Repair delays for Tesla owners - <AUTHOR> https://www.sfgate.com/cars/article/tesla-repair-wait-time-complaints-electric-car-13796037.php <comment><USER3> speaking from experience as an engine mechanic for a small chain of shops in the midwest, ive done "Tesla authorized" suspension work before and its a hassle to say the least.

Normal cars and hybrids are mostly an in-and-out kind of thing where the billable hours are fixed/known and you get a real choice in parts. Bilstein vs generic shocks or holly cams for example. With tesla, _everything_ has to come from California. Control arms for example, which i could probably find one that will fit any Tesla, must be shipped from a warehouse certified. This took 5 weeks to deliver and the customer was furious that we would not keep the car in our garage for that long. Luckily they were close to the shop, so we waived a second tow charge and after a seriously long wait for parts, got the vehicle back on the road again.

Tesla sometimes makes you do weird things like ship the old arms/linkage/etc.. back to them. Other times you might need to take pictures expressly for them, or call them after work is completed. Its a serious PITA for a car that could easily just get TRG or Moog aftermarket arms in about 3 days, but if you do, youll lose your "tesla certified" status in a heartbeat.

<comment><USER4> Wow - That sounds like a massive logistical efficiency failure.

I could even see people tolerating higher prices (as it is a Tesla, etc) - <USER2> that long of a delay is insane. I wonder how many Tesla owners regret their purchase after experiencing a crazy-ass long delay like that.

To be clear: I want Tesla to succeed. However I am also a realist - they have a lot of PR issues that would sink them if they were for example Ford/Chevy/BMW/Mercedes/Audi/etc.

<comment><USER5> > To be clear: I want Tesla to succeed.

Isn't it strange how often similar posturing appears in comments about Tesla. There aren't any secret SV police that are going to break down your door and take away your "we're saving the world" card if you say something "realist" about Tesla without a disclaimer.

<comment><USER6> Well I think that's probably because there are a lot of very vocal people who seem to think that negative feedback must mean you're a short seller and take that as permission to engage non-constructively.

Disclaimer: I also want Tesla to succeed

<comment><USER7> Interesting, as it feels to me like people take anything positive about that company as gospel.

Disclaimer: I don't give a fig either way whether the company succeeds or fails though I have a very hard time understanding how they can ever maintain their mkt cap.

<comment><USER8> The media in general hypes up Tesla way more than any other automaker. Like every Tesla crash makes headlines. Name any other automaker that faces the same scrutiny.

<comment><USER9> > _Name any other automaker that faces the same scrutiny._

Name any other automaker that makes claims like these about their automatic cruise control: " _the person in the driver's seat is only there for legal reasons. He is not doing anything. The car is driving itself._ "[1]

[1] [https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2018/05/23/49...](https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2018/05/23/490104.htm)

<comment><USER10> How about Ford: full self-driving by 2021.

[https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/15/ford-plans-a-ride-sharing- se...](https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/15/ford-plans-a-ride-sharing-service-with- its-self-driving-cars-by-2021.html)

[https://corporate.ford.com/articles/autonomous- technology/au...](https://corporate.ford.com/articles/autonomous- technology/autonomous-2021.html)

Tesla thinks they can get there faster by a year.

<comment><USER9> Did you read my comment? Tesla didn't claim that they can get there faster, Tesla claimed that their automatic cruise control doesn't require a driver at all.

Again, here is what Tesla claimed:

> _" the person in the driver's seat is only there for legal reasons. He is > not doing anything. The car is driving itself."_

Ford has never made a claim that spurious and dangerous like Tesla has.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> This story sounds so familiar it's painful.

Took 5 months to get my 2016 Model S back after I was hit.

I loved this car, but frankly I never again want to deal with them. Cancelled my Model 3 order, and now tell everyone that asks me about the car to stay away.

<comment><USER12> 4 months for my 2016 Model S. Most of this time (all but 2 weeks, I think) was waiting for airbag related parts. Missed the entire summer last year -- accident in May, got the car back in September. Suffered crappy rental cars.

This was a lease, and my wife and I did not get another after the lease return. Definitely makes me hesitant about getting another.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Tesla is terrible when to comes to service. They actively discourage you from going to the service center. You cannot talk to people on the phone as the wait time is always more than 30 mins. They are stretched really thin in the service department. They need to at least have three times the staff and centers they have today.

Interestingly I haven't seen one thread about this on r/Tesla over on reddit. They completely pray at the altar of Musk.

<comment><USER14> This doesn't reflect my experience at all.

I've been to the Dedham and Watertown MA service centers about a dozen times in the last four years. I've never had to wait more than 2 minutes on the phone or at the counter. I have had a couple emails get lost, but after a bump or two I got the answers I needed.

Appointments do book out a few weeks, but scheduling is pretty easy (especially now that it's all online). The one time something urgent came up with my car, they took me without an appointment, and even put me in a rental car since they were out of loaners.

I've never had service anywhere near that good when I had a Toyota or a Subaru.

<comment> semi-extrinsic Why has your brand-new car had to go in for service ~12 times in 4 years? Isn't that exactly the issue being discussed? I drive a 15-year-old station wagon, and I'm averaging around half that.

<comment><USER15> If you've brought your car in for service only 6 times in 4 years you're either doing some service yourself or falling behind on your maintenance schedule. In 4 years you should be changing your oil alone at least 8 times, 16 if you use conventional instead of synthetic.

<comment> semi-extrinsic Either you have a car with an engine that was engineered in the 1970s, or you're getting seriously ripped off.

If you look at what the _people who sell motor oil_ recommend, it's 7500 to 10000 miles between oil changes. E.g. here: [http://www.elf.com/en/advice- corner/synthetic-oil-faq/synthe...](http://www.elf.com/en/advice- corner/synthetic-oil-faq/synthetic-oil-change-interval.html)

Some manufacturers are specifying 25k - 30k km these days

And I do in fact change engine oil myself. Undo one bolt to drain, take off the filter and install a new one, refill oil. Takes 30 minutes including some time for having a beer while you wait for the last bit to drain.

It's almost as easy as changing out your windshield wipers and refilling washer fluid. My point is, it makes zero sense to include basic stuff like this in a discussion on reliability.

<comment><USER15> Most people take their car in to a service centre for even basic maintenance, which is why I mentioned it. Obviously a Tesla doesn't have engine oil, but it has other wear items. Since you do some basic maintenance yourself this easily explains why you take your vehicle in for service less.

I refer to the maintenance schedule of the vehicle manufacturer, which specifies an interval much less than 30k km in most cases. I replace synthetic oil every 8k km. I was referring to the time interval in my previous comment which is max 6 months for synthetic.

I am aware changing oil is easy. I do it myself during the summer months (I don't have a garage). My vehicle is from 2011 also.

<comment><USER16> You're changing your oil way too frequently, unless you have a luxury car, in which case your vehicle's maintenance schedule is non-standard anyways and not really relevant to the discussion at hand.

<comment><USER15> I drive a Ford sedan from 2011.

<comment><USER16> As do I...You shouldn't be replacing your oil multiple times a year. Unless you drive a lot (i.e., 10k+ miles a year, meaning >27 miles/day every day of the year or >40 miles every work day of the year), you should be able to go 2-3 years between oil changes.

<comment><USER15> I do drive a fair bit, easily over 10k miles in a year. Changing oil frequently may sound like a ripoff but doing it on time helps you avoid more expensive service down the road. I've seen enough pictures of engines full of sludge because the owner thought he didn't have to change it. Beyond being preventative maintenance, it also improves fuel economy.

Keep in mind that most people recommend changing synthetic oil every 6 months, even Edmunds.com which you mentioned earlier (ctrl+F '6 months', [https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/oil-change- truths...](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/oil-change-truths/))

<comment><USER16> Edmunds doese not recommend every 6 months for synthetic oil, they took down that article after Scientific American posted it. They recommend oil changes based on a miles driven, or else when your car's oil monitoring system says the oil needs to be changed. (For example, Edmunds explicitly notes that a car like a Toyota Prius should only have its oil changed roughly once a year or roughly every 10,000 miles.)

[https://www.edmunds.com/car-maintenance/when-should-you- chan...](https://www.edmunds.com/car-maintenance/when-should-you-change-your- oil.html)

<comment><USER15> They say this in the first paragraph: > follow the automaker's recommended service intervals.

If I had a Prius I might change my oil every year. I instead follow the manufacturer (Ford) provided service schedule for my car. I have a feeling the 15 year old station wagon I commented regarding at the beginning of this thread is closer to my car than a Prius.

Using a Prius maintenance schedule to be representative of the last 30 years of ICE cars doesn't make sense, you might as well compare with a lawn mower at that point.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> If Tesla was making 10 times as many cars, I doubt this would be a serious issue. Much of it is a matter of scale.

Tesla is doing something nearly impossible. I'm not surprised it's having difficulties here. It has always been the case that failure is a serious possibility.

Not only is starting a car company hard, but an electric car company is especially hard. Margins are so thin in carmaking in general, that you depend on scale to make things like maintenance doable.

With gas prices low and EV credits disappearing, the natural outcome of all these pressures when fossil fuels are not paying for their externalities is that the electric car maker will fail.

And unfortunately, it's not like other electric car makers in the US are doing any better. EVs tend to be a loss-leader (halo cars or compliance cars) for traditional manufacturers. GM ended their Volt production. And my experience on Volt forums is that it's incredibly hard to get dealers to service electric cars because they also don't have qualified staff. And that's for vehicles that can take advantage of the GM ecosystem for things that aren't powertrain related. I own a Volt and a Leaf. The Leaf also has had many issues with powertrain maintenance (more than Tesla) in spite of using a very similar vehicle platform to the traditional vehicles Nissan produces.

I look at those saying we have to pull out all stops to address 1.5 degrees C of climate warming, and then I look at our utter failure to pass meaningful federal measures to support electrification of transport, even letting our previous ones expire while China takes enormous strides in standing up their electric vehicle industry... It's as if we literally don't care. We're just going to let the American electric car industry fail. In fact, several states are passing and have passed extra taxes on electric vehicles in order to "compensate" for lost gas tax revenue (although basically universally over- estimating how many miles EV owners drive per year, thus actually taxing them HIGHER than gas drivers).

...and considering all that (Losing a $7500 credit and gas prices now about $6000 less over the life of the car compared to a few years ago), I actually think Tesla is doing fairly well. They're going to have to quickly expand beyond America, though, because we are failing them.

EDIT: Rivian is in a similar boat. Their products look amazing, but they're starting from scratch in a low-margin business at a time of low gas prices. Hopefully both Rivian and Tesla can make it. But without the support from the federal government like firms in Europe and especially China, it's quite possible both will fail.

<comment><USER18> Aren't electric cars especially easy? Don't they have fewer parts?

<comment><USER17> Not _good_ electric cars. Batteries are still a large portion of the cost, and so a modest electric car effort will end up over-spending on the battery, being over-weight, and with too low of a range without very careful attention to efficiency. Compare the per-mike efficiency of the e-tron vs the Tesla Model X.

...it also increases charging infrastructure costs.

<comment><USER19> I don't think that's what the parent post was asking. Yes, batteries are expensive. Yes, EVs are heavy. But they are also simpler than ICE and they have less parts. Even _good_ electric cars. If you wanted to build a car in your backyard, it'll be a much easier process if you go electric.

<comment><USER17> I don't disagree with that. I once was considering doing an EV conversion, back before modern EVs like the Leaf and the Volt were available. But unfortunately, doing this at scale and competitively is still very difficult to get right. You really have to start basically from scratch like Tesla or Rivian to have an optimized result.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Anybody involved with Tesla in any way should at least watch The Fantastic Case of the Missing Tesla by Rich [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezqwfha- BZ8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezqwfha-BZ8)

</comment><comment><USER21> As a Model S owner, this is one of the things that worries me a lot. I rely on my Model S to make my commute "bearable" (via Carpool lane use), which even a covered insurance rental car isn't likely to enable.

Doubling my commute time for months would drive me nuts.

I hope an infusion of cash is going to help the parts department and decrease the latency around parts getting built.

I hope that the new insurance business they are getting into will take this into account: I'd pay extra to have my insurance give me an exact same loaner with the same "carpool friendly" characteristics while my car is in the shop. When insurance companies are on the hook to pay for a rental during repairs, they tend to ensure that the repairs don't take too long, as they have an incentive to minimize their rental costs: that's a good thing because it means the incentives are aligned with the customer.

<comment><USER22> Wait, single-occupant Tesla cars get to use the carpool lane?

Thanks for giving me another reason to hate this company. It's not easy anymore but it turns out there is always something new if you read enough of these threads.

<comment><USER23> In CA, yes. It's mainly a high-occupancy vehicle lane, but some "clean-air" vehicles also are allowed: [http://www.dot.ca.gov/trafficops/tm/hov.html](http://www.dot.ca.gov/trafficops/tm/hov.html)

That strikes me as similar to the subsidy that Tesla got. It's a reasonable thing to do so that we start shifting away fossil carbon, but it should expire in short order.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> You can see the backup at Chilton Auto Body in San Carlos in Google Maps.[1]

[1] [https://firstname.lastname@example.com,-122.2656497,107m/da...](https://firstname.lastname@example.com,-122.2656497,107m/data=!3m1!1e3)

<comment><USER25> A friend of mine is the head painter at Chilton San Carlos. He said the volume there currently is absolutely insane as the Model 3 has ramped.

They are swimming in wrecked or poorly put together Model S/3s.

His accounts match the tone of the article, though Chilton experiences it to a lesser extent since they're so close to the Tesla mothership.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Early last year it took me around 2 months to get a windshield replaced on a 2016 Model S. From what I understand, they have changed the design of so many components as they iterate that they often have to custom order parts to support "older" vehicles.

On the other hand, my Model 3 has needed critical servicing for the last 6 months but they haven't received the parts in yet (I also live next to the factory in Fremont).

It can be a hassle, but they are a young car company and I'm willing to put up with beta testing their cars because I want the company to succeed and I do still prefer their products compared to anything else on the market.

</comment><comment><USER27> reading the comments, I'm really amazed to see so many owners that complain about lengthy delays, but are "ready to put with it" because they want Tesla to succeed.

This would never fly for any other car companies.

Once more, it confirms to me that people buy a Tesla as a symbol//cult more than as a vehicle. Teslafans want to be recognized as those next level earth- friendly yuppies socialites. And it really scares me to see how many here go blindly with it.

</comment><comment><USER28> There is also a Dutch Tesla rental company that recently decided to close shop because they couldn't get replacement parts for their fleet.

</comment><comment><USER29> In my experience, the convenience of Tesla's mobile service—they come to you for most repairs—somewhat offsets the slow parts delivery time.

One of my neighbors took out the passenger side mirror on my model S (knocked the whole assembly clean off). It took about a week to get the replacement parts, but once the parts were in, we scheduled a time for them to come out and fix it in the parking lot next to my apartment. No driving halfway across town to a dealership, waiting around, or having to arrange transportation to pick my car back up. A similar repair for my BMW would have consumed at least half a day of my time - this took 5-10 minutes at most. (And the tech was way more friendly and knowledgeable than anyone I've ever dealt with at a dealership.)

<comment><USER30> FWIW, many aftermarket repair services and even some dealerships offer the same kind of service, too. For example, when someone broke a window on my civic, a local glass replacement place came out the next day and fixed it at my office parking lot. However, it's important to note that there's a difference between this kind of basic repair work and something complex like replacing a brake assembly, which requires a lot more equipment.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> Very well known issue among tesla fans. Been going on a long time so promises of a quick fix are just that unfortunately.

If you are a bit higher income / time is money type of person or situation, lack of parts avail for repair (and the time /hassle that causes) and/or an inability to get at home EV charging would be the only two reasons not to get a tesla I think.

I am very grateful for folks who have flagged this up. If you hate getting the service runaround on car repairs (waste of time / etc) then the heads up we are getting on this is critical really.

Currently drive an Audi - obviously planned on going to Tesla but holding off until this get's sorted.

</comment><comment><USER32> Is this a regional issue? Haven't had this problem at all in Texas. Scheduled maintenance and my car was returned in only a couple days.

<comment><USER33> > in only a couple days

Is taking days normal or reasonable for car maintenance? I've never had my conventional car in for maintenance for more than about six hours.

<comment><USER34> That really depends on the type of maintenance. I've had situations where Honda kept my car for 24-48 hours because they needed to source a part and I'd scheduled the maintenance for a Saturday.

I've also had situations where an issue was discovered during regular maintenance and Honda again asked to keep the car and rectify the problem under warranty. In that case it was a cracked engine block and they said "that's not suppose to happen". It took a few days to fix.

<comment><USER35> _I 've had situations where Honda kept my car for 24-48 hours because they needed to source a part_

I've had this as well with Honda and Mercedes cars. When it comes to utilitarian cars, one thing you want to look for is the parts being as much a commodity as possible.

Mercedes used to stock all the parts for what seemed like all of their models. Then they stopped. I should have taken that as a sign!

<comment><USER34> I would love to hear how most garages operate. It seems like most don't stock more than basic commodity parts anymore (e.g. oil filters, belts, pads, filters) but have means to get parts within hours worst case.

<comment><USER36> parts stores deliver to mechanics and garages many times a day. no app needed, they use the phone. so, when you need a starter for a 1992 honda, they call the closest parts store and a 'parts runner' delivers it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> I almost picked up a part from two states over when Tesla went radio silent for a month plus after 2 months of 'repairs'. Absolute worst customer service I have ever experienced.

</comment><comment><USER38> I suppose you don't frequent the Tesla user forums or any YouTube Tesla channel?

It's been a topic for a very long time, not just repair delays, but basic maintenance needing to be scheduled months out.

<comment><USER39> So should everyone stop reporting on the failures of a company? I'm hopeful Tesla figures these problems out, but media pressure can only really help in this situation.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> Just adding that my model X has been in the shop since December 30th (self- drove into a highway divider.. nobody was hurt). So up over 4 months now and I'm just assuming there's no chance I'm getting it back before labor day.

<comment><USER41> I'm curious. What happens when your Tesla is in the shop? Do they give you a loaner Tesla for the entire time?

<comment><USER42> Hopefully have another spare vehicle at home or Uber/Lyft I guess

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> Tesla needs to develop a network of partner garages where mechanics are properly trained, needed parts are supplied quickly, and car owners can get to in a convenient manner. Post sale experience is just as important as show-room experience. Tesla focuses more on pre-sale (ludicrous mode, autopilot) because the garage experience is only visible long after sale.

A few years ago I had to do some work on the suspension of my car (replace 2 springs) and everything was done in about 4-6 hours, including the regular checks and some other minor stuff. It took about 2h for the parts the mechanic ordered next to me to arrive. One acquaintance with a Model S waited ~10-12 days for more or less the same kind of work (he could still drive the car but still). And that's because we're in a region with easy access to anything, especially auto-related.

<comment> frosted-flakes > Tesla needs to develop a network of partner garages where mechanics are > properly trained, needed parts are supplied quickly, and car owners can get > to in a convenient manner.

Yeah. We could call them _dealerships_ , of which there are none for Tesla. I hear that's part of the reason they can get away with not releasing diagnostic tools, parts, etc. to third parties.

<comment><USER43> Not necessarily dealerships. I used plenty of "independent" service networks (repair-only shops), not strictly affiliated with a particular brand but authorized by them. They have mechanics trained for the brands, access to spare parts, etc.

I'm not sure it's a matter of "getting away". I would have thought it's in their interest to offer a solid support network after sale. I wonder if the tight control is due to not having enough capacity to make enough (spare) parts.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> Hopefully with their decision to raise money they can afford to improve this situation.</comment>


LLVM IR is a compiler IR - <AUTHOR> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2011-October/043719.html

<comment><USER2> LLVM IR = "Low Level Virtual Machine" (originally written to be a replacement for the existing code generator in the GCC stack) "Intermediate Representation" (virtual machine language, prior to being crunched into actual machine code).

<comment><USER3> I hope I'm not the only one here upvote your comment simply because you decompressed IR into Intermediate Representation.

I like to read about LLVM and some of the things that are a bit (ok, in a lot of cases, _way_ ) above what I do day-to-day, except that it's sometimes taken for granted that the readers know the acronym/reference. I read the whole article and I understood what it was referring to, but for the life of me I couldn't land on the two words because IR in my world is always infrared.

<comment><USER2> Somewhat infuriatingly, my simple IR->"Intermediate Representation" was my highest ever scoring comment, and the one that pushed me over 500...

Lesson learned : Make something people want.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> These are exactly the reasons why I am very skeptical about pNaCl. I've done some work with LLVM and I've been stuck on some of these points: the IR is target-dependent, the function call conventions are basically those of C, the optimization passes and the code generator are extremely slow when compared to an ad-hoc JIT (this would mean terrible startup time for web applications). And, furthermore, the size of the bitcode is still enormous, comparable to the generated machine code or even worse (think about the size of C++ binaries).

I still think that LLVM is an incredibly great project, it brought compiler infrastructure to 2010s. But it is designed to be a static compiler framework, it hardly fits other purposes (think Unladen Swallow, don't know about Rubinius).

<comment><USER5> LLVM is being used as a JIT in Open Shading Language, a DSL for advanced 3D renderers. The JIT + resulting code was so fast, the OSL team dropped their batch rendering API altogether. (The resulting shaders are 25% faster than the hand-coded C language shaders they replaced.)

Currently, the LLVM JIT-powered OSL is now responsible for 100% of the shading duties at Sony Pictures Imageworks. I'd say that's a resounding success for LLVM as a JIT.

<comment><USER6> I'm not sure how that refutes the point. OSL is a shading language, that's an environment dominated by runtime execution time, not startup latency. So it might be a "JIT" in that there's no stored binary, but it's performance criteria are much (much!) closer to those of gcc or clang than to, say, a JVM or script interpreter.

And, like the post said: LLVM IR is a compiler IR. It's a great fit here.

<comment><USER5> > I'm not sure how that refutes the point.

>> [LLVM] is designed to be a static compiler framework, it hardly fits other purposes [...]

I presented a ready example where LLVM was being used _not_ as a "static compiler framework", and was being used for "other purposes". If that's not an outright refutation, it's at least a useful data point.

<comment><USER6> Right, and my point was that that ready example was as close to a "static compiler framework" as you can get without actually being one. It's an exception-that-proves-the-rule case.

<comment><USER5> OSL shaders are specialized dynamically at runtime and then JIT'd using LLVM. That's about as far from a static compiler framework like GCC or Clang as you can get, from my perspective.

In addition, fast JIT speed was a very high priority/need and the OSL team spent a few months carefully tuning the LLVM passes to give fast code at a low JIT cost. (All of this was done and discussed publicly; feel free to grep the mailing list.)

Would you mind explaining how OSL is as close to something like Clang or GCC as you can get? I just don't see it.

<comment><USER7> > Would you mind explaining how OSL is as close to something like Clang or GCC > as you can get? I just don't see it.

It seems that Open Shading Language is not really Just-in-Time (JIT) compiled. It's compiled from LLVM IR to native machine code Ahead-of-Time (AOT) but at runtime and then executed. This is actually not very far from a static compiler, the only difference is that the target architecture is known at runtime and the LLVM IR is compiled to machine code using that information.

What is the difference of JIT and AOT here is that in a JIT situation, there is some form of an interpreter that is executing byte code of some kind (probably not LLVM IR). When this interpreter reaches a loop of some kind, it will attempt to compile it (from bytecode to LLVM IR and finally from LLVM IR to native code). The interpreter then calls the compiled code, which will run for as long as possible and finally return control to the interpreter which will continue interpreting until it finds another opporturnity for JIT'ing. A JIT compiler is typically employed when the original source language cannot be compiled statically to machine code, because of e.g. dynamic typing.

So from what I can tell, OSL is just a static ahead of time compiler, with the final stage of compilation taking place at runtime.

Please tell me if some of my background facts were incorrect (in particular about OSL).

<comment><USER5> I think this is correct. OSL is using LLVM in an AOT fashion, though a lot of runtime code generation and specialization is being done just prior to running the AOT LLVM JIT.

As opposed to something like, say, Google v8, which is using runtime feedback to make hot code paths fast (and to remove dynamism when it can be shown to be safe).

I guess I wasn't aware that people weren't including dynamic code generation and AOT compilation in the "JIT" category. To me JIT meant generating machine code "at runtime", and both OSL and v8 would be at opposite ends of the JIT "at runtime" code generation/compilation spectrum -- OSL on the AOT side and v8 on the keep-running-the-compiler side.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> quick link to Chris Lattner's response: [http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2011-October/0437...](http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2011-October/043730.html)

<comment><USER9> On Oct 4, 2011, at 11:53 AM, Dan Gohman wrote: > In this email, I argue that LLVM IR is a poor system for building a > Platform, by which I mean any system where LLVM IR would be a > format in which programs are stored or transmitted for subsequent > use on multiple underlying architectures.

Hi Dan,

I agree with almost all of the points you make, but not your conclusion. Many of the issues that you point out as problems are actually "features" that a VM like Java doesn't provide. For example, Java doesn't have uninitialized variables on the stack, and LLVM does. LLVM is capable of expressing the implicit zero initialization of variables that is implicit in Java, it just leaves the choice to the frontend.

Many of the other issues that you raise are true, but irrelevant when compared to other VMs. For example, LLVM allows a frontend to produce code that is ABI compatible with native C ABIs. It does this by requiring the frontend to know a lot about the native C ABI. Java doesn't permit this at all, and so LLVM having "this feature" seems like a feature over-and-above what high-level VMs provide. Similiarly, the "conditionally" supported features like large and obscurely sized integers simply don't exist in these VMs.

The one key feature that LLVM doesn't have that Java does, and which cannot be added to LLVM "through a small matter of implementation" is verifiable safety. Java bytecode verification is not something that LLVM IR permits, which you can't really do in LLVM (without resorting to techniques like SFI).

With all that said, I do think that we have a real issue here. The real issue is that we have people struggling to do things that a "hard" and see LLVM as the problem. For example:

1\. The native client folks trying to use LLVM IR as a portable representation that abstracts arbitrary C calling conventions. This doesn't work because the frontend has to know the C calling conventions of the target.

2\. The OpenCL folks trying to turn LLVM into a portable abstraction language by introducing endianness abstractions. This is hard because C is inherently a non-portable language, and this is only scratching the surface of the issues. To really fix this, OpenCL would have to be subset substantially, like the EFI C dialect.

> LLVM isn't actually a virtual machine. It's widely acknoledged that the > > name "LLVM" is a historical artifact which doesn't reliably connote what > > LLVM actually grew to be. LLVM IR is a compiler IR.

It sounds like you're picking a very specific definition of what a VM is. LLVM certainly isn't a high level virtual machine like Java, but that's exactly the feature that makes it a practical target for C-family languages. It isn't LLVM's fault that people want LLVM to magically solve all of C's portability problems.

-Chris

<comment><USER10> Why copy-paste? (Well, I think I know why...) Should we do the same with all messages from ML now? Just use normal ML UI, like gmane, I provided link to earlier. If you need direct one to Chris' mail, it would be:

[http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.compilers.llvm.devel/4376...](http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.compilers.llvm.devel/43769/focus=43780)

Actually I'm not sure why this particular response was pointed out, as it is not perfect rebuttal. It's almost always better to even only skim whole thread than be picky about which mail to read carefully, as you'll always miss something then.

<comment><USER11> I'd guess Chris Lattner's response was singled out because Chris is the lead developer for LLVM, so even if it isn't the best response, it's probably still the most important.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Whole thread in much more readable UI, w/o problems of terrible 90s ML web stuff.

[http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.compilers.llvm.devel/4376...](http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.compilers.llvm.devel/43769)

</comment><comment><USER12> I was already getting a bad feeling about LLVM recently, and this thread kind of cements that.

Everybody seems to have a different (sometimes radically different) idea of what LLVM is for. That can't be good for making progress, and it's definitely not good for guys like me wondering if LLVM is a sane choice for a project.

<comment><USER13> Don't take it too far. For purposes it was designed to serve, LLVM is great, best in its class. If your project is something that could benefit from LLVM, then by all means use it. If it isn't, then don't. As simple as that.

Many corporations (most of all Apple) bet millions of $$$s in resources on projects that depend on LLVM, so don't worry too much.

<comment><USER12> And what purpose was it designed to serve? That's exactly the problem I'm alluding to -- the LLVM developers don't even agree amongst themselves, so how am I supposed to know?

<comment><USER14> It's a compiler-building framework and toolchain.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Just as a naive consumer of its facilities, I find LLVM produces binaries from C and ObjC code which are smaller and faster than their GCC equivalents. I'm attempting to write my own front-end as well, which is easier than I had expected. I don't care what the black box does, c.f. "The user doesn't care"(TM).

<comment><USER16> GCC is still marginally smaller and faster: [http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=gcc_4...](http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=gcc_46_llvm29&num=2)

<comment><USER15> IMHO, YMMV, etc. Oh man it's so easy to wind up HN kids with anecdotes.

<comment><USER17> That link has 14 benchmarks across 5 platforms. What's your anecdote/evidence theshold?

<comment><USER18> The parent was referring to their own anecdote, not the link's benchmarks.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Creative Hack: Facebook-LinkedIn Mashup for Chrome - <AUTHOR> http://venturebeat.com/2014/01/20/discoverlys-nifty-free-chrome-extension-marries-data-from-facebook-linkedin-data-exclusive/

<comment><USER2> Pretty interesting tool, especially if it opens to other platforms and browsers. It leads some of one network's traffic to the other, which FB and LI could potentially see as a threat, or a way to indirectly help each other without having to admit it. Thoughts?</comment>


Ask HN: Your way to screen potential developers for your team? - <AUTHOR> This is tough, it seems like people can just say "Yeah I can do that." I don't mean to be "discriminating" either but when you see how their sentences are formed it's concerning.<p>I guess you can test their skill with a paid task but it also seems easy to just look things up copy/paste and send it in. While that gets the job done, is that person actually competent. <comment><AUTHOR> Oh man, this guy I'm screening literally google search pasted a response.</comment>


IE9 beta not enough to keep IE market share over 60% mark - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2010/10/ie9-beta-not-enough-to-keep-ie-market-share-over-60-mark.ars

<comment><USER2> Well... yeah. It's a beta. At 0.1% use across the internet, that's not too bad of a market presence for a beta, really, but betas just plain don't count noticeably.

I quite like Ars' list of browsers. IE combined comes out at ~17%, as opposed to just below 60% universally.

<comment><USER3> One thing I always find interesting is that the % of Opera users on Ars is always close to the universal %. I always assumed that Opera users were more technical, and therefore more likely to visit the Ars site, than the average user.

<comment><USER4> By universal, do you mean the US average or the world average? Opera is very popular in some parts of Europe like Russia and Scandinavia, and significantly less popular in the Anglosphere. The higher use among technical users could push it Opera representation from the US average to the world average.

<comment><USER3> The article provided "universal" and Ars specific stats. All the % are drastically different between the two, except Opera.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The most interesting part of these figures is that despite the growth of iOS devices and Mac market share, Safari is virtually flat and now only the second most popular Webkit based browser.

<comment><USER6> Apple hasn't pushed Safari on Windows very effectively, even with a decent version of Safari 5. I like Safari and Chrome on the Mac equally, but Chrome on Windows feels more natural than Safari to me.

Chrome has been quite successful on Windows, and of course Windows users greatly outnumber Mac users. I think this accounts for those numbers.

<comment><USER7> I think Safari for Windows isn't really something that Apple cares if people use much. It's not like they make much money for it directly. But it does mean that designers who work on Windows can test for Safari compat without the expense of a Mac, which greatly increases the chances of websites being tested on Safari.

I agree, Chrome for Windows is a lot better than Safari. On my Mac, I use Chrome and Safari about 50-50 (my RSS feeds are still in Safari, which is a large part of why I still use it). Chrome's extensions have been making me slowly drift towards Chrome, but there are still some Safari features I find nice (like Reader, Safari's adaptation of the Readability bookmarklet).

<comment><USER6> Yeah, that's the thing - Apple doesn't seem to care whether people on Windows use Safari, even though they took the time to make decent version of it. Google, on the other hand, really wants Windows users to use Chrome.

I'm exactly the same, 50-50 Safari/Chrome when using my Mac. Well, plus maybe 3% Opera and 5% Firefox. I mainly like Safari's Top Sites page, it's pretty slick.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Potential changes to cookies in Chrome - <AUTHOR> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/#!topic/security-dev/2PK3q_VE1rg <comment><USER2> Feels a bit like the url hash bangs google foisted on us back in the day. three years from now, new devs will be asking "Why does is this cookie named '$Secure-...' kinda like they were asking "Why do our urls have '#!' in them?"

"Well you see, google had this idea that was gonna help everyone..."

Snark aside (gotta get it out of the way before commenting for real), I think this is a step in the right direction, and securing cookies, even though they still aren't "secure", is a big deal for everyone who uses a browser. I'm excited that they are willing to push forward something that's a little rough around the edges to start to get data and verify results.</comment>


MTN telecom chief executive quits after Nigeria fine - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.com/news/business-34763602 <comment><USER2> ... because they didn't cancel unregistered SIMs.

A subtle hint that you can't fuck around with state mass tracking and surveillance needs.

<comment><USER3> Telcom has always been deeply entwined with state security. It was just easier to ignore this for the past "web 2.0" decade.

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it."

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> The next south african company that this needs to be done to is DSTV. They are much worse than MTN. I always wonder if they are incompetent because they are south african or because Nigeria isn't serious about regulations. This question is binary.

<comment><USER5> Curious. how are they much worse than MTN?

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> > "The fine, which amounts to double MTN's profit last year".

I'd love to see such fine applied to the criminal european telcos.

</comment><comment><USER7> I'm sure that this fine is designed to effectively bankrupt the company so that it can be nationalized by the state.</comment>


Arbitrary code execution in Pokémon Yellow - unkown-unknowns http://tasvideos.org/5384S.html <comment> unkown-unknowns Discussion on reddit: [https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/6tg7rt/arbitra...](https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/6tg7rt/arbitrary_code_execution_in_pokemon_yellow/)</comment>


Unsupervised Billboard Detection - <AUTHOR> http://tech.adstruc.com/

<comment><USER2> A great article. This is what Hacker News should be about; identifying a problem, researching solutions, and publishing the results for use. Thank you for a fantastic post.

</comment><comment><USER3> Watch Google incorporate this into Street View to deliver billboard advertisements.

<comment><USER4> They actually filed a patent in 2008 to do that [http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/google_could_soon_augme...](http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/google_could_soon_augment_old_billboards_in_street.php) (direct link to the patent: [http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph- Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sec...](http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph- Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=/netahtml/PTO/search- adv.html&r=2&p=1&f=G&l=50&d=PG01&S1=google.AS.&OS=an/google&RS=AN/google) )

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is great. I wonder if applying a crowdsource solution, with humans selecting the billboard, would also have delivered a cost-effective solution with the benefits in less time.

<comment><USER4> This is actually something we considered (we originally built this tool to import data from one of the major vendors). Their data was consistent enough that we were able to achieve a high enough hit rate, that it made sense to do it this way (OpenCV is an amazing framework for this type of task). However, from most of our vendors, the board themselves are not outlined/blocked out. In those cases, the CV algorithms fall apart fairly quickly, since quality of the input photos is quite variable (most are rather low resolution and you'd be surprised at the number of images we get with trees or other objects blocking a large portion of the board). The crowd sourced version is definitely on our fun tasks pile, since we've got a lot of inventory identify the bounds automatically.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Kind of surprised that the first comment isn't about automatically occluding these with google glass (yes, I know you can't fully paint over it [http://blogs.valvesoftware.com/abrash/why-you-wont-see- hard-...](http://blogs.valvesoftware.com/abrash/why-you-wont-see-hard-ar- anytime-soon/))

</comment><comment><USER7> Next up: a car, running this in real time, with an automated paintball launcher. Anybody got a good project name?

<comment><USER8> AdBlock Prius

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I'm eagerly awaiting "They Live" mode.

</comment><comment><USER10> I'd like to see how it works on the third image from the top, with the gas station sign, etc.

It is fairly straightforward to detect a billboard in a random nature scene; look for straight lines and intersections of them. Most (all?) billboards are also horizontal.

It is quite another thing to detect billboards in an urban setting.

<comment><AUTHOR> I've added the output at the end of the blog post for that image... check it out!

This algorithm works pretty well for billboards in urban settings as well -- since the photos come with the units outlined.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Ah, this post makes me doubly excited about how I got OpenCV (+ the Ruby wrapper) to successfully install on Mountain Lion.</comment>


AI can be trusted to take our 911 calls - <AUTHOR> https://thenextweb.com/podium/2019/03/24/ai-can-be-trusted-to-take-our-911-calls/ <comment><USER2> I think this is probably the purest vision of a dystopian hell hole that I have ever seen.

Just what I want to do, dick around with a computer when life is on the line.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah, I think so too</comment></comment>


Why SaaS Companies Can't Win on Features and Must Win on Brand - <AUTHOR> https://www.codementor.io/blog/david-cancel-brand-is-more-important-than-features-2xd6q3oiuk <comment><USER2> This whole thing feels like an advertisement. Why is it on HN?

<comment><USER3> I didn't get that feel. Codementor had some calls to action, but that's common for content marketing; there's a lot of similar articles here where a developer is selling their ebook or course while providing good value in the article. As for it being an ad for Drift, I didn't get that; it felt similar to something you'd read on Indie Hackers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I dig the Codementor advertisements after every other paragraph.

<comment><USER3> I counted 3 (+1 in top caption) in the entire article. Probably less intrusive than typical newsletter popup so common among lean startups (disclosure: I've done work for Codementor in the past)</comment></comment>


Fix OS X Terminal Launch Speed - <AUTHOR> https://matt.sh/fix-os-x-terminal-launch-speed <comment><USER2> isnt the problem the missing .hushlogin file or something like that?</comment>


How I Went a Year Without a Paying Customer and Took 3 Years to Hit $3k/MRR - <AUTHOR> https://www.indiehackers.com/interview/2fa6c5e1eb <comment><AUTHOR> I made the decision this year to be more open about my journey bootstrapping Keygen. This interview is a bit long, but I hope it contains some valuable no- BS insight into how I've approached building and growing Keygen. Would be happy to answer any questions that I didn't cover in the interview!

The HN title is a bit of a tongue-in-cheek brag-about-how-bad-I-am, since my business adventure hasn't gone the typical way you often see, i.e. I didn't have explosive growth. But I think my experience is more "typical" than we want to admit.

<comment><USER2> thank you for sharing. I was looking for a service like, this but wasn't able to find one. I was debating if I should implement one myself. A basic licensing server shouldn't be difficult for me. but I wasn't sure how to make it hacking-proof.</comment></comment>


Microsoft continues to profit off Android - <AUTHOR> http://www.bgr.com/2011/09/08/microsoft-continues-to-profit-off-android/

<comment><USER2> _Microsoft's revenue from royalties HTC is forced to pay on each Android phone it sells is estimated to be between three and five times the company's Windows Phone revenue, which could help explain why Microsoft has been so quiet to date when it comes to marketing its new mobile OS_

I think the more important statistic is the profit Microsoft makes per Android device, compared with the profit per WindowPhone device. There are far more Android devices, so it's not surprising they make more from that "licensing" agreement (I'm loath to call it that when it's more like extortion). I find it hard to believe that MS would prefer (and make more money from) an Android dominated market compared to a WP7 dominated one, so I'm pretty skeptical of the idea that MS are holding back on WP7 because they don't mind Android dominating. I could be wrong though, maybe their Android licences really are that lucrative, and in that case God help us all because the software(-patent) industry is even more fucked than most of us ever imagined.

<comment><USER3> My take on this: Microsoft is using a free market approach to Google's dumping of Android at a loss in exchange for manufacturer adoption.

Yes, they could try to litigate and pursue trade sanctions - but Viewsonic and the other companies are also Microsoft customers and B2B relationships aren't built that way. Microsoft's strategy is successful because licensing is clearly more certain than litigation and probably cheaper as well. Given that Microsoft leadership has a fiduciary responsibility to protect the companies IP vigorously, their licensing program is as much of win-win solution as is possible under the circumstances.

Determining whether or not reaffirming the cusomer-vendor relationship between Microsoft and the major device manufacturer's is a brilliant move in the long run, is left as an exercise for the reader.

<comment><USER4> I find it hard to reconcile the term free market with the monopoly status granted in a patent, but this is the system we have and MS would be wrong to not respond in this way. The goal here is to make Android uneconomic for handset makers, not to generate revenue.

Google can dump their OS on the market because their business model is different than Microsoft's. They make 98% of their revenue on advertising, so it is in their interest to commoditize the OS level and increase the adoption of internet-connected devices. MS makes virtually all their profits on the licensing of software, they need to protect that business and their core platforms.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I think it's embarrassing for Microsoft to make more from bogus patents than from their own actual product. If I were them I wouldn't try to brag about it in the press. Heck, if I were them I probably wouldn't even do it in the first place.

This is why Microsoft have lost their way. Instead of focusing on their own products and innovation, they try to make money through other less _honorable_ means. And sadly it runs deep into Microsoft's corporate culture.

Their actions as of late are making me reconsider whether I will want to use any of their new products in the future. They should realize that a lot of those Android users are also potential Microsoft customers for other products of theirs (desktop Windows, Xbox, Office, etc). They shouldn't try to piss them off with stuff like this, by extorting money from other of their favorite companies, especially when the way they do it is highly questionable.

<comment><USER6> > ... bogus patents ...

> ... honorable means ...

> ... extorting money ...

> ... highly questionable

Can you specify what do you mean? If the patents aren't valid, Google would surely have them canceled, wouldn't it? If they are valid MS are paid for their hard work or hard work somebody else did and they purchased it. Hardly "questionable".

<comment><USER7> I'm going to assume you're not trolling:

Fundamental problem with software patents today: usually it is much cheaper to pay than to invalidate bad patents.

<comment><USER3> It is also cheaper to pay than to try to invalidate _good_ patents. The assumption that Microsoft's patents regarding Android are bad is an unsupported premise, and given Microsoft's purchase of Danger and Andy Rubin's close association with Android, their claims are meaningfully plausible on the surface.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> It's important to note here that most of the revenue is from HTC and most of that is not specifically from Android but from HTC Sense which is a UI layer HTC puts on top of Android and which was actually funded in part by MS in the first place to use with Windows Mobile - hence why they feel entitled to royalties when it is used outside that OS.

So while it is correct to say that the money is coming from "Android phones", it's a bit misleading to say it is coming from "Android" per se - this is a HTC Sense / MS specific thing.

Of course there are other non-HTC-sense patents too, but they are a much lesser part of the deal.</comment>