Tim Hockin (one of kubernetes creator) supports the idea to use something as much managed and automatic as possible if you don't have time for it [1]. He probably refers to use Cloud Run [2], over a (managed?) Kubernetes cluster (such as EKS or GKE)
I'm aware of these products, but do not fit my use case.
I need to run some services on premises and have set up a self hosted Kubernetes instance on a physical server in a rack.
It could be overkill and maybe I could use something like Docker Swarm. Apart from this I am unsure what I can use that isn't K8s to orchestrate my containers on site.
Even Apple doesn't do the actual manufacturing. I'm not sure adding another product line with crazy difficult production processes would be a good idea for Tesla.
But Tesla likes to bring production in-house, whereas Apple outsources everything possible. It would not surprise me in the slightest if Tesla is looking to build a fab at some point in the future
I don't think it's profitable to build a leading edge chip fab with only yourself as the customer. At least, nobody else is doing it. Even with Intel's huge sales volumes they are still trying to bring in other customers to use their fabs to share the cost.
So I think getting in the fab business for Tesla would mean trying to be a direct competitor with TSMC, Intel, etc. by making chips for a large number of customers.
That seems way down the list of Tesla's priorities and best uses of dropping hundreds of billions of dollars.
This was my initial reaction as well, but considering the scale of Tesla I thought I should validate it.
Intel reportedly produces roughly 10 million wafers per year [1]. Roughly 70 million new cars are sold per year [2], with Tesla currently accounting for 0.5 million of those [3] with roughly 50% YOY growth numbers and a plan on continuing those for multiple years [4].
Cars/wafer is a pretty unclear number, at 5 Tesla is 1% of Intel's market (today), at 25 0.2% of Intel's market. It will take quite awhile for Tesla to hit intel's scale - but the automotive market as a whole might actually be pretty close to it if all new cars start including giant computers.
Interesting to think about, but I still don't see it making business sense for Tesla, even if they follow some crazy optimistic curve and take half the car market.
There are already multiple competing companies whose sole job is to make the best fabs at high production rates.
Tesla doesn't even make most of their batteries in-house, which is way more core to their business of EV manufacturing. They partner with Panasonic, LG, CATL, etc. because they are in the business of building out manufacturing capacity for battery cells.
Tesla doesn't makes their own casting equipment (yet?). They do custom order the largest presses built by Idra Group in Italy (owned by a Chinese company) though [1].
No - I mean manufacturing. At a certain level of demand it could make sense, especially if the classes of devices you seek to produce are heterogeneous in their engineering - aerospace vs phone vs car.
The other advantage with vertical integration through the manufacturing piece is turn around time on new designs. It is a lot faster/easier to spin new test lots for speculative designs when everyone works for the same org.
I'm sure it works both ways. If Github was somethingelseHub, somethingelse would be popular. Git started gaining popularity thanks to great UI and communities on github and gitlab.
That's not strictly true. I'm sure thst GitHub contributed to the awareness of git among and less technically experienced especially in recent years, but use of version control systems has always been the norm in mid to large codebases and git became popular because it improved greatly on the version control systems that came before it.
Another big factor contributing to it's popikaroty was that the Linux kernel (that even when git came out was a pretty big codebase already) also used it to great success.
The only real credit that can be given to GitHub in my eyes is that it allows individuals to more easily host remote repos.
Git didn't need GitHub to become popular. Torvald's name being attached to it is what did that. But GitHub is what gave Git the near monopoly on open source version control that it enjoys today. Once it became more convenient to contribute to open source projects by forking projects on GitHub than to self-host, that created a barrier against using any other version control system. Other version control systems would be much more popular if it weren't for GitHub.
GitHub made it easier than ever for people to share and collaborate on code. The options that predated it were pretty awful by comparison. It's no wonder that within a couple of years most OSS projects had moved over.
GitHub launched in Feb 2008, Git soared and SVN plummeted.
> In a previous blog post, we discussed how GitHub was using a new mode of git repack to implement our repository maintenance jobs. In Git 2.32, many of those patches were released in the open-source Git project
It looks like GH needed a better algo for git repack. Implemented a better algo for git repack. And contributed the better algo for git repack to the open source project. You can now use the better algo for git repack yourself without using GH.
The confusion over Chinese names and logograms is pretty funny considering that in Chinese, western names are written with a set of phonetic logograms and losing that spelling information with latin/cyrillic characters makes it hard to tell if the name was English, Italian, German, or Russian.
Personally, it would be great if names on western websites are written with logograms in parenthesis and names on Chinese websites are written with spelled characters in parenthesis. Just another one of those weird cross-cultural areas of friction.
[1] https://twitter.com/thockin/status/1539987108521054208
[2] https://twitter.com/the_thagomizer/status/153975704907180032...