It’s Doug DeMuro’s Worst Car of the Year. Every other review I’ve seen is also overwhelmingly negative.
It has a range of a “city car”, but a price of EVs with double the range.
It has max 50kW DC charging, while the competition has >100kW speeds. This makes the short range even more limiting.
It’s not even powerful, even though high torque is the one easy trick for EVs.
It’s a conversion of a gas car, not a dedicated platform, which wastes cabin and storage space. Mazda failed to keep the same front/rear weight balance making the car reportedly handle poorly.
It’s technically at the level of 2009 Renault Zoe or the old Leaf, but for a price of 2019 eNiro or the current Kona and Cupra Born.
I don't doubt you love your CX-5, but I can't emphasize enough how much of a fuck-up the CX-30 EV is.
Platform matters. BEV platforms are skateboards with flat floor and wheels basically at the very corners. OTOH CX-30 has an empty transmission tunnel taking up cabin space, and is so cramped they couldn't even fit normal-sized rear doors, and it's almost a 2-seater. Dedicated EVs of the same length have full-sized doors and spacious rear seats.
Mazda took out the engine, and didn't rearrange or rebalance anything else to match. No extra storage. They just left a hole and dangling cables under the hood. They've taken a front-heavy car platform and unbalanced it by making the the rear heavier.
EVs are expensive mainly because of batteries, but this one has a half-sized battery for a price of a full-sized one. You're not even paying for a better rest of the car. It's just a mediocre Mazda with a low-end EV tech that is 10 years behind. The EV side of it is really really bad. Old models of Zoe and Leaf that you can get for <$10K have this level of range and performance.
> These things happen every day, but happening to a core developer (if confirmed!) who has a deep understanding of the systems and security indicates just how fragile crypto can be (in my opinion)
Because no one can create secure software yet, Bitcoin isn't 100% secure.
This has nothing to do with the security of Bitcoin. No one has ever compromised the Bitcoin protocol.
This is a case of someone expecting a single machine connected to the internet that had been compromised in the past, to not be compromised again.
Very little software has rigorous security review, even the Linux kernel. Linux Odays sell for $50-100k. If you are storing anything more valuable than that on an internet connected Linux machine, it will eventually be stolen.
Use an offline machine or a hardware wallet for anything that matters to you.
Lol… “finance” is a social construct. People are the protocol. The Bitcoin protocol is subject to a vast number of people related hacks. Other financial markets aren’t perfect, but at least they have mechanisms and acknowledge reality.
For the record, I don't think that Airline software works since about 20% of flights are always late. I avoid airplanes at all cost for this reason, mainly. I once had a plane trip taking more then 24 hours when it could have taken 6h and there was no major problems like today (I ended up spending new year at the airport)... no thanks. Traveling by car would have taken about the same amount of time.
> but the whole SSD capacity shown by Windows is 930GB.
Because the OS shows you drive capacity in power of two units, while the drive manufacturers advertise drive capacity in power of ten units. And the small difference in size between the two units adds up as the size of the drive grows.
A power of ten 1T size drive is about 930GB of space when measured using power of two units. Hard drive manufacturers have been using power of ten units for advertising capacity for about 25 years now.
Because as @tredre3 indicates, the GPU that is integrated onboard the CPU chip of the laptop is given 800MB to use as its frame-buffer space. Leaving 15.2GB for the OS to utilize.
All GPU's need memory to store the frame-buffer. For video cards, the memory is on the card, so no system RAM needs to be reserved. For integrated GPU's, part of system memory is reserved for the GPU (as it would otherwise have no frame-buffer).
"TV" in this case is short for "televised". That is, it came via a radio signal, rather than being physical film brought back from Mars.
But of course, the bandwidth is far too low to be an NTSC signal and it was digital rather than analog, so actual existing TV equipment couldn't have helped. For the moon landings, it was an actual NTSC television signal generated on the surface of the moon, amplified by ground receivers, passed through real-time scan conversion to bring the FPS to 30, and sent to broadcasters.
There are a few reasons why humans have not returned to the moon since the last manned mission in 1972.
One reason is that the Apollo program, which sent humans to the moon, was a major achievement for NASA and the United States, but it was also very expensive. The cost of the Apollo program, in today's dollars, was approximately $100 billion. As a result, there has not been a strong political or financial motivation to return to the moon.
Another reason is that there have been other priorities for NASA and other space agencies. For example, the space shuttle program, which began in the 1980s, focused on building and servicing the International Space Station (ISS). The ISS is a collaborative project between several countries and is primarily used for research in microgravity. NASA and other space agencies have also focused on exploring other destinations, such as Mars, and developing new technologies that could be used for future space exploration.
Finally, there have also been technical challenges to returning to the moon. For example, the spacecraft and rocket technology used in the Apollo program is now outdated, and new systems would need to be developed. There is also the issue of developing new landing and surface exploration capabilities, as the equipment used in the Apollo missions is no longer functional.
Overall, while it is technically possible for humans to return to the moon, it would require a significant investment of time, money, and resources.
> One reason is that the Apollo program, which sent humans to the moon, was a major achievement for NASA and the United States, but it was also very expensive. The cost of the Apollo program, in today's dollars, was approximately $100 billion. As a result, there has not been a strong political or financial motivation to return to the moon.
This is less than the 10% of the current investment USA is doing only on the Air Force. USA spends 1,5 trillion anually on the air force only, not including marines, etc.
USAF budget is 1.5 trillion in USD? I find this hard to believe. According to the site below, total military spending is 1.2 trillion annually.
https://www.usaspending.gov/explorer/agency
The plan NASA is going after now is establishing an orbiting lunar station and a permanent lunar base near the south pole where hopefully water can be recovered. If you watched the video runup to the Artemis 1 launch they made the plan very clear.
Just going back for a quick jaunt to get more moon rocks can be done with robots.
The other game changer is the US isn't the only "we" working on landing humans on the moon.
Mazda also have an all-electric car, the Mx-30. (Starting MSRP $33,470)