C4stor
So I don't know if the concept is explained in more details elsewhere, but I think it's clearly an integral part of their communication.
It talks a lot about what happens if you use more tokens than what you're allowed, but curiously doesn't pip a word about what happens if you use less - for example maybe with a partial rebate on your next billing cycle ?
I think "fair" should mean "fair for all parties involved", currently it's rather a "we don't want to incur any risk" policy, since I don't see how it's fair for my end of the contract. I'd rather pay for my actual usage at any other provider than pay for min(actual usage, 25$) at Kagi.
If my data pipeline is "take this table, filter it, output it", I really don't want to use a "csv file input" or a "excel file output".
I want to say "anything here in the pipeline that I will define that behaves like a table, apply it this transformation", so that I can swap my storage later without touching the pipeline.
Same things for output. Personally I want to say "this goes to a file" at the pipeline level, and the details of the serialization should be changeable instantly.
That being said, can't complain about a free tool, kudos on making it available !
i2 = np.ascontiguousarray(pg.surfarray.pixels3d(isurf))
Which does the 100x speedup too and is a "safe" way to adjust memory access to numpy strides.
Whether the output is correct or not is left as an exercise to the author, since the provided benchmark only use np.zeros() it's kind of hard to verify
It feels to me that to navigate that, you essentially have to index 500 10-seconds videos, and that looks a lot easier than retrieving information that is in an actual 1 hour long video, because the later one will have a lot more of easy to mix-up moments. So maybe it hides an inability to answer questions about actual long videos (in the paper, the other example videos cap at 3 minutes length for what I can see).
On the other hand, maybe it's just for results presentation purposes, because it is much more readily "verifiable" for everyone than saying "trust us, in this very long video, there's the correct answer unarguably".
So if someone happens to more about that, I'd be very interested
Not having children is not effective at perpetuating the human race, and thus not usually considered as an ecological solution.
That being said, you don't have to have children to be an ecologist either, but you certainly should realise that your efforts are directed towards future humans, not towards the planet which does just fine anyway.
"In the UK, ages 1-59 year olds are dying at almost eight time the rate if they don't have any baby tooth left and don't absurdly love dinosaurs".
The fact that people have to actually write the whole data analysis down is mind boggling, because it's so trivial to understand the reason.
Still, this is the conclusion : "Thus, the results we see in the actual UK all-cause deaths for fully vaccinated and unvaccinated is not unexpected, and can be fully explained by the Simpson's paradox artifact since the observed ratio of vaccinated:unvaccinated all cause death rates, 1.82x in week 30, is less than the expected background ratio of 2.41x based on their disparate age distributions."
That's not "a lot of hand waving to try and explain it away". They do a very methodical and sensible mathematical analysis of the data at hand, including the initial data point, to explain a very simple thing : people tend to die older overall, and older dying people tend to vaccinate more.
So yeah, github didn't do any extra effort to restore what's imo essentially a vanity metric. Makes sense to me ?
You don't need dark patterns to opt in your users to something good for them.
And this persons surely thinks "ok, the conditions are roughly the same, what is going to make sure none of my clients even bother to ask why we chose this".
So the bank picks something they know that for sure their clients won't question, and here you are. Even if a newer provider emerged with better conditions, they probably wouldn't pick it because they don't want to deal with the inevitable questions.
Maybe if you're an e-business, you'll split everything happening on your website by client id, but still want events belonging to a single client to be received in order, for practicality.
To be fair, it doesn't. The article is explicit that it's only 20% as mass efficient s lithium-ion battery.
On the other hand, it's also true that the vehicle aluminium mass is mostly dead weight, so exploiting it to serve as a battery doesn't seem insane.
Except now, they need to know what to do when something hits it, breaks it, etc... So I'm not convinced this is a good idea for cars (or for anything), but at least, it goes in a direction that actually seems new instead of just doing "same but better". I could actually see that used as a support for solar panels so that they would litterally ship "batteries included".
It's no wonder, since bandwidth has ample room for easy improvement, while providing a good and stable ping is actually a bit difficult. But I still find it heavily biased, and a bit sad.
When you do the maths, nothing is getting that big in fact, and when it does, either it's served by slow (both in bandwidth and latency) servers anyway, either it's time insensitive in the sense of "it will run over night". I never could for the life of me convince steam/epic/whatever to give me more than roughly 50MBps. I wish I could, but I suppose it's too expensive for them ? (or they don't have correct CDNs in Europe ? I don't know). Seriously, the only sites saturating my connections are... bandwidth checkers. Everything else seems to be happy with 1 to 10% of that.
So I'm very not convinced that we'll ever commonly fill 1Gb connection. Also our brains, the ultimate piece in the information transmission chain, can't really make sense of 1Gb of (correctly compressed and packed) information per second anyway. And this hardware part won't get upgraded soon.
2. Downloading a video game is usually capped by the server providing the download and not by your fiber connection speed.
3. Same for cloud backups, I never witnessed a case where my connection got saturated by this, usually server side won't handle that much throughput.
4. I wouldn't know, i don't think it's that typical though ?
Point is, all of this roughly fits in a stable 100Mbps connection actually providing it's announced bandwidth (and not the shitshow that usually is a 100Mbps ADSL connection). 200MBps would be plenty, 1 Gbps will be unused.
In my opinion, the killer feature at some point stops being throughput and becomes latency. On 80% of the web, loading a webpage will fetch 100 1kb file (I'm exaggerating), and it's way more important to have 15 ms latency to the servers serving those files than it is to have 100Mbps, 1Gbps or w/e throughput.
The fun fact is that fiber deployments are usually seriously improving latencies over copper ones which is what will get noticed when browsing casually.
So I wonder if the american congress could cheekily say "Sure, 100/20 is good enough as long as you ensure a 15ms roundtrip latency to any server located in the US...good luck with hawaii"
Police officers end their phone conversations abruptly, academics are lone genius, managers consider their employees as slaves, chefs dedicate their life to their art...
Cinema has its codes, good or not, so you shouldn't really expect them to not be there I think !
It doesn't address any of the points mentioned in the article, and in fact, doesn't address the general theme of the article.
There is no subtext at all, the article is simple and clear, and one would be hard pressed to think that the author is trying to force anyone to do anything while reading it.
It seems pretty obvious that the author doesn't intend to coerce anyone into doing anything.