Not just inefficient, it was a large scale industrial accident. A canal wall was breached and not repaired for two years and the runoff all collected in this low lying area. It’s a very odd place to visit now though for marketing reasons they tried to make it into a resort destination before it became a place you can only tolerate for a very short time.
I have never heard of “material footprint” and from the definition it seems entirely worthless. The article doesn’t start with any reason why anyone would be interested in this measure, just that comment it is starting to show up in reports.
I would have assumed it would be relevant to supply chains. I too do not understand its relevance to consumption. It seems like you could substantially increase your material footprint by digging two holes and swapping the soil, which is a little silly.
That being said, GDP is also a silly measure: I pay you a billion dollars to slap yourself, you pay me a billion dollars to stomp on my own foot, and we've just raised GDP by $2bn. Despite its ridiculous nature, in practice it seems to correlate with the things we do care about.
>That being said, GDP is also a silly measure: I pay you a billion dollars to slap yourself, you pay me a billion dollars to stomp on my own foot, and we've just raised GDP by $2bn.
In practice no because it won't be picked up by government statisticians for being obviously bogus.
This post’s conclusions are odd. It has a bunch of extensive benchmarks showing that zstd is by far the worst performing across every metric except a slight increase in compression ratio and then says the conclusion is zstd is the best choice. Unless I’m missing something in the data.
In the first benchmark it gets a ratio of 4 instead of 2.7, fitting 36-40% more data with 75% more CPU. It looks great.
The next two show it fitting 20% more data with 2-3x the CPU, which is a tougher tradeoff but still useful in a lot of situations.
The rest of the post analyzes the CPU cost in more detail, so yeah it's worse in every subcategory of that. But the increase in compression ratio is quite valuable. The conclusion says it "provides the highest compression ratio while still maintaining acceptable speeds" and that's correct. If you care about compression ratio, strongly consider zstd.
Not really, it goes so fast through the CPU that the disk speed is at worst the same and the CPU overhead is tiny (in other words it's not fast while saturating the CPU, it's fast while consuming a couple percent of the CPU)
technically sure you're correct but the actual overhead of lz4 was more or less at the noise floor of other things going on on the system to the extent that I think lz4 without thought or analysis is the best advice always.
Unless you have a really specialized use case the additional compression from other algorithms isn't at all worth the performance penalty in my opinion.
but for vps, where the cpu usage is extremely low and ram is expensive, it might make sense to sacrifice a little performance for more db cache maybe. can't say without more context
Its entire purpose is an optimization. You have an expensive operation. A bloom filter can tell you that you definitely don’t need to do that operation. So rather than wasting a lot of time unnecessarily doing that operation, you get the cheap Bloom filter Che most of the time and only occasionally have the false positive where you do the expensive thing when it turns out you didn’t need to. That as far as I am aware of is the only use case for a bloom filter. That said, I have used it for that purpose effectively several times in my career.
The main issue with a premix is like the article. It’s fit for a single purpose. I only make pancakes from scratch, admittedly I use baking powder and regular whole milk instead of buttermilk and baking soda. But the benefit is those staple ingredients can be used for all sorts of other recipes. I’m not going to bread chicken with Krusteaz. A premix can’t be adjusted either such as for altitude. Premixes and single use kitchen gadgets are areas where corporations really seem to have done a good job marketing that their products are more convenient than the readily available alternatives.
I don’t know how big the market is for high altitude. The adjustments above 3000m / 10000 ft mean that box mixes are no easier than from scratch. The mix has too much baking powder or soda.
This is such a weird example. Doctors are a professions with artificial limits specifically to raise the income of doctors in the profession. There are no starving doctors because they don’t let enough people become doctors to lower the wage.
A big part of that is “I will save you X” is a non-starter. That is not making the business more money. If you have something that will actually make the business more money then they will go “Great if I pay you twice as much will it make me 2X?” and if the answer is yes, that will be a sale every time.
Given how much some companies spend on their cloud services bills without batting an eye, I definitely believe this. They care about making more money, not so much about spending less, even though both are ways to increase profits.
I think the false advertising does great disservice to Clair Obscur. It turns off people who don’t like turn-based combat and ends up disappointing people who do like turn based combat. I very nearly bounced from what is a great game because it was not at all what I was expecting with respect to combat.
Clair Obscur’s combat would be better described as dodge and parry based as that is the primary mechanic. In terms of lineage, the combat is much closer to PunchOut than Final Fantasy 6.
It’s really fun if that is what you are expecting though.
"Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 is a ground-breaking turn-based RPG with unique real-time mechanics, making battles more immersive and addictive than ever."
Turns out the real time mechanics aren't unique. Not sure I want "addictive" battles or "addictive" gameplay either. Isn't that the realm of free to play?
I know what it is, i read the reviews and decided to skip based on QTEs [1] :)
I still don't understand how "addictive" is a positive term.
[1] To preempt some complaining, I haven't touched an Ubisoft or EA title in at least 10 years. So it's not like I'm an AAA "consumer" that skips the darling indies.
