rise, especially if supply is limited (not just now, but there will only ever be a finite amount of BTC).
Even with the hiccups (0.8 vs 0.7 double spending, Mt Gox crashes) - and a price crash in it's history - surely anyone would think twice before putting down $200 per BTC, especially when it was worth only $15 three months ago.
What's convincing these folks to invest, I just don't know. Maybe they see something I don't, but at the moment I just see a very overvalued bubble just waiting to pop. A part of me fears that it's being overrun by folks who don't trust private financial institutions to hide their (illegitimate) wealth, as I don't think the average Cypriot has the wealth, nor there are enough Cypriots (or average / middle/working-class Europeans) altogether to create the demand which would push the price where it is now. Maybe someone can run the numbers; average salary, savings, investments, total # of folks who are tech savy enough to buy BTC, compare that with the uptake in Mt Gox (or other exchanges) signups, volume, traffic etc and put together a more substantial assessment.
BTC is something the world needs badly, and over the next decade I can see it becoming incredibly prominent. But the sort of rise we've seen in the past 3 months should've taken at least 3 years; and even then it's an incredible run for what's nothing more than a digital, limited commodity.
As long as there are multiple bitcoin exchanges, it will be very hard for a single exchange to influence the price of bitcoin thanks to arbitrage traders.
Therein lies the problem: MtGox is so huge so that even though it's not a monopoly, I'm not sure it doesn't operate as a de-facto monopoly when it comes to price determination.
It is decent advice but to be taken with a grain of salt - I've worked with developers who just dive in to the project, no plan in their head and just figuring out as they go along. What you're left with is a mess of code, hacks and workarounds - it works, definitely does, but maintaining or extending it is a nightmare.
On the other hand you have projects with incredibly detailed architectures all mapped out, way too much time discussing / planning / envisioning what to build, when to build it and how best to go about it. Not a single one I can think of actually followed the plan (you will always get kinks in the road), and as such these things are always over due and over budget.
I guess it's more about finding a balance with what works - perhaps keep an end goal in sight; with a simplistic high level overview of the project/feature, thus giving you the freedom to move around any problems that may arise, but also not tying you down to a detailed plan / architecture that almost certainly will need changing. Iterate fast, stay flexible(?)
But one thing I definitely agree with - and that's to get started immediately; whether that's to plan or to code - just start. It will always take longer than you think, and that last 10% is equivalent to first 90%, if not more.
I think you're right, but I 100% reject this article. Maybe it is good advice for small- or middle-scale products, apps., etc., but it will never hold for a project whose goal is to make a global impact.
I'm actually thinking about Fabrice Bellard, who was featured in a article that was met with success here two months ago[1].
> Bellard made it seem natural to pull together his mathematical insight, broad experience at instruction-level coding, and careful engineering to advance the field this way
When you look at his achievements[2], I have trouble finding one that would have succeeded with OP's "advice". Between an app for coffee-lovers and QEMU, I think the careful thinking and engineering crushes the hype of "let's do it". Sure it sounds good, but that is not the way you will achieve something meaningful.
I may sound like an ass while it is not my goal, but
- I'm kind of surprised to see the success of this article (50 votes for 2 hours) given the low level and amount of content it offers
- I distrust analogies, and this gamma-correction one is definitely unsound (not to say dumb)
>When you look at his achievements[2], I have trouble finding one that would have succeeded with OP's "advice". Between an app for coffee-lovers and QEMU, I think the careful thinking and engineering crushes the hype of "let's do it". Sure it sounds good, but that is not the way you will achieve something meaningful.
I think both you and the parent got the wrong impression.
The article is not saying "just start coding -- and skip planning and engineering".
He says "just start working hard on the problem from day one, INCLUDING the planning and engineering parts -- instead of leaving it for later, or doing only low hanging fruits in the beginning".
"Start working hard early on != just start with coding immediately".
>- I distrust analogies, and this gamma-correction one is definitely unsound (not to say dumb)
Nothing unsound or dumb about it. It's just that he could reduce it to the curve shown --taken to mean project completion--, without mentioning gamma at all.
The curve is the important part of the analogy, not gamma.
I don't think this is stating that (or what other responses to the parent say). Rather it is saying, figure out what the biggest risk is and try to address that first. Often for startups this will be on the business side (i.e. are you building something people want? Is the market big enough? etc.). But if what you're building requires complex engineering, requires that an API you're unfamiliar with works a certain way, requires that certain data is available to you, etc. it is helpful to also investigate these things early on so that you can be more confident of your project's feasibility and can estimate better.
I think the best advice is not that you should start working right now, but that you should plan that the last 20% of your project is the one that will take most of the time.
The only thing that irks me here is how the cost of fuel is deducted from the cost of the lease:-
If I'm paying $1200/mo for a lease, and any fuel / maintenance costs are on top of that amount. If I get an S-Class for $1200/mo, the fuel would be (for example) $200/mo on top, the total being $1400/mo. Increment accordingly for maintenance.
Tesla S is $1200/mo. I don't need fuel, hence I don't pay anything on top. It doesn't magically become $1200 - $200 = $1000/mo. You're still paying $1200/mo. Plus the cost of maintenance and electricity.
A manipulation that I don't see the point of, at that. Tell a people who can only afford a $600/mo payment that the TCO is under that, and it might get them to come into the dealership, but the real monthly cost will come out before the car could be sold.
If they pitched the calculator on the "true cost of ownership" page as a "here's a way to estimate the hidden costs of a gasoline car that make the Tesla more competitive than you'd think" they could make the same pitch but without the smell of a bait and switch. But even at that, it's not apples to apples (if you buy an S Class, nobody has to guarantee that there will be a market for reselling it in three years).
> Tell a people who can only afford a $600/mo payment that the TCO is under that, and it might get them to come into the dealership, but the real monthly cost will come out before the car could be sold.
Once you have them through the door you have the chance to pitch them the concept, which in sales is a big thing. And the whole point of a salesman's job is to close the deal.
(I don't disagree, just pointing out why they are doing a bait and switch)
The issue with getting them through the door is the reputational risk from everyone who walked into a showroom to be told the actual monthly cost was 1200 bucks, only to bring it up with all their friends as a misleading marketing gambit.
For a company that needs every ounce of credibility to make its product mainstream, this seems like a silly ad to place.
He said "plus the cost of maintenance and electricity".
For equivalent range, a Model S would cost me $8 per "fill-up" instead of $74. The difference would be bigger if I drove a sportier car with worse gas mileage.
For many owners, it actually is free. A lot of these cars are being bought by Californians working at companies with their own electric car discounts and charging stations at the workplace. The car comes with free recharges at Tesla's superchargers for life as well.
The average cost of a kilowatt-hour is something like $0.11-$0.12 in the US (some places are much higher, some are lower).
The highest-capacity model with an estimated 300-mile range holds 85kWh. Tesla claims >90% charging efficiency, but let's just say 95kWh to charge.
95kwh * $0.12 = ~$11.40 per 300 miles.
Right now, a gallon of regular gasoline in the US averages $3.601.
300 / 50mpg = 6 * 3.6 = $21.60
300 / 40mpg = 7.5 * 3.6 = $27.00
300 / 30mpg = 10 * 3.6 = $36.00
300 / 20mpg = 15 * 3.6 = $54.00
300 / 10mpg = 30 * 3.6 = $108.00
As a point of troubling comparison, the Model S gets compared to a BMW M5 a lot, which apparently has a 16mpg/24mpg city/highway rating.
Another useful comparison is to a basic Prius, which has a 51/48 rating, but is substantially smaller, lighter, and less performant than the Model S and M5, but the Model S still beats it by a large margin.
When Tesla gets around to a Prius-like EV, the numbers are going to be even more ridiculous. The "fuel cost" of commuter EVs will simply be noise in the typical family budget.
>When Tesla gets around to a Prius-like EV, the numbers are going to be even more ridiculous. The "fuel cost" of commuter EVs will simply be noise in the typical family budget.
Or some of the European diesels, some of which are pushing 100 MPG.
>Or some of the European diesels, some of which are pushing 100 MPG.
Unless I'm terribly mistaken, you are thinking of vehicles that were tested on a different driving cycle with a larger gallon (imperial vs US). If compared on an EPA cycle with US gallons, those cars get closer to 50 mpg.
> If compared on an EPA cycle with US gallons, those cars get closer to 50 mpg.
It's worse than that. Diesel fuel has a higher energy density than gasoline, and is more expensive. Anyone trying to directly compare the two in terms of miles per gallon and cost without the appropriate adjustments is simply speaking nonsense.
It's a pity Tesla didn't lay out the costs in a calculator as you have above. Would've been far more honest ("am I really paying that much on fuel every month?"), and this whole silly debate would've been avoided.
There are other costs to consider as well, not just fuel: add in the monthly insurance cost as well as the daily commute cost - depending on where you live, you may be paying $5 per day in commute tolls and several hundred per month for insurance.
I know no safe driver with a monthly insurance premium in the "several hundred per month" range. Even fairly expensive cars rarely go much above $2k/year for full coverage.
Is it just me or the title is a bit sensationalist? Surely they could done it a bit better: "Facebook registration doesn't allow dates before x" - which is somewhat understandable, and yes this does indeed force her to "lie" about her age, but to make it on the Times with such an accusatory article makes me question the motives/credibility of the author/reporter.
Used your site a few months ago and have been recommending it to everyone since! Can I make a request for "best Solutions" & possibly more exercises? Its been the best resource I've found for getting the basics down, thanks!
+1 on the custom molded in ear monitors - usually have my iPod volume on the 2nd or 3rd bar (15%?) and that drowns out pretty much everything - crying babies on flights, annoying co-workers etc.
If no music is need / just silence - industrial foam plugs (30-33db attenuation) + gun-range ear muffs on top; and that should only cost about $25 in total too.
---
With foam plugs - many folks just stick them on top of the ear and think that's it - you have to squash them into a thin roll, quickly insert them into the ear so only about 1/3 of them sticks out. They expand in your ear in about 10-15secs, and are usually more than enough to dull out most annoying sounds.
Precisely - I still fail to understand this need to constantly add the overheads for supporting multiple mobile platforms / devices.
Pinch to zoom / double tap are amazing features made precisely for this - if the text, image or control is too small I just pinch or double tap; takes a fraction of a second and I still get the whole website experience as it was meant to be.
Until the developer decides he always wants everything pixel-perfect, writes a separate stylesheet for each device/class of device, and locks your zoom.
I agree with the statement that electric cars are not the future, but for a slightly different set of reasons.
My MSc thesis / project was studying future engines and fuels - long story short:
- IC engines have efficiencies of anywhere from 70% to 5%; depending on a huge range of factors and types (rotax at 3000rpm on diesel vs v12 carb at 8000rpm on 98-ron, outside temp and pressure etc).
- Over 100 years of research has gone in to them.
- Almost the same time has been spent on building up our infrastructure around the production of fuel for IC engines.
- They can run on anything from ethanol to vegetable oil to human waste (after a certain amount of refining of course).
- Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe. Not to mention the lightest. It just so happens to be incredibly flammable/volatile too.
My solution? Replace petrol with Hydrogen for internal combustion - much alike the conversions we already do for LPG.
I spent roughly half a year on the theory behind it, and then another couple of months actually in the lab with an old FI 500cc motorcycle parallel twin engine (they're tough as hell). I converted it to LPG, replaced all the tubings, modified the injectors and started pumping in various blends of fuel (5% ethanol, 80% 91-Ron, 10% LPG, 5% Hydrogen etc). On some blends it ran smoother, on others there was horrible knocking, one some it just kept cutting out.
Unfortunately I was only allocated a year and never got a chance to finish - the amount of trial and error involved day in day out was gruelling. Not to mention at least once a week I'd have to rebuild the whole engine.
The future for me isn't electric cars, not at all. They'll hit the same constraints of raw materials that you mention, and it's wether they hit that constraint just as the technology is getting to a point where mass adaption is possible. Not to mention the charge time, the life cycle of a battery etc etc. It is hydrogen powered cars - wether that would be fuel cells or IC engines I don't know, but I'm leaning towards IC engines.
A plastic bucket of gas contains more hydrogen than a bucket of liquid hydrogen, and if you put a lid on it the gas will happily stay in the bucket, whereas for the hydrogen you need a pressurized corrosive-resistant container.
Hydrogen is not the future, because it's incredibly difficult to handle, we don't have the infrastructure for it (unlike gas and electricity), and the energy density of hydrogen is really bad compared to gas and batteries.
The engine is a part of the puzzle, but infrastructure is a much larger piece that has to be solved in a reasonable way.
Actually - Hydrogen storage isn't that much of a step above the precautions already needed for LPG; which is now incredibly popular in developing countries. Shanghai, if I remember correctly, made it illegal in 2000 or 2001 to sell petrol scooters in the city - they all run on LPG.
Regarding energy density - definitely agree, my own research showed me a 2 fold increase in consumption compared to LPG, which in turn increases consumption by 15% over regular petrol (note that these were estimates based on my data).
The lab had a "Hydrogen maker" - obviously it ran off electricity and in about 6 hours provided roughly 500 milliliters of compressed hydrogen (kept at 350 bar if I remember correctly) literally from air.
My concept was to be able to have a clean water tank (pure H2O) and electrolysis providing the Hydrogen to run the engine, and continue on in a closed loop; literally a car running on water. Obviously energy transfer, efficiencies etc make this almost impossible - but one can dream.
But why would you want a car that takes electricity and charges up an internal hydrogen fuel tank, then uses that to fuel a combustion engine, when you might as well have an electric car where you fill up the battery, then use that to power an electric engine.
The fundamentals of a car don't change. You need to store energy in the car somehow, and you need to convert that energy into movement somehow.
The benefits of a regular car is that the "store energy in car" part is very easy. You just fill it up at the gas station. The benefits of an electric car is that "convert to movement" is very easy, because electrical engines are very simple.
I completely understand that if you have a fueled up hydrogen-powered vehice, it's awesome - it runs on water!!! - but what do you need to do to get there? And how much energy is lost in conversions along the way? It simply doesn't solve any problems in a better way.
I was given a 2001/2002 Honda CB500 twin (I believe it had over 80,000 miles on it - really worn piston and chamber; hence "old" to me). The carb was removed but the top had LPG injectors on the side and I was feeding it oxygen rich air (this was one of the controls set on 30% oxygen at 300 kelvins).
Off topic but how is it more beneficial to add your name to the change.org petition vs the e-petition service offered by the White House (https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions) / Her Majesty's Government (http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/)? From what I understand the "official" ones at least guarantee your petition to be discussed by those in power once a certain threshold is crossed.
