Probably, the biggest is that Tesla HAS been thinking about recycling. In fact, GF is build just for that. Likewise, they will be re-using a number of the cells from a 'spent' pack to run their GF, prior to recycling (which is cool).
How much does the battery cost to replace?
Unknown since it is not known how soon one needs to replace it. With the first round of the batteries in the MS (i.e. 2012 version), it appears that somewhere around 200-250K miles, is when the battery pack will be around 85% level. So most ppl think that it new packs will be needed around 2020-2022. At that point, it might costs 5K for a change.
Of course, with 200-250K miles on an ICE car, you will most likely have to rebuild the engine, along with all of that nasty maintenance.
I think the complaint is that the LD_LIBRARY_PATH equivalent is doing questionable things given the conventions of the target platform.
It's hard to say as there's zero details in the article and I don't have time to research what I don't really care about that much.
AMD's dual-core, partially shared, but partially independent has been a confusing thing. Better than hypethreading, but worse than real cores, claiming performance of real cores.
Note for all those desktop enthusiasts out there, don't get too excited. To look at Intel as an example, they go up to 4 cores per desktop socket, but go to 18 cores per socket in servers (at 150W per socket) as of this moment (can't talk about unreleased product). AMD does 8 'core' desktop processors (4 modules) and 16 'core' opteron (really 8 modules), so it's not just an Intel thing.
That is true, but also used to describe some pretty ridiculous people. People who genuinely consider themselves in the same league as people who put themselves in the way of bodily harm to advance the civil rights movement back in the day. Except they are just posting stuff on the internet and sometimes fighting against purely imagined circumstances, and sometimes launching into campaigns of harassment against the stray random person who makes even a slightly insensitive twitter message, saying they deserve to be fired and blackballed in the industry, and all sorts of things.
It's the campaigns of harassment that I find particularly unsettling, as they don't take any effort in understanding the perspective of the person who offended. For example a young man I knew in high school would say some pretty intolerant things about gay people. Ultimately it was an expression of his difficulty coming to grips with being gay himself, and fortunately he found the right friends and support to get him through it. I shudder to think if he had to go through that today in a more public forum and earn the wrath of some of these people, going after him relentlessly and trying everything they can figure out to further ruin his life moreso than how screwed up he was by his predicament.
Some of these people are more bully than 'educated caring intelligent people', doing what they can to feel better about themselves first and foremost, thinking they are doing 'good'.
I just think that people are failing to recognize that github effectively benefits from encouraging traditional centralized version control workflows but using git. They don't emphasize teaching people on how to do offline merges and peer to peer, they encourage every change to be pushed and then a pull request with a handy-dandy 'click to merge' button.
So github shouldn't get a pass for what is possible with git (they didn't make git after all). They just leverage the popularity of git to build what is for most users a traditional repository. They should be criticized for failings around uptime. Particularly as they also serve as the place people host the builds for users to download.
I think github provides value (particularly for the networking effect for collaboration) and thus I think being worryingly worse with respect to uptime is a problem.
Windows 10 is a pretty good sign they were paying *some* attention to the Windows 8 reaction.
To be fair, until they released, they couldn't gauge the reaction from the market they *wanted* in Windows 8, mobile/tablet users. Yes the desktop users may have made it quite clear how screwed up it was, but MS doesn't really need to care about them, they are a captive audience. They wanted to capture the market they couldn't get before.
That has been a long standing problem with many companies, that they strive to make software developers interchangeable cogs through process. Apply enough process and you'll get great products whether you use experienced and enthusiastic people or bottom of the barrel people who can't make more money another way.
Wernher von Braun settled for a V-2 when he coulda had a V-8.