A noob speaking here. Why aren't there efforts to have a memory bank like structure where you attend to a sub set of codes depending on the key(at the attention level)? is this already done with the global attention mechanism (what is it even)?
Having superficial knowledge about data storage/DBMS, perhaps I am just spewing nonsense. But I always imagine that a compaction layer for the long-tail/old data should be a standard, where less accessed(sometimes once a month) is pushed to a s3(but still queryable) like storage.
So with traditional Parquet this is usually handled through “sane” partitioning.
Heavily simplified version — Each partition is a separate file containing a bunch of table rows. And partition splits are determined by the values in those rows.
If you’ve got data with like a date column (sign up date or order date or something), you would partition on a YYYY-MM field you create early on.
Each time you run a query filtering by YYYY-MM, your OLAP query tool no longer needs to read bunch of files from disk or S3. If you only want to look at 2023-12, then you only need to read one file to run the query.
Edit — OLAP kinda stuff is all about getting the data “slices” nicely organised for queries people will run later.
Thanks for your contribution and maintaining the pion library(I am a user). The thing is that WebRTC usually isn't a complete solution, many don't want to have p2p but a p2s2p(which usually means distributed computing/SFU) solution, which makes developing an application way too complex.
Generics can be a bit of an eye sore, but go already had reflection & I recently was mucking around bigquery's internals full of `reflect` having to read through that, & it doesn't even get backed by a type checker
`func Index(s interface{}, v interface{}) int` both has to deal with incompatible types, & the function body is going to be anything but simple
(sure, without generics most people wouldn't even write that `func Index`, but ultimately there's plenty of libraries deep in reflect that'd greatly benefit from generics)
I've also been dealing with temporal.io using interface{} everywhere, got to a point where I wrote typed wrappers using generics to have type checking for signals
In C# I feel you needed generics because there was no resizable array without casting from object (the Pareto 80-20 use case) and later async and Task<T> but I don’t think these problems apply to Go so it could have done without it (maybe!). Non userspace generics may be where it is at to ease suffering in places.
As a language design though Elm remains remarkably simple with parametric polymorphism (aka Generics) but it needs other design choices to do so. Elm is the Go of Haskell :-)
Because when you define a "type Foo []int" you're definig a new type Foo that is not the same type as []int.
So if the type parameter said "[]E" where E is a comparable then "Foo" wouldn't be allowed because Foo is not the same type as "[]int" (for that you'd need a type alias i.e "type Foo = []int". This is by design since it allows you to define new types you don't want to get accidentally used where you don't want them to.
When defining library functions that are truly generic you may want instead to let them be used on the "underlying type". For example, Sort library authors decided that generally you want it to just work on the underlying type and that's why they added ~ in front of the generic type. Otherwise every invocation of Sort you'd need to convert the type e.g. "slices.Sort([]int(myfoo))".
The other type parameter "E comparable" doesn't need the tilde because "comparable" is not an actual type but a type constraint.
A type constraint is an interface that defines the set of permissible type arguments for the respective type parameter and controls the operations supported by values of that type parameter.
You don't need a tilde because any type that implements that constraint will be accepted. Also any type implementing a constraint that embeds that constraint also works
Still a good idea overall, perhaps they did a silly execution and had made efficiencies error which a team wouldn't do now a day(listed some in these comments). They somehow went for growth-at-all-cost instead of increasing their density to check the unit economics of a single location and then move on with the gained knowledge.
Disney did a better job of demonstrating the Vision Pro's ability than apple. This is obviously going to be a hit, and by gen 3 - 4(with a ton a immersive apps) it might by trailing behind iPhone.
Is the value of accreditation that high, making it an USP? i.e. should an edtech go after the universities and school as a source of certification or more after the engagement of their user on their platform? I prefer the latter.
The content is certainly more interactive, but the interaction among users is still not given and the production also requires more resources to produce(I presume). Can hardly see that this kind of service will become the future of edtech.
reply