Not sure where you got that from. It’s equally if not faster then python, faster then Java, slower then compiled language, faster then ruby. Loses to NodeJS most of the time.
But who cares, we are literally talking millisecond differences between them all. Throw a reverse proxy, DB into the mix and a few packages and they are all slow.
My point was less about the leaderboards and more about it being pointless comparison. But I was looking at https://web-frameworks-benchmark.netlify.app/result?l=java,p... though I don't really know what people consider "best benchmark" for raw vs raw. Once you start throwing in apache/nginx/proxies/what ever it really starts to balance itself.
Well, a bunch of volunteers seem to have little trouble forking Firefox and creating Pale Moon, Waterfox, LibreWolf, and IceCat. You think a government can't do that? All they have to do really is throw some money to these existing groups.
Why do you keep bringing up Chromium anyway? We're talking about Firefox here.
Yes, yes, and now Pale Moon is four years of web development out of date, Waterfox is not really recommended, LibreWolf has some sketchy history and so on. Forking is easy - keeping it updated and secure is hard.
Although I agree with your observation wholeheartedly, it should be obvious that shipping something at Microsoft is way more involved than shipping a hobby project. Just security and privacy compliance is half the work.
That Microsoft is just not good at building consumer-facing software in general is hard to deny though.
It runs in the browser to allow for more options regarding interoperability. When Outlook is a web app and Teams is a web app you can throw components from one into the other anywhere on the screen. It also saves a lot of money building apps this way. This is the case for all apps built by Microsoft and the trend is not going to change.
In Microsoft, all product managers care about is shipping more features, because that's the only way they can move their career in the company forward. Do yourself a favor and just don't use Outlook for personal stuff. Microsoft has never aimed to make a good impression on the consumer market. They only care for enterprise and that's how they build all of their software.
The difference is this is proprietary and you have to maintain it plus train every new employee on it till the end of time. I'm sure you've noticed Microsoft's direction is to use more and more public tools in their software and avoid less popular and proprietary tools (even their own). It's done to reduce costs of both development and training.
They have no regard for the outcome of this approach when it comes to software UX because most of their customers don't get to choose the software they use (enterprise). The apps just need to be good enough to sell to company management.
It's a very good business model and only surprising if you consider MS to be a software company more than they are a money making company.
Skype does it in real time (for live translation) with a few seconds of audio. For the reasons discussed in this thread, it continuously forgets its previous training from the call to not make the voice too similar, but just similar enough to distinguish the speakers.
Kind of grasping at straws to require 99.99% accuracy. At that point a Polar chest strap is better. Olympians use Garmin watches all the time and the heart tracking is pretty great in most of their more expensive watches.
Well, there's also sleep time accuracy and sleep stage accuracy. What about those?
And the whole point is that you don't need to wear a Polar chest strap and a bunch of sleep lab electrodes to get good results. We're talking about something you get to wear on your wrist that takes calls and does all sorts of things.
Vivoactive doesn't have the best heart tracking, especially compared to Apple watches which are the gold standard for it. Someone who can afford an Apple watch should probably go for Garmin Venu 3. Same hybrid model benefits with a better sensor.
I follow The Quantified Scientist on YouTube and he's reviewed both I believe. I think the Vivoactive has the older HR sensor and that's why it performed a bit worse in that category.
reply