How does someone become someone who sells the software development project? Is this an architect or sales engineer? I’m confused by how a sales engineer would gain the level of expertise needed to sell the project and specs/implementation.
While there are successful sales engineers and unsuccessful sales engineers, some of whom come from IC backgrounds, this isn't a comment about causation (or even correlation) between the two. But yes, many sales engineers transition from SWE to sales engineering for various reasons including they just like the work better. It's also true that some sales people learn enough about coding to be dangerous and transition to sales engineering that way.
While there are successful sales engineers and unsuccessful sales engineers, some of whom come from IC backgrounds, this isn't a comment about causation (or even correlation) between the two. But yes, many sales engineers transition from SWE to sales engineering for various reasons including they just like the work better.
Any stateless service can be scaled horizontally. But the fixed cost of running the JVM is higher than the runtimes in other ecosystems (say a rust application as an extreme example). The JVM has had an outrageous amount of effort put into having it scale well for large heaps with high CPU counts.
As the OP points out, GC in java-land isn't worth writing home about on 1vCPU. When you throw a 16GiB heap at it though, with 16vCPUs then you'll unlock some of the really interesting optimizations and garbage collectors that the showcase the JVM in an advantageous light.
So it's not that the JVM can't scale horizontally - that's a matter of system architecture - it's that scaling it as 100 tiny nodes is far less impactful than having 5 large nodes.
I don't know java, but that's not the message I got from the comment.
It looks like with java, 3 VMs with 2 cores are better than 6 VMs with 1 core, which may be forgotten when configuring equivalent kubernetes services.
Their point is that you can and probably even reduce cost, but you need to decide on the atomic resource unit and whether that makes sense (like having a measly single core, low ram instance/container).
The “This Week in Startups” podcast from last week, episode 1378, interviewed the CEO.
They are hiring their own drivers and building their own delivery hubs, meaning products you order are coming from their hubs, not from CVS or Walmart. They have more control over efficiency.
They even acquired BevMo and are converting those into hubs.
I'm still skeptical that anyone will win that space. The core problem (instant delivery logistics in a dense urban area) is just too expensive for the average consumer to bear. Right now every player is VC subsidized, but what happens when that money dries up?
The core problem is the whole business model is a solution looking for a problem. The number of people who actually need this is tiny, the rest are just being lazy and as soon as it gets expensive they’ll stop being lazy.
The only way around this is to ‘disrupt’ local shops out of business which I’m sure is the plan and afaict that’s a net negative for everyone apart from them.
No, the labor is too expensive. Ultimately you are paying someone for a couple hours of work, plus spending on vehicle deprecation, gas, parking, storage, all to deliver someone a packet of chips.
How do they scale demand for peak times with a fixed workforce? It seems trivially easy for say Uber to start hubs if they wanted to and they have a huge existing base.
But it comes down to execution and it will be interesting to see the space in another 5 years.
Being the tech-savvy person I am, I opted to buy my own router using Verizon FiOS. Now because I use my own router, I cannot get Live Cable Listings. That feature doesn't work if you don't opt-in and get the ISP's router.
This is literally what made me cut the cord and realize I didn't need cable and the 300 channels of garbage to begin with. The basic package I had included ESPN which I don't watch, but did not include BBC World or cspan. CSPAN!!!!
I use an OTA antenna hooked up to my plex server for dvr and just pay for internet now. Much better experience.
You probably can't monitor your usage or check any data caps you may hit as well. All the xfinity tools for monitoring rely (or at least up until recently relied) on using their leased or purchased router.
Allow me to return the question: how do you prevent scripts from draining CPU resources? How do you distinguish between legitimate resource usage (like a heavy web application that runs a lot of javascript) from a cryptocurrency miner? How do you throttle one without hurting the other?
Easy (?) when you install a new browser, it should load few standard pages in the background and check what's their CPU% usage. Get average value for all the tests, multiply it by 2 just to have a little bit of wiggle room. Next time website runs, monitor the usage, if it's over the threshold block the script and ask user if they would like to continue running the script.
I'm not going to file patent for this, thanks in the code will be enough. Enjoy :)
Except that fails if the browser is installed while something else CPU intensive is running, an update is installing, an antimalware process is doing its initial analysis, or the device is in battery saver mode.
As an alternative, you could do a survey at install time - check if a battery is present, get power profiles, run your benchmark js stuff, check CPU, RAM, disk type (HDD/SSD) - then download profiles for that/those configuration(s). Then put a 'sensitivity' slider in the advanced options to allow power users to tweak/turn off the limit.
Possible but if you set the limit too low you're going to have it pop it all the time on heavier websites (especially on less powerful hardware/smartphones). Then you condition the user to dismiss these warnings without thinking about it because of the high rate of false positives.
On the other hand if you set it too high then those websites will aim for that limit to maximize profit without triggering the warning. You'll still waste a ton of resources and you've only mitigated the issue somewhat.
I'm not saying it's impossible, just that "just add a dialog when CPU usage is high" might be a bit naive. There's a subtle balance to these things.
Because a browser can't distinguish between a CPU-intensive app, game or simulation that you want to run in your browser, a cryptocurrency miner that a website runs in your browser after it explicitly asked you and you agreed, and a cryptocurrency miner running in the background.
Of course, they could start asking for permission before letting a site use more than X CPU, or before letting the site execute JavaScript at all, but most people don't want additional popups like that.
Someone said that Firefox warns you when a site uses a lot of CPU but I couldn't trigger that warning (maybe I didn't run it long enough or the feature is in a newer version).
> Can someone point me in the right direction to learn about or just simply explain how modern-day browsers allow for scripts to drain CPU resources?
They allow it because the point of scripts is to consume some level of CPU resources, and setting an arbitrary limit on how much is too much is bound to cause a bad user experience when e.g. rendering large visualizations or playing a fast-paced game.
One common way to attribute multiple authors in a commit is to add a `Co-authored-by` commit message trailer. You can read more about git commit trailers at https://git-scm.com/docs/git-interpret-trailers.
As an example, if this was a commit message, the trailer adding my attribution would be like this:
Do they usually come from an IC developer role?
reply