You use a lot of servers, you just call them resources. Your S3 storage is a server, your background workers run on a server, and your postgress, well, it doesn't run on a bike.
I hate this confabulating stuff. It's like people believing "the cloud" is an actual cloud. Couldn't we just leave this stuff to the marketing people?
Nevertheless serverless is an actual concept where you don't deploy any server instances, you use only services. Those services might scale up with server instances, but you don't have to know about that.
I was against it too at first, but then I realized how to use it.
Off topic, those prices omg, how the hell are we going to get to zero without 95% of the population just being too poor to own a car? No matter how great the tech is, this is one of those rare occasions where the price of advanced new tech goes up with time. I've been able to buy a new 150 euro laptop for decades now at about 10% the price of a decent one. Why isn't this happening with electric vehicles?
A lot of safety features are mandatory in Eu/Aus/US/NA etc, making imported Chinese cars much more expensive than first thought. Bidirectional charging does not add much cost if planned ahead, since most of the effort is in implementing ISO 15118-20 rather than hardware.
I feel like the main issue with bidirectional adoption currently is the number of groups trying to maximise their profit, everyone wants a cut of the pie: the car companies, energy companies, ev charging companies, ev charging networks, solar/inverter manufactures and government standard groups. The needle won't move until California or other countries with influence force it. In Japan, from a technology perspective CHAdeMO has allowed for EVs to do bidirectional charging for years now.
Side note - I'm all for any extra safety features but I do find that a lot of the software driven features are poorly designed and implemented. I've had bad experiences with automatic braking and lane keeping when freeways driving where I was lucky to avoid having an accidents, so not being able to disable them permanently is a major annoyance to me. It seems like these features have very little real world testing.
Charging adds TONS of cost. For start most small city cars are simply charged from wall socket. 2KW are absolutely fine to charge such small cars. You are comparing cost of power cable, with building dedicated circuits and charging station!
Second is the deprecation cost on car battery! Cycles add up quickly!
Your cheap laptop doesn't have to go through multiple rounds of destructive safety testing. It isn't recalled every time a hardware issue is found. It doesn't have to certify much of anything other than some basic electric and RF safety.
But, nevertheless, the price of EVs is coming down. You can buy a Renault AMI for 10% of the cost of a luxury EV.
The other issue is that most people buy cars on finance. £300/month gets you a decent car. Same as most people pay £50/mo for their iPhone.
Well, a cheap laptop lets me check my mail and write a document. Which I can also do on an expensive laptop. A cheap car gets me from a to b. An expensive car too.
But seriously, that's not a car. I own a Toyota IQ. Very small, but still a car. That's not a car, that's a toy. Not comparable to the cheap laptop, more comparable to a Nintendo DS or something similar. It works, but it won't let you email. Just like that "car" won't let you drive for a couple of hours on the highway without feeling you might die every moment.
If I had to guess... Because EVs are still a luxury item. All the green-deal-EVs-are-the-future talk is basically hot air. At least in my circles, all the EV owners have medium-to-high income. Its a luxury. And therefore, prices are high, because, you know, customers can and should be squeezed to the max.
The annoying thing is that there's nothing inherent about EVs that make them expensive/luxury. A budget EV is just as possible as a budget car, sure, the range may suffer (unless it's a hybrid) but it's technically possible. It's companies and maybe consumer preferences driving this. I'd guess luxury EVs just have a fatter margin.
(the underlying politics seems to be that the existing Western manufacturers are lagging deliberately, while the Chinese manufacturers are concentrating on delivering working products cheaply to consumers)
Parent comment was "how the hell are we going to get to zero without 95% of the population just being too poor to own a car?"
If people would rather walk than suffer the shame of a small cheap car that's .. fine by me? Just make sure that the small cars "nobody wants" aren't carefully kept out of the market by tariffs and non tariff barriers to avoid people discovering that they do want them.
Yeah and your comment was factually incorrect so I pointed it out. What is your response here trying to even convey? We have had small cheap EVS and small cheap ICE vehicles. They don't sell as well. I know you wish there was a conspiracy but its the average American does not want a small vehicle. Consumer demand alongside higher margin incentives on more expensive vehicles eliminate that class from the market.
The leaf and bolt were already here in the EV category and they just don't get enough demand. I think they are great but they don't sell as well as you might think.
small cars are not popular, and large cars have much more aerodynamic drag and therefore require bigger batteries. Bigger batteries dramatically increase the cost of the car.
The fact remains, in the US market small cars are not popular. Its not a conspiracy of US manufacturers "lagging deliberately". There of course is more margin to be made on bigger vehicles but its a mixture of both consumer demand and margin incentives.
> Moreover, this discussion isn't just about licensing MP3s; it's about managing common knowledge—that which is accessible to everyone, including competitors in different jurisdictions—for the creation of an industrial revolution.
Great, why don't these companies train their models on that "common knowledge" then and leave copyrighted work alone? Would be a great option wouldn't it? Solves the whole problem in one go.
Personally, I think these companies are just stealing copyrighted works, and should be sued for that. It's against the law, it's pretty simple.
And the whole China argument... Sorry but it makes no sense. They could beat us in AI by doing illegal things, so we should do the same illegal things to not let them win?
China has a lot of slave labour too. By the same reasoning, shouldn't we introduce slavery to not let them win production?
I'm not saying that in the future there won't be licensing methods that perhaps will serve to provide more direct access to the data, for example free = you can find them online, or do scraping... if you pay for them you have direct access to the dataset for training in real time , and you know that it is clean, without "watermarks" (even textual), etc..
the comparison with slave labor has nothing to do with it because here you are not violating a person's body to train AI, it is more like a duplication (but actually reinterpreted) of digital information that can be copied infinite times without damage, if I read it 3 times a PDF protected by copyright does not cause 3x damage compared to just once
I see it as more similar, for example, to how when the first search engines were born... if they had had to ask each site for permission to read, rework and provide the "external" search service, everything would have died immediately (at least in Europe and use )
another example is allowing emerging countries to maintain lighter copyright laws to facilitate their growth (yes, they violate them, yes perhaps a small percentage of Zambian inhabitants would perhaps buy the media by paying Western fees, but it is better to leave it alone and look at a greater good than managing copyright guarantees everywhere...) the Americans interpret this legislative concept better, the Europeans if they don't wake up will be left behind for a long time,
and I repeat, comparing the passing of a dataset containing copyrighted material into matrices for the generation of an AI is very different from slavery
> Personally, I think these companies are just stealing copyrighted works, and should be sued for that. It's against the law, it's pretty simple.
Is it copyright infringement to count how many times each letter appears in a book?
I don't know that it is, and if it's not, then there is at least some line you can draw where mechanically reading and learning from a copyrighted work is not copyright infringement.
The question of whether training a transformer model is on the legal side of that line remains to be seen, but I don't think it's as clear cut as you make it out to be.
While the article states that it did not include patient data, people living in the UK a few years before that had to opt out of their data being given to Amazon. Imagine that.
I agree 100% that corn is a very inefficient fuel source, but
> If this land were repurposed with solar power, it could provide around three and a half times the electricity needs of the United States
Isn't really accurate. It could never provide that, simply because solar is too intermittent. With (theoretically huuuuuge batteries) it could perhaps, but those don't exist. So it couldn't.
To be honest while 40GWh a year is a huge quantity of batteries it's not nearly enough for a country that consume 11TWh a day, maybe in a century (and ignoring battery degradation). US needs at least a magnitude more to reach the objective in a few decades.
Arguing that we can't solve problem X by growing tech Y, because that would require support from tech Z which would also need to grow, seems like putting the conclusion first and trying to find arguments to fit.
So people get rich making battery factories. So what?
> Xamarin.Android, Xamarin.iOS, Xamarin.Mac are now integrated directly into .NET (starting with .NET 6) as Android, iOS, and Mac for .NET. If you're building with these project types today, they should be upgraded to .NET SDK-style projects for continued support.
> Xamarin.Forms has evolved into .NET Multi-platform App UI (MAUI) and existing Xamarin.Forms projects should be migrated to .NET MAUI.
So to those of you using Xamarin: how painful it is? How compatible Xamarin.Forms or not is with .NET MAUI? Are they totally different tech?
How easy/hard it is to go from Xamarin.{Android,iOS,Mac} to .NET6+ ?
Maui on the other hand is a turd. It’s such a pain to work with, workloads just plain suck. And if you install . Net 7 and your project targets 6, It will download .net 7 workloads and fail to build. Then 8 comes out and same problem. Have to pin the SDK.
And by the time Maui starts to mature and work, they will announce a new framework and the cycle starts again. I still don’t understand why they couldn’t keep working on WPF instead of cranking out a new framework every three years.
And I am happy to live in a country that doesn't fluoridate its water. That way I can just wait out the whole scientific and political discussion and start drinking fluoridated water when it has finally and conclusively has been proven that it's beneficial. I suspect it wont be though, because it seems like the real scientists are saying no and the political scientists are saying yes.
You use a lot of servers, you just call them resources. Your S3 storage is a server, your background workers run on a server, and your postgress, well, it doesn't run on a bike.
I hate this confabulating stuff. It's like people believing "the cloud" is an actual cloud. Couldn't we just leave this stuff to the marketing people?