In the US we love big machines. The Queen Mary, the Spruce Goose, the continuous asphalt pavers, the Liebherr T 282 B giant dump truck (although Liebherr is a Swiss company), the Boeing 747-400 and Lockheed L-1011 wide-body passenger jets, the massive Abrams tank, the Nimitz-class aircraft carriers, the 280mm towed howitzer M65 "Atomic Annie", and such are examples.
See how I slipped a Swiss-built monster in there? Well, the US and Japan aren't the only ones. Germany has a 31 million pound excavator. The largest plane is made in Russia by Antonov. South Korea builds some of the biggest cargo ships.
So while, yes, giant robots are a big thing in Japanese art the urge to build huge machines is all over the industrialized world. The US and Germany have never been afraid of large engineering feats. The US has a whole industry of using remotely piloted craft for actual combat.
I don't think Japan needs to focus so much pride on this one little competition as a cultural identity issue. It's not like a US firm is going to enter a contest designing and building a robot with the intent of a face-saving loss or an honorable tie.
"Career" is still hyperbole. A project may fail. It may even be one job at stake. It wouldn't end a career.
So, assuming a make-or-break project for an employer are the stakes, here's what I'd do. First, I'd do an initial evaluation whether doing this on Linux is actually worthwhile given the alternatives on other Unix platforms. Second, I'd pick something for safety over performance. Given the budget, I'd pay for development on one of the OSS versioning filesystems to do clustering or one of the OSS clustering filesystems to do versioning.
I'd probably check to see if frequent snapshots are valid rather than per-file per-write versioning. That turned out to be the case in this thread. That gives many workable and fairly conventional options on Linux.
If per-write versions were really that important, and it really had to be on Linux, and really had to be shared as well, I'd probably alter my application to write through git libraries at the application level. If not git, then maybe Mercurial or Bazaar. If I didn't have control over the application, I'd look into inotify to do commits based on those writes.
If it really needs to be in the filesystem, really needs to be on Linux, and really needs to be per-write versions, I'd use something like NILFS2 on LVM with a SAN-backed LVM, and have read-only access shared out over NFS or CIFS.
No matter what I chose as my primary target, I'd choose a couple other alternatives and test the hell out of all three. I wouldn't greenlight anything for production until I was happy.
Really, if your employer expects anything less stringent on their production infrastructure than a full testing and development cycle and blames the implementors for failures of overspecified and undertested software as ordered by management, then you want a new employer anyway.
For a city, the leaf actually makes a lot of sense. I think that when they have a TRUE 120-150 MPC car, they will sell loads of them.
My understanding is that the leaf is going to be re-designed, not just increased the battery. Nissan has determined that style really does matter. In addition, they are going to increase the specs on it in terms of speeds. The idea that they have a 0-60 of 10 seconds is pathetic. They should have no more than a 7 (and even that is slow for an EV).
BTW, for what you described at the end, that is tesla model 3 in 2 years. 200+ MPC. $35K (and unlike the leaf, that is the BASE, not the upper end). And yes, it does have Linux.
Here is what has been built and what is being built
And here is what will be built out over the next year.
Just out of curiosity, how long did it take? I am guessing that you just got it and are taking it for its first SC drive (everybody has to do one
For the last year, all but the Tesla's sales have gone down. Part of that is more EVs coming on the market and THOSE old car makers EVs competing for similar space. However, when Tesla is out with the Model 3 in 2 years, it will make a HUGE dent in ICE car sales. Why? Because you will be looking at a car superior to the BMW 3 series, with under 6 seconds 0-60, 200 MPC, 140 MPH top speed, all for less than e-golfs, leafs, etc.
Said the guy from Alaska.
Sadly, far too many places in America, even in the 48, do not have water/electricity.
2) If you charge in the daytime, the average is
3) the costs of batteries for most EVs IS a problem. They will only last 7-10 years for those vehicles. But with Tesla, their batteries will last 15-20 years (based on current data). And in 15 years, the costs of a new battery from them, will be NOTHING.
Oh, In Tesla, it is a 90 second change out for a new battery pack.
Sorry, this pretty much burst your bubble, but there is a REAL reason why Tesla continues to have strong sales, while other EVs are slowing down.
However, none of that matters because nissan was in a hurry with the leaf and decided to do air-cooling, which will not work.
The EVs are easily capable of outdoing the ICE cars, but, all of the regular car makers choose to not allow that, except in hybrid form.
German and Japanese car makers are actually opposed to EVs. They want fuel cells with H2, along with hybrids. As such, both are getting HUGE subsidies from their gov. for H2 and fuel cells. And yes, both gov. are pouring in a great deal more money into the fuel cells rather then EVs or simply keeping neutral.
That is also why VW buillt the battery poorly. It has no effective HVAC,. As such, it will suffer the exact same battery issues that leaf, and other none tesla cars will suffer. Their batteries will be luck to last 7 years, let alone 10. The ONLY chance that those batteries have of making it to 7 will be if the owners does not use the fast chargers.
Finally, golf really is poorly put together. They are charging top dollars for that. NOT impressed.
And BTW, I used to own a rabbit. I liked it back then. But, that does not change the fact that e-golf is highly overpriced.