I've always wondered why only Linux can do 'true' containers without VMs. Is there a good blog post or something I can read about the various technical hurdles?
BSD can do BSD containers with Jails for more than a decade now?
Due to innate features of a container, it can be of the same OS of the host running on the system, since they have no kernel. Otherwise you need to go the VM route.
> Containers build on top of the host operating system's kernel (...), and contain only apps and some lightweight operating system APIs and services that run in user mode
> You can increase the security by using Hyper-V isolation mode to isolate each container in a lightweight VM
I'm not sure about MacOS, but otherwise all major OSs today can run containers natively. However, the interest in non-Linux containers is generally very very low. You can absolutely run Kubernetes as native Windows binaries [0] in native Windows containers, but why would you?
Note that containers, by definition, rely on the host OS kernel. So a Windows container can only run Windows binaries that interact with Windows syscalls. You can't run Linux binaries in a Windows container anymore than you can run them on Windows directly. You can run Word in a Windows container, but not GCC.
Is there any limitation in running older.NET Framework on current Windows? Back when I was using it, you could have multiple versions installed at the same time, I think.
Containers are essentially just a wrapper tool for a linux kernel feature called cgroups, with some added things such as layered fs and the distribution method.
You can also use just use cgroups with systemd.
Now, you could implement something fairly similar in each OS, but you wouldn't be able to use the vast majority of contained software, because it's ultimately linux software.
Personally I think the strategy of starting with luxury cars and getting cheaper was a good one. The bigger profit margin of luxury cars could be fed back into R&D to make cheaper electric cars viable.
Of course, that's the ideal situation. Tesla in 2025 is very different from what they were talking about in 2014.
Yes, but Tesla has made several weird strategic errors IMO. The first one I remember reacting to where the falcon doors on the model X. They had issues which delayed the launch, and I remember thinking it was strange to put those kind of specialty doors on a SUV instead of focusing on delivering a functional car as quick and easy as possible. The next was of course the massive focus on self driving, and then the cyber truck. The company has had the same CEO during all of these decisions.
But what do I know, I assume their self driving AI hype is what drives their hugely inflated stock price, so it has made a lot of people very rich, which is a goal in itself. It's hard to point at the richest man in the world and say he made strategic errors.
> It's hard to point at the richest man in the world and say he made strategic errors.
It should be done carefully, but it should be done.
More than one company has been imploded by a leader who's been successful in the past and no longer has anyone to tell them "No."
Honestly, the best thing for Tesla would be to evict Musk as a leader, install someone who can focus on excellent delivery (like SpaceX), and create a separate R&D org for Musk to lead.
> install someone who can focus on excellent delivery (like SpaceX)
You know, I’ve thought about this too. What makes us think he hasn’t done this already? He could have an org structure where someone else is in charge of everything and still be this “veto guy”.
Personally, I don’t think he’s very excited about electric cars anymore. Tesla has mostly achieved what it set out to do. Electric cars are undeniably mainstream now. His next passion is possibly Optimus (which would also help with Tesla manufacturing and Mars settlement) and AI (same - would help with everything, make Optimus smarter). Maybe the only thing he might still be excited about, related to cars, is the self-driving taxi service. That could become a highly profitable business with a massive entry barrier for anyone that wants to compete with them. I believe in this thesis even more after the success of Starlink.
As for competition - Waymo had been too cautious and slow in its rollout to a fault. Much like Google’s AI policy before ChatGPT. Tesla can still beat them to a punch. Being a fully vertically integrated car company, they can churn out robo-taxis faster than anyone else.
> As for competition - Waymo had been too cautious and slow in its rollout to a fault. Much like Google’s AI policy before ChatGPT. Tesla can still beat them to a punch. Being a fully vertically integrated car company, they can churn out robo-taxis faster than anyone else.
Only if they're actually better, because Waymo is currently 5.5-6.5 years* ahead of where Tesla wants to be with this month's launch.
> Personally, I don’t think he’s very excited about electric cars anymore.
I agree with this. I'd also think that Tesla's board has got to be concerned about his generally erratic behavior. I know that CEOs and high-profile engineers can be pretty erratic ("DEVELOPERS! DEVELOPERS! DEVELOPERS!") but the drug use and constant tabloid exposure can't be worth whatever actual talent he's bringing to the table anymore...right?
> Honestly, the best thing for Tesla would be to evict Musk as a leader, install someone who can focus on excellent delivery (like SpaceX), and create a separate R&D org for Musk to lead.
I suspect it's too late for that.
Musk, like Jobs before him, has a reality distortion bubble; this is how the Tesla P/E ratio is now… 189.49? Huh, it went up since I last checked.
Anyway, point is that number would be 30 even in an agressive growth scenario (which no longer seems plausible given their shinies are now being done better by others), and BMW's P/E is 7.41.
If Tesla stock price reduced to realistic (i.e. not Musk-boosted) levels, that's a factor reduction of 189.49/7.41 ~=
25.6, which reduces them to about 13 USD.
I've heard Musk has a lot of loans with Tesla stock as collateral, where margin calls will trigger sales if the price goes under about $240.
I have no idea what happens when you mix that combination of margin call, price shock, corporate debt, etc.
> the best thing for Tesla would be to evict Musk as a leader, install someone who can focus on excellent delivery
Great for Tesla as a company. Terrible for its shareholders. It's not an exaggeration to say that Musk's value add at Tesla--today--isn't building cars, but hyping the stock. (That wasn't always true. And I wouldn't say the same about SpaceX or Neuralink.)
Yeah, that's just how developing new technologies works. Home PCs, VCRs, CD players, cell phones: every one was hundreds or thousands of dollars at first, a plaything for wealthy people. Then as volume increased, prices came down to where most people could afford them and they became mass-market consumer items.
It doesn't always work out. Sometimes another technology or a competitor gets over that hump first, and the other (LaserDisc, Betamax) never gets the volume it takes to become an affordable commodity. And it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with which one was better. But that's the path to selling a new tech to the masses: sell with a high price tag to the wealthy first.
That's not the case at all. People all around are constantly making art just for the sake of it. Most of it won't ever even be seen by other people. Removing the financial incentive will definitely change the landscape (for the worse, imho) but creativity for its own sake is enough for most people.
Again, citation needed. For as long as humanity existed, creating art always implied [the promise of] sharing it for either utilitarian reasons, or for enjoying the resulting reputation and recognition (we can go all evolutionary biologist about it and say reproduction, etc.), or for financial gain (more recently). Am I missing some point in human history where this was done without ever expecting any of that?
Writing “for the drawer” is generally a thing that happens if one is not yet satisfied or not confident about the quality of own output, or if one is self-censoring, or if one is expecting someone to read it eventually (communication can happen over time and space). I don’t think this is worth in-depth look, as art that was not seen by others for all intents and purposes does not exist.
(All art is communication; if you shouted into the void and made sure no one hears it, did it really take place?)
Interesting. I think writing a journal is a case where there may be an implicit expectation of somebody reading it later (to give a bad analogy, not unlike how a suicide attempt may often carry a desire to convey a point, even though it is often lethal); if there genuinely isn’t, it may be therapy but probably not art. Art is distinct from a random thing or a pretty picture by being an act of self-expression (no self-expression without the other). Generally, there is also an implied amount of effort and rarity of talent, as well as the position of the work within societal/cultural context (again,
something that involves the other).
Thank-you. If art is communication and self-expression to be consumed by others, that may be all the motivation needed. Despite the disincentives, even.
> new data
We'll likely keep seeing it, up until the inflection point between "machines are for people" and "people are for machines." Along a spectrum, the latter being complete cybernetic mechanization of a life.
The Fellowship of the Ring, the first of Peter Jackson's LOTR movies released in 2001, made $887 million in its original theatrical run (on a $93 million budget). It would absolutely still have been made if copyright was only 20 years. And now it would be in the public domain!
It would have been an even bigger gamble if they weren’t able to bank on any long term revenue (I’m certain Netflix continues to pay for the rights to stream the trilogy after 2021).
This argument works against you. The probability of a long tail of revenue is even less likely than a major hit, so it necessarily has less weight in any decision to swing for the fences.
Producers don't invest in movies for hypothetical revenues in 20 years time. If it doesn't pay off soon after release, it's written off as a loss. Revenues in 100 years time are completely irrelevant.
Actually I think long tail revenue is quite well correlated with a property being a hit. Netflix paid $500m for the rights to Seinfeld 20 years after the show ended. Star Wars is still huge, nearly 50 years after the release of the original. Disney in general has ruthlessly mined its back catalog; they just printed another $700m from a Lion King prequel, whose value lay largely in the good will still hanging over from the original, which they still own, and which is still absolutely a valuable asset despite being 30 years old. Back catalogs are huge deals. Amazon paid $8bn for MGM to boost its Prime Video content library. Streaming has opened up long tail revenue opportunities beyond the box office that never existed before.
Yeah, we live in a world of "That's next quarters problem" is the de facto standard but on HN we regard the 120th year as the true icing on the cake of the pudding lol
How many movies did you see last year that is more than 10 or 20 years old? Or 50, for that matter?
Also, in what other industries are 100 year old designs/products/tech/standards/stuff relevant and hold up like the golden standard worth dying for?
Heh. Yeah, self-driving has been the laggard which muddles the predictions, right?
The way I see it (and probably mostly wrong), is that you can't fund AGI with capitalism. Progress under capitalism is driven by consumer demand. But, at this point, most consumers already have everything they need. So, you need to fund progress a different way.
But, Gov spends trillions. All you have to do is direct some of that toward AI development and continuously show decreasing spending. And, as AI gets better, you save more, and you redirect more and more into AI. And, continue that cycle.
I'm guessing self-driving is lagging because of social friction. People really like to be in control - enough so that they're willing to risk death (something like 1 in 90 chance of death from driving). Even though automated driving currently is probably safer (and an order of magnitude safer if all vehicles were self-driving).
Because Hunter S Thompson is a talented writer, and an LLM is a statistical method for generating text that looks like other text. An LLM isn't going to ingest all of Hemingway and write Hell's Angels.
