The selling point of electric sports cars is more "the acceleration is amazing" and less "it makes a loud noise".
e.g.
> a 0–100 km/h (62 mph) acceleration time of 2.36 seconds, and a quarter mile (402 m) drag race time of 9.78 seconds. ... unofficially the fastest production car in the world
FYI, the Wikipedia article has a little more data on this vehicle as an EV:
4 motors, 1,113 horsepower, an 880 V platform, 122 kWh of battery, range 330 miles (531.1 km).
Not clear yet on the exact charge speed or launch date. Or what the 0-100km/h time is, but expect a low number, of course. That number has to be eye-catching.
> supply lines thousands of miles long, between two countries that are separated by 80 miles
I think this one is particularly important. IIRC, it's usually phrased something like "if the USA sends aircraft carriers across the pacific, then China has an unsinkable aircraft carrier 80 miles away: the mainland". It's a huge home turf advantage.
The USA seems to have a very low appetite for helping allies against bullies at present too. And no appetite for taking US soldier casualties.
YMMV. I found Anora quite tiresome - all of the people depicted were awful and stupid, and the point that it made was so basic that it could have been made in 10 minutes flat. I'd call it "preachy" but that's overselling it.
Fair enough, not everyone needs to like the same things. In fact, I had a rather negative view on Shawshank Redemption, but it's been too long since I saw it that I barely remember why.
YMMV. I found EEAAO to be engaging but shambolic. It was an experiment that kinda worked, kinda not. The chaos of it can't be cleaned up, it's intrinsic to the concept.
It's not going to a template for lots of similar films. It's more of a one-off.
But anyway, that was several years ago, it stretches the meaning of "recent".
This comment misses the point and argues against something unrelated. It's fundamentally a data sovereignty and security move, not a commercial one.
It's neither pro or anti business. This or "creating a more business friendly environment" policies is a false dichotomy. That could be done too via other means. It is unrelated. Speaking about this "business friendly" only is either misdirection or myopic.
You seem to be arguing for the sake of argument while avoiding the substance of my point by discarding it as "unrelated" while it is fundamentally on point.
If the aim is indeed sovereignty, data and software (and this is software not data), and in general, then they need an effective and comprehensive plan. I think taxpayer-funded state-developed open-source software brings very little at a high cost and can even be counter-productive. Frankly I think it is apolitical move internal to the French state to keep the gavy train coming to government agencies.
Rather I think the US, and also China that does it even more, are much more effective at this by throwing money at the marketplace to develop a whole ecosystem competitively that can also compete globally. An important thing to note here is that EU rules prevent a lot of state action (for instance they would not be allowed to buy only French cars or do things seen as direct subsidies, etc)
France will continue to fall further behind unless it really gets it act together, which is unlikely TBH.
You're just repeating your assumptions - "taxpayer-funded state-developed is bad", but "marketplace competitively" good. I'm not convinced.
You're not engaging with the sovereignty aspect - "compete globally" isn't the main goal at all as I said above, you're just restating you misconception. And so this part comes across as pure projection:
> You seem to be arguing for the sake of argument while avoiding the substance of my point
Yes in the most basic sense it does since they build their own tool instead of getting a foreign one. To be a little bit provocative I could say that Warsaw Pact countries used to do the same and built plenty of uncompetitive products themselves...
But beyond that it isn't a plan because it does not scale, it does not help the country develop its own industry and economy, it does not help competitiveness, and it is a huge cost for very little. Again, the sovereignty aspect means all of this must be addressed otherwise it is just a stunt and waste of taxpayers' money.
You've got to have a competitive industry to achieve and maintain 'sovereignty' in a broader and positive sense otherwise you end up like the Warsaw Pact or China before it realised that. You might survive but look more and more like North Korea (poor and obsolete but, yes, sovereign).
So yes, taxpayer-funded and state-developed internally in isolation for the sake of it is pretty much universally bad.
Taxpayer-funded is not bad per se, as already said in my previous comment, but here it is indeed more than that, it's the government building random stuff internally for frankly no good reason. Maybe next the government will manufacture its own 'sovereign' pencils as well?
They could have spent the same amount of money supporting small companies to develop similar products and that would have helped creating a competitive 'sovereign' ecosystem and commercial products to sell to everyone at home and also abroad. Much more bang for their buck and long term virtuous circle.
So, again have you got a point to discuss beyond just wanting to argue against me?
Edit:
An example of why competitiveness is important: Arianespace. It's great, Europe has the 'sovereign' ability to launch satelittes. That's useful for government agencies, a niche use-case. But everyone else in Europe who wants to launch a satelitte uses SpaceX because Arianespace is not competitive and is obsolete at this point.
> But beyond that it isn't a plan because it does not scale, it does not help the country develop its own industry and economy, it does not help competitiveness,
"It's not as plan because it doesn't.." (describes thing that isn't a goal of the plan). This is nonsensical. Not even wrong. This is the entire point.
> Again, the sovereignty aspect means all of this (develop its own industry and economy) must be addressed
No, you simply are not understanding "data sovereignty and security" at all.
> a huge cost for very little.
Citation needed. You assume the costs are "huge" and I am not convinced at all - as others have noted there are existing open-source libraries to underpin this now. Likewise the small size of benefits is your unfounded assumption. Security benefits are not measured in money on a stock market.
Many government functions such as standing armies in peacetime are actual "huge costs". But they have benefits not measured in money on a stock market. It's an incorrect framing in that case too.
Not quite. A formal system is a system of syntactic rules defined over an alphabet of symbols. They can be mechanized in principle. Peano arithmetic is one example.
A „logical” semantics can be assigned to such a formal system, but it is not a necessary entailment of the syntax, even if such systems are typically motivated by particular semantic models. Model theory might examine how the same formal system affords different interpretations.
Such syntactic systems have computational properties, and it is how computer science kicked off historically.
> Formal Systems is the study of logical systems themselves. Ruliology is a study of what actual systems do.
Assuming that you mean the same thing by "logical systems" and "actual systems", then Ruliology must fall under Formal Systems as a sub-discipline? Since studying "what these things do" is a subset of studying "these things themselves". And grounded on it.
If not, then what's the difference between "logical" and "actual" systems?
e.g.
> a 0–100 km/h (62 mph) acceleration time of 2.36 seconds, and a quarter mile (402 m) drag race time of 9.78 seconds. ... unofficially the fastest production car in the world
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yangwang_U9
> Model S Plaid Takes 2.07 Seconds to Accelerate from 0-100 mph
https://www.energytrend.com/news/20210623-22467.html
reply