I own an XC40 BEV (now renamed EX40) and it's a much better car. The SPA platform was pretty mature by that point.
I sat in an EX90 demonstrator a year ago at the dealer and was told not to touch anything inside the cabin. The car wasn't ready back then and, from reading owners forums now, it's still not fully baked.
The Polestar 2/EX40 probably have the most mature software of that lineup. Not without issues (and certainly underpowered pre-‘24), but relatively stable by comparison.
I don’t understand the logic of having each Polestar model running a unique software stack rather than progressively improving one system across all models - but must be a downstream impact of the fractured Geely badges.
Also the Volvo C40 (same platform). I've been driving it since January and other than the software being slow to start up when it goes into sleep mode, it's been stable.
They did recently issue a software recall for the backup camera, so now when the backup camera crashes it goes into 360 camera mode instead of just a black screen.
Overall I'm happy with this car though and would recommend it.
Rongorongo hasn’t been deciphered. Secondly, it goes LTR and RTL alternatively but also inverts the alphabets upside down. There really shouldn’t be a reason that that would be faster and easier to read.
I had a similar experience with HardCaml back in 2015/2016. The benefits where overwhelming: higher productivity, higher reusability, less intractable bugs, tighter TTM, and no more slippage in deliverables timeline. The performance where comparable to Verilog-only project (density, path length). In the end, the effort was shut down by management because the approach was “too complicated”.
And commonly also because it's, currently at least, very hard to find people for it. Which is an entirely valid concern, but is still so frustrating. Because while C for system programming might not be ideal, it still makes sense, whereas Verilog (that was meant to look like C because people knew C for programming already) for hardware design is just so much more of a mismatch.
@saurabhsharan Signed up; my account page is blank and I am not getting any result. I am not getting any way to unlink my accounts or check what is being done with my information. Seems a little fishy so far.
Unfortunately we unexpectedly hit our API limit for Plaid (the service we use to handle bank logins), but hope to be back up soon. Feel free to email us at hello@savewithtrove.com from the email you used to sign up and we'll delete your account right away.
Wikileaks believed at the time that Clinton was ready to send a drone to get rid of Assange. Between due process and a drone attack, I take due process any day.
That's an obviously absurd belief given he's in an embassy. The USA has done a lot of insane shit but that would be a ridiculous line to cross to eliminate a single "criminal."
When the WL backend for collateral murder was hosted at bahnhof in Sweden, moving it to .CH was among other reasons done because of certainly the US, and specifically & allegedly homeland security having launched a DDOS attack so strong it could have kicked Sweden offline.
When US agents started their smearing campaign against Assange in Sweden, they accidentally added smear to wikipedia that did not happen yet.
In Brussels, WL volunteers where threatened by US agents with silenced pistols in a parking lot.
Various so called "influencers", mostly academics and activistic people where payed to spread the false US narrative regarding everything related to Assange.
Indeed it is. Let me quote Hillary Clinton, former Secretary of State, /again/. "Can't we just drone this guy".
Context: Being confronted with Assange his existence by her staff.
I can't quote it but i can tell you my two independant sources namely Birgitta Jonsdottir ( former Icelandic MP, and one of the people who noticed it ) and Amelia Andersdotter ( former Swedish member of the european parliament, and my ex partner ). Both are highly accessible so you can get your first hand confirmation yourself.
US/NATO bombed the Chinese embassy [0] in former Yoguslavia so nothing is out of the question. Though this is UK. But still it shows embassies are not outside of US target zone.
Yeah but that was a "mistake". Just as it was a "mistake" when NATO thought that the embassy was used as Serbia's military comm center. China stopped complaining after shown what NATO had on them.
They also believed that the British military had "sealed off several London blocks, aiming rifles at British civilians, had police confiscating cameras, 'which in any case wouldn't work because they were deploying technology to interfere with digital cameras while they raided the Embassy'."
Pretty absurd. That said, the Saudi government just straight up murdered a journalist in one of their embassies, the whole world knows it and politically it appears things are still business as usual...
The house of Saud just crafted their latest excuse about the hit squad being "rogue agents" and they're going to execute some faithful servants to prove their point. That is plenty good enough for Trump to dismiss the issue. American's don't care about mass Iraqi civilian deaths. Journalists are the enemy. A single "fake news" writer won't matter.
The State Dept under Clinton played fast and loose with it's own procedures and regulations and I have a friend who died in the Benghazi attack if you want to fight with me on this point.
More than 5% of the Section 702 wiretaps conducted under the last President's administration were performed illegally by their own admission.
False flag operations are part of our history and three-letter agencies have a history of being Wild and Crazy Kids.
Assange gets an extraordinary amount of political attention for even a public figure. It's perhaps an unreasonable conclusion for them to make but it's not _too unreasonable_.
Well, yes. The ever-increasing, horrible drone campaigns conducted from the Obama years onward as a tool of destabilization are one thing, but that doesn't make it reasonable to expect that they'd use them to assassinate high profile political agitators in first world countries or that they actually have the ability to do such a thing. The contexts are totally different, however the narrative IS in keeping with the typical far right behavior of cultivating the image of a victim terrorized by an all-powerful shadow cabal
Yes. There's a difference between drone programs 'crossing the line' say, in a hunt for known terrorists, they blow up a building that has civilians next door our just outside ... and arbitrary targeting of 'annoyances of the state'.
There are actually quite scant false flag operations in US history, and many of them weren't even false flag so much as 'purposefully misrepresented'.
And besides - there would be no 'false flag' with any kind of attempt to kill Assange.
The notion that Clinton (or any agency) would go after Assange with drones and hellfire missiles is well into crazyland territory. Not even the crazy among them are thinking it, it doesn't make sense really on any level I think.
> There are actually quite scant false flag operations in US history, and many of them weren't even false flag so much as 'purposefully misrepresented'.
What's the difference between "purposefully misrepresented" and a false flag?
I am honestly not sure -- I thought the concept of a false flag was a purposeful misrepresentation of an event.
A false flag is an intentional action that creates false justification for something.
A misrepresentation is just that.
So - if the US sent in CIA agents and planted WMD's in Iraq, and then had the UN inspectors show up and 'find' them - that would be a false flag.
Otherwise, say the inspectors find some WMD but it's only a small account, and then the government says "Look WMDs, therefore war!" - that's another scenario. The 2003 war was not based on false flag, more along the lines of misrepresentation of information.
Sometimes it can be shady, as I believe the gulf of Tonkin was a sketchy one. There was an incident between US and Vietnamese ships, but later, during a second encounter, the US knew it was unlikely there were Vietnamese ships (just misleading radar signature) but used it anyways as justification for escalation.
But consider that this is just populism anyhow - the 'good' reasons for conflict, are often at odds with the 'populist' reasons for war. WW2 being possibly a good example: it might have been much better for everyone were the Americans to be involved much earlier ... but the public was not down with it until Pearl Harbour.
Consider for a moment if there was no attack on Pearl Harbour. Consider if the Germans did not have to pull resources from the Russian front to fight in Italy, Africa and then France ... my gosh man that would re-shape world history.
As for Assange, I don't believe his leaks represent quite the malicious acting by the US that some believe, although maybe they are important, moreover, I understand that he has very serious character flaws - this from his relationships with his own allies at the Guardian and Spiegel etc. and his recent involvement with the Russians.
So... Because Clinton was "in charge" when the unfortunate events in Benghazi occurred, you think she would've authorized a drone strike in London? That's well past the point of crazy conspiracy theory territory.
Yes. None of that (even if you buy into all of it) adds up to "Clinton would literally order a drone strike on Julian Assange", let alone if he happened to be in the Ecuadorian embassy in London at the time.
Truepundit.com is a site with no named reporters but somehow still manages to get "scoops" from unnamed sources in the State Department, the Justice Department, the Pentagon, and the FBI. Yet these scoops are never confirmed by other sources and many of them are proved false, like these:
* November 4, 2016: BREAKING: Comey Mandates All FBI Agents Report to D.C. Offices; Prep for Raids, Possible Arrests in Clinton Probes
Two instances of getting it wrong doesn't negate the entire news organization. That would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. There isn't any news organization that hasn't ever got an article wrong.
Real news organizations have actual reporters and have built up a reputation for getting things right. They have earned trust over years. They do get things wrong, but they issue corrections.
Truepundit.com is not a news organization. It popped up in 2016 and was dedicated to publishing "articles" attacking Democrats. It makes no pretense to being an objective news source. None of its "scoops" were ever confirmed by a real news source.
The article "Comey Mandates All FBI Agents Report to D.C. Offices; Prep for Raids, Possible Arrests in Clinton Probes" was published days before the 2016 presidential election.
It was not a mistake. It was a deliberate, politically-motivated hoax.
You've apparently forgotten all about that whole Osama Bin Laden thing. You know, the person who Clinton sent a team to kill even though he was never charged with any crime. There's even a video of Clinton watching his illegal assassination.
2. That's not an assassination mission. OBL was more valuable alive than dead.
3. Islamibad isn't London and the UK isn't Pakistan. Hard power solutions are for countries that can't control their own airspace and can't/won't be able to capture the person of interest with their own legal/security apparatus. Name one drone strike outside the middle East.
4. You are comparing the most notorious terrorist in world history to a journalistic nuisance. The US would have to be retarded to pursue Assange to the same severity as they pursued OBL.
There was no compulsion to comply since the charges were filed ( under seal ) in New York state and there was no extradition agreement with Afghanistan.
Despite that the Taliban had been in negotiation since 1998 and repeatedly offered to hand Bin Laden over to a third country.
SCR1267 did not authorise military action.
Everything you have written is true, yet misleading.
Very interesting. Because she was in the room that meant she sent the team to kill Bin Laden?
By your logic and the parent poster's logic ~13 people aside from the President and the laptops and coffee cups were also just as responsible for sending the team to kill him.
Are you really questioning the idea that the Secretary of State had a hand in approving a CIA-led assassination mission when there's literally pictures of her watching it go down?
You seem to be arguing incredibly uncharitably. I simply said the military planned it and based on the article I posted, I am 100% accurate. It doesn't take away from the military planning that the CIA also had a hand in planning it. I also never said the military led it, the thing you are arguing I did.
You edited your comment to change what you said. You originally did not say that she had a 'hand in approving'. Why would you change it to make it seem like you were talking about something else that you didn't originally say?
There is absolutely no evidence of this, either that Clinton was "ready to send a drone" or that Wikileaks actually believed she was. Taking at face value the statements of the organization regarding this would be extremely naive.
> Between due process and a drone attack, I take due process any day.
I'd take the drone strike. The end result is, with almost 100% certainty, going to be the same. At least with the drone attack, you don't have to waste away in prison until you die. It's all but certain he would be convicted.
Close but not quite. The exact ( back then ) secretary of state's expression was "Can't we just drone that guy". The context of this quote being dialog with her staff who had a hard time convincing her that it's a bad idea.
The IBM ranks are inaccurate. Fellows are not above DEs. Both are the highest ranks indeed, but of two different tracks. DE is the highest rank of the engineering track, while Fellow is the highest rank of the research track. Fellowship have also be granted to non-research people over the past 20 years, diluting the merit of the title IMHO. Examples of fellows are: John Backus, Gene Amdahl, Ken Iverson, Benoit Mandelbrot, etc.
Both levels may reside in different pay bands, but they are both at the executive level. And DEs cannot become fellows, and vice versa (some exceptions to the rule may have existed).
I was at the IBM LTC from 2001--2009 as an STSM, and my understanding was that DE's could absolutely get promoted to Fellows. So assuming that Fellows are "just" the highest rank of the research rank is not really accurate. Perhaps that's what you mean by "diluting the merit of the title", but that sounds like you're coming from the Research side of IBM. :-)
Yes, it's rare for a DE to get promoted to be a Fellow, but that's because there are very few Fellows at IBM. And there's no reason why a Fellow would want to become a DE, since that would mean taking a pay cut. (See below)
From a salary band perspective, STSM is actually the highest rank of the engineering track (aka Band 10). A DE is paid on the bottom rung of the executive track (Band D), while a Fellow is paid as an Executive Band C. Which means a Fellow may be the highest rank of the "research track" but a Fellow is still going to rank below an SVP or GM from a salary perspective. :-)
You may be right about the DE -> Fellow promotion, although I only heard of it once, and that person was pretty spectacular. The Fellow -> DE path is unheard of. As is the RSM -> DE. All the DEs I know came from SWG and were STSM.
Re: my “dilution” comment, i was not thinking about DEs. I was thinking about non-technical people (management, law, accounting, ...) that have been creeping up the Fellowship lately. Also the bluewashed executive that were given a fellowship package to seeeten the pot.
Well I had the privilege of working with Paul McKenney who invented (and patented) Read-Copy-Update (RCU). He came to IBM as part of the Sequent acquisition, and was part of the Linux Technology Center, which was in the Systems and Technology group.
If you take a look at some of IBM's press releases, you'll see there are plenty of Fellows that come from the SWG and STG, and not just Research. For example:
While this might be technically true, my impression has always been that Fellows are still viewed as above DEs, and paid more, and there are absolutely Fellows working on the engineering side of the business.
