> No, they had the option of having a real conversation in private about what we could do to improve the overall situation.
Abusing others individually in public, but expecting a quiet word on the side about “the overall situation” when it comes to your own behavior. I hope you realize something from this.
I want superiority de-coupled from technical expertise in the minds of the people who have the latter.
Taking his personal struggles out of kernel development and onto Hacker News was the escalation – pointing out his hypocrisy is only trying to get people who agree with him to realize that they’re wrong.
I was there, part of a small community writing apps pre-SDK.
Neither, I, nor anyone else, can promise you it wasn't just a simple $ calculation.
That being said, literally every signal, inside, outside, or leaked, was that apps / public SDK, if it existed meaningfully before release, had to be accelerated due to a poor reaction to the infamous "sweet solution", web apps.
I agree its logically possible, but I'd like to note for the historical record that this does not jive with what happened, at the time. Even setting that aside, it doesn't sound right in the context of that management team. That version of Apple wasn't proud of selling complements to their goods, they weren't huge on maximizing revenue from selling music or bragging about it. But they were huge on bragging about selling iPods.
It "scales to zero" as soon as the request stops as far as billing is concerned.
However, the image remains "warm" and incurs zero cost once the last request ends. So I usually have a `/heartbeat` endpoint for this purpose and point a Cloud Scheduler job at it.
I haven't read the docs to figure out the exact heuristics of when it becomes "cold" again.
You clicked on a video from Real Engineering titled “How Nebula Works” hoping to get answers to legal and financial questions? I think videos with titles like “How Internal Combustion Engines Work” would also deliberately dodge legal and financial questions. Because they’re not what the video is about.
The creator of the channel Legal Eagle is also one of the six main Standard Broadcast owners (with Real Engineering) mentioned in the article, so it sounds like we are waiting for the Legal Eagle "How Nebula Works" video.
I find it even more bonkers than that, even. Let's "frictionless vacuum" the problem: I live in a home in which all we eat is breakfast cereal. We need one spoon and one bowl per meal per person. But we own 25 bowls and 40 spoons. When we run out of bowls (that is, when the "dirty" dishwasher is running with a complement of 25 bowls), the "clean" dishwasher still contains 15 spoons. At the next mealtime, we each get a spoon and a bowl. When we're done eating, we put the dirty dishes in… Well, not either of the "clean" dishwashers!
It becomes absurd faster when you consider what a realistic household would own and eat and use. "There's no unloading necessary," he says. Absolutely ridiculous.
> But we own 25 bowls and 40 spoons. When we run out of bowls (that is, when the "dirty" dishwasher is running with a complement of 25 bowls), the "clean" dishwasher still contains 15 spoons. At the next mealtime, we each get a spoon and a bowl. When we're done eating, we put the dirty dishes in… Well, not either of the "clean" dishwashers!
So you end up washing those 15 spoons again. Big deal. Or you notice that you consistently have leftover spoons in the clean dishwasher and put some into storage, or get rid of them.
On average you use more or less the same dishes each day, so you reach equilibrium pretty quickly. You wash a bit of stuff that was already clean. It's no big.
So you're running your dishwashers inefficiently. It really does feel like a "big deal". You use more water, more salt/dishwasher cleaning chemicals, and more electricity on empty runs. The clean dishes and utensils getting extra wash degrade faster, the machine itself wears off faster too.
Maybe one day someone makes a dishwasher that can do continuous washing efficiently, dynamically adjusting for the number, type and locations of the dirty kitchenware. Until then, it feels super wasteful.
It does, but our feelings are likely miscalibrated here. Dishwashers are insanely efficient.
> You use more water, more salt/dishwasher cleaning chemicals, and more electricity on empty runs.
Unlikely. You're still running the same programme at the same frequency (you were always going to run the dishwasher when you ran out of bowls, the only difference is you have some extra clean spoons in the dishwasher when you do).
> The clean dishes and utensils getting extra wash degrade faster
Technically true, but when was the last time you had to replace a spoon because it had worn out? And how much did it cost when you did?
> the machine itself wears off faster too.
Maybe. Not convinced. You're not putting any extra dirt in it, and the sprayers etc. are likely designed to handle a full load (e.g. the shelves will always be balanced, because you'll always have a full set of dishes when you run the dishwasher).
Just to emphasize how efficient a dishwasher is with water, I had a clog in my kitchen pipes (turned out to be much deeper than my drain snake could handle and we had two clogs) and the plumber couldn't come in until a few days unless I was willing to pay for an emergency plumber. I would run the sink for 30 seconds and it would clog. But I could run an entire dish load and it would only fill a bit of the sink and everything would drain okay. Now I have a nice modern dishwasher, but it just goes to show that literally handwashing a handful of dishes is probably as efficient as doing an entire load of dishes in the dishwasher.
Well I guess in this weird household you wouldn't have that many, you'd just have the dirty one and the clean/using one each?
But you have to go to something close to 'we only eat cereal' for it to sort of work, which is crazy (and not healthy).
It's a bit like telling people to be like Steve Jobs and have a single outfit, your laundry will be so much easier, your wardrobe so much neater: sure, but it turns out most people actually don't want that... So it's really neither here nor there what problems it might solve.
2 dishwashers idea works more in a single person or 2 people household depending on habits. The dishes in the 2 dishwashers are the ones you use frequently, and for occasional times, you get the extras in the cupboards. It's also a decision you make during construction. The difference in cost between a dishwasher and a full bottom row of drawers is not much different, especially if they are beside each other and you already wired up one dishwasher.
I believe OPs point is that supply imbalances and asymmetries exist even with just one kind of meal, and they would be even more prevalent in a more-realistic scenario where multiple kinds of meals have different demands on your supply of clean stuff.
For example, 10 bowls, 10 spoons, 10 forks. If the make are fork-using salads and spoon-using soups, the shared resource--bowls--will run out before anything else does.
Pretty sure they're talking about popping into recent apps. But that isn't the gesture, you just do a short swipe up and hold for a fraction of a second until you feel the haptic buzz.
edit: actually just tried and you can also pull it to the side, but it doesn't feel quite as natural
見える only means “look” in the “to seem” or “to appear” sense.
Often in English, we have multiple words for sensory experiences to indicate how much focus is put into the action. “Seeing” a picture is less focused than “looking at” a picture. “Hearing” a song is less focused than “listening to” a song.
> “Seeing” a picture is less focused than “looking at” a picture.
Isn't that backwards? Like in the phrase "they look but do not see", which was what I had in mind in my first comment. Isn't that something like "見るけど見えない" ?
But as you've implicitly noted, you cannot see something without looking. That would be physically impossible.
You can also use "look" to emphasize that focus does not exist; one of the sentences I've collected for interesting use is "He stared at the page, not seeing it."
In that case, there is no possibility of a page being overlooked or otherwise missed. What the sentence is telling us is that although "he" is directing his eyes at the page, his mind is on something else, so "seeing" never occurs.
The difference between "see" and "look" has nothing to do with focus. It is what I noted in the discussion of Mandarin - success. Seeing is the goal of looking.
Note that this phenomenon where native speakers have no trouble obeying a distinction that their language requires, but come out with total nonsense when asked why they choose one form or another, is completely characteristic of grammatical rules, and not characteristic of vocabulary selection.
Abusing others individually in public, but expecting a quiet word on the side about “the overall situation” when it comes to your own behavior. I hope you realize something from this.
reply