Apart from tracking, the other concern is reliability — the server may lose or change the file, and this may not be noticed when clients use the hash, until the hash stops being popular, and you're left with a broken site.
The hash is sent separately from the file. For it to change in the HTML and other places linking to it, there has to be some mechanism to update the links, and that is the part that can get out of sync or bitrot.
Which is part of the security of the hash. When I embed a script on my site I get the hash at the time I test it. If the content changes without my knowledge it will not allow a replacement from the source. Assets are not overly cacheable if they don't change the location when the file changes.
This is based on circle, which looks very Rust-like, and is probably the most sound design of all the contenders for the next C++. It has an actual safe-only mode, with strict aliasing, no uninit memory, and loans tracked via control-flow graph.
Many other "safe" C++ extensions just add basic bounds checking, and end at "we have smart pointers, what else do you want!?!??!?"
But I understand that if this proposal makes the cut, other compilers would implement it too and make this universal. Seeing this seems to implement all of Rust’s safety features, this would seem like a win here.
It is, although "nobody's going to rewrite millions lines of code" applies to C++ too, not only Rust.
You won't be able to just slap `#pragma safe` on top of every file and have the problem solved. It does require use of different design patterns and structuring data in a way that works with borrowing.
Apple, like other european giants, sends all its European business through Ireland, which is a convenient tax haven. Now, Ireland seems no longer happy being the tax haven, and Apple is forced to pay somewhat normal taxes.
Ireland is happy to be a tax haven and would like to continue being one - the magic phrase is "put on the green jersey" (and think of the nation's economic interest rather than demand fiscal transparency from Apple)
But the EU isn't happy for Ireland to be one, and has forced it to close its dodgiest schemes as it also did with the Netherlands.
Also, the EU hasn't said Ireland is a tax haven, it said it's a tax "black hole"
Generally speaking since DC charging is so fast, you need to have very tight control over the cooling and performance of the cells or you’ll have issues with longevity. Lots of retrofits just kind of stuff batteries wherever they fit… so cooling isn’t going to be the most effective. By comparison, AC charging, even at 12kW, is quite slow for a decent sized battery pack.
I don’t think there’s any technical/protocol reason you couldn’t do this, it just complicates things quite a bit.
- ChaDeMo is being phased out despite being the best one (V2G & simplicity of use)
- CCS2 is what the big manufacturers have come up with and it is hilariously complicated. My friend Uwe developed the FOCCCI project that has reverse engineered it
- In the US Tesla are using NACS (not sure on the details)
I am recording a video series where I illuminate the tech behind EVs, charging and energy, you can find it in my submissions.
There's more complicated software involved in DC charging due to the much higher power levels, plus more complicated monitoring of the system. AC charging is much more straight forward and simple.
In other words, cost is the issue here. If you have a large budget, you can get the best components. But with a lot of conversions, the whole point is giving a second life to an otherwise relatively worthless car and avoiding the larger expense of getting a proper EV. It doesn't make sense to get tens of thousands of dollars worth of components for that. Simple, easy, and cheap is the whole goal here.
There are some nice conversion kits for things like classic cars where it makes sense to have fast charging. But then we're talking 50-60k in cost and a lot of labor. For that kind of money, you can get several decent second hand EVs or even a new one. Spending that kind of money is only interesting because it's a classic car. E.g. a lot of old porsches apparently drive a lot nicer and better after an EV conversion. Also not having them break down with weird mechanical issues all the time makes driving them more fun. Also, more torque, power, etc.
But you wouldn't do that with some generic consumer car where the whole point of the conversion is avoiding the expense of buying a proper EV. You can get some nice used EVs for under 10K now. Pretty decent ones even.
Several reasons: because AC charging is what people will generally have at their house, so if you only have one charging system that's the one you'd probably go with. Because there are several pretty good AC charging system that are sold to the DIY conversion market. And because EV conversions often run at relatively low voltages compared to OEM vehicles, and DC charge stations generally have a minimum voltage they're willing to charge, which I think is usually somewhere around 400 volts or so.
Large cities in countries where many people can't afford cars, and there's little mass transit, will be more compact. No driving 10 miles to the mall like the USA. Shorter distances, less need for huge battery packs, or the latest technology. Most AC parts can be had off the shelf.
Putting DC charging in an EV is like putting a turbo in a gas car. You can do it, but it'll be expensive and complicated, and you probably don't need it.
Well that’s not really how it works. Even with 22 kW AC (what is rare in Europe) Tesla model Y needs 4 hours to charge from empty to road ready. And it is show stopper, because any petrol car needs 5 minutes to go another 300-600 miles. With DC charger I can have a normal break of 40 minutes and have enough charge for another 300 miles. DC charging is the topic to ease range anxiety and make EVs viable replacement for petrol cars. Without gooood DC charging capability the electric cars are suitable as city cars at best.
Edit: model Y does not support 22 kW AC charging. Only 11 kW AC. And it still takes whole day to fully charge.
The point is that maybe most(some?) people don't need DC charging at all. I've owned our VW e-Up for 3 years now, drive it literally every day, and I never needed to fast charge it because I've not once taken it on a trip longer than its battery range. I just never had a need. In fact I'm just charging it from a normal domestic socket at a meagre 2kW once a week and that's absolutely enough. Obviously it won't work for everyone, but I bet it would work for a whole range of people - some of my friends have definitely never driven more than 100 miles in a day in their cars and they lug around 50 litres of petrol in their tanks "just in case".
I don't know many cities which would challenge a 400km EV range, actually with that range I'm already across the border in any direction I'd drive. But okay I'm one of the dozen or so people who don't live in the US.
There are off-the-shelf standard components for all major parts of the EV drivetrain.
The custom work is mostly in wiring that up, and building a battery cradle and motor mounts that can be installed without compromising car's original structure.
There are regular "battery breakthrough" announcements, but if they ever leave the lab, they end up being incremental improvements.
This one sounds like it exists in a form that can power an actual car, but I'll reserve excitement until they actually deliver cars with this to customers.
Rust projects are pretty easy to deploy. It's just LLVM underneath, and the product is similar to clang-built code. You get a library, static or dynamic, that you can link with anything that can link with C.
Rust projects are much easier to build, especially when supporting multiple platforms. I've converted projects to Rust to make them easier to build and deploy.
Does Cargo re-use dependencies today? Last time I tried to build medium-sized Rust projects, it pulled hundreds of dependencies each time, even the same ones. It took up too much space, and took too long to build.
