(A) Mojo is intended to be a more ergonomic Rust, with Pythonic syntax, and much faster compilation.
(B) Mojo supports multiple GPU types, including AMD, Apple, and whatever may come along. That's one of its major selling points over CUDA. It's also targeted at other novel hardware accelerators etc.
Mojo and Julia have some very fundamental differences though...
Mojo is a fully ahead-of-time (AOT) compiled systems language. Julia is much more dynamic, and its AOT compilation story is still quite weak. Mojo also has explicit memory management, unlike Julia and its real time unfriendly garbage collector.
Mojo also has the concept of ownership, similar to Rust, while Julia does not.
Mojo is being pitched as an efficient, general purpose, Pythonic systems language which can target a variety of hardware types. That seems like a good target to me, I hope it's successful!
One thing to keep an eye on is whether or not a Windows port emerges after it's open sourced...
If it's open sourced, Qualcomm won't need to worry about Metal support. If Mojo is popular enough, Apple might get involved. If not, no doubt there'll still be Apple users that want Mojo support, and are willing to work to get it.
the first time I drove a model 3 I felt like I couldn't stop. it's on par with my 80s van that has drum brakes on the rear. the brakes just aren't good enough for sport, the car weighs too much. if this is hard to understand, you're living in a different world from motorsports enthusiasts
You don't need to drive race cars to understand that a Tesla Model 3 stops faster than an 80s van with drum brakes. Sure, probably not as good as a sports car.
Who cares? Static skidpad performance has very little to do with how engaging a car is to drive, and engagement is what somebody buying a GRC (or a GR86, or a Miata, etc.) is looking for.
I mean, engagement aside, you are really just showing your ignorance here if you think skid pad max G is a useful metric to capture real world cornering performance except in extremely broad strokes.
If you want an objective measurement that will usefully speak to how these cars feel to drive vs. each other, check out how much they weigh!
I also have an EV, probably the same one as the grandparent...a Tesla Model Y Dual Motor Long Range. It's rated at 0-60 in 4.8s. It also has good handling, with very little body lean through curves, and a lateral G force of around .85 G.
If I switched to the same tires as the Performance version, that would increase to .95 G. That is better than many legacy sports cars.
Those who love engine noise are the modern equivalent of those who, shortly after cars became mass-market, wanted them to include buggy whips. ;-)
less than 1g is pitiful tbh. I’m no pro but have maxed out the meter on my wee sports car >1g front, left and right. it can only muster 0.5g accel so it’s worse than a tesla, am I right? having put in some serious miles on a model 3, those electrics are in another league — below
More spec sheet flexing, more assumptions that for owners of internal combustion sports cars it's all about the noise. More projection. Another person who just doesn't get it.
I'm sorry to be harsh in this thread, but it's always odd to find these weird empathetic blind spots in people.
The article literally brags about how loud the car is (and makes it sound likr it was modified to be louder?) so it seems like a reasonable point to take issue with.
Fortunately or unfortunately, driving a car is a public activity and even as a hobby, other people are going to be exposed to it in a way that you just don't get from, say, building model boats out of toothpicks.
I'm a big fan of people having hobbies and enjoying them, but we live in a dense and crowded world where stuff like a loud car can negatively affect literally hundreds of other people.
The comments I've replied to in this subthread have nothing to do with the aftermarket exhaust issue. It's just people who've never driven a real sports car (at any price point) posting numbers from the Tesla spec sheets.
BEVs are great for non-enthusiasts whose goal is to be transported, but in their current incarnation they are _abysmal_ for people whose goal is _to drive_.
And people who brag about the performance specs of a car whose main selling point is that it requires no skill or attention to drive are missing the point entirely.
100%. And to be clear I have no problem with BEVs or boring cars (there is some overlap). I own an extremely boring car, a CR-V hybrid, and it's a fantastic family hauler.
Thinking about it now, I suppose I didn't feel any need for my family hauler to have a hot 0-60 time. It will apparently do mid eighties on the skidpad, which really underlines how useless that metric is for describing real world cornering performance---it's unapologetically a boat.
This seems like a ton of hype for a marginal (if that) improvement over existing art.
We've had "truly random" numbers for a long time, starting with those based on radioactive decay.
Current hardware RNGs already take advantage of provably random physical processes. Intel's RDRAND implementation is one good example. Yes, it is probably not a "perfect" source of randomness, though one can always take other sources of entropy and mix further. Doing so will always move the output towards a more random state.
I find it unlikely in the extreme that some future tech will be able to "predict" values from such a random stream (like you could with a PRNG given the seed). In other words, your cyphertext based on a RDRAND+ generated one time pad is safe for eternity, unless the pad is compromised.
reply