Okay I'll bite. I just see a flexing cube (agree it looks like a 90s demo). But is this site meant to do anything else? I tried scrolling or tapping and it didn't do anything.
Hm, unless I miscalculated the bit rate they use for the Simpsons demo is about equivalent to YouTube's 240p rendition (which uses 257 kbps; they use 250 kbps).
Looking at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1nmZq1KEHk at 240p I think their Simpsons rendition looks better. But that's probably because of the low resolution. Makes me wonder how well H264 would perform with the same bit rate but a higher resolution.
I think it'd be best to have a 1 to 1 comparison between the two right on the vectorly site. I'm thinking that they'd have done that if they believed they were already ready to outperform, but that's a bit of speculation.
Having spent a lot of time working on making the backend compute this with very low latency, you wouldn't believe how happy finally seeing this become a reality on the actual site would make me. :)
Its more important for you to move fast and break things and make us money than to move slow and do things the right way. The life of an engineer...Do it now! why did you do it that way!? Now we are screwed??
Facebook’s php developers like to move fast and break things. Bad design choices, monkey patching, breaking things on production, it’s all part of Facebook’s “engineering” principles.
There's some context missing here. AFAIK the author of the repositories was specifically doing micro-benchmarks here to inform the design of his https://github.com/cornelk/hashmap library. I think for that use case (designing a high-performance lock-free data structure), that kind of micro-benchmarking makes a lot of sense.
That hash map looks good and I'm thinking we'd probably benefit from using it on the hot path of some code we have that needs to be highly scalable.
(Both links were submitted to HN, but only this one seems to have landed on the front page.)
There are different categories for speedruns. This is any%.
There's usually a "no major glitches" category, which shows more of the main game. In SMW this is called either 96 exits or 11 exits. Those are actually the default categories that are most heavily run from what it looks like.
I can't speak specifically to the Beijing system but rationing (or lotteries) as a general approach are often seen as a fairer way to distribute a limited good than letting whoever has the most money have it.
That said, especially given the circumstances of Manhattan, congestion charging probably makes the most sense and also has the virtue of bringing in additional money that can theoretically be used to improve public transit.
[ADDED: I think the key here is that driving in Manhattan for individuals is something of a luxury good. We'd view things differently if this was about distributing relief food after a natural disaster.]
> I can't speak specifically to the Beijing system but rationing (or lotteries) as a general approach are often seen as a fairer way to distribute a limited good than letting whoever has the most money have it.
Lotteries are an absolutely terrible system. They fail the basic test of Pareto efficiency. Or in other words: lotteries result in outcomes in which one person could be made better off without making anybody else worse off. The only way to avoid this with a lottery is provide a secondary market, and that defeats the whole purpose of a lottery - at that point, you might as well skip the lottery and use a direct market.
Not all Pareto-efficient scenarios are good, but all scenarios that are not Pareto-efficient are bad, by definition. If Alice could be made better off without making Bob or Eve (or anyone else) any worse off, we know there's a problem.
There are scenarios though where lotteries are really the only reasonable option.
Say there's a national park campground that fills up within a few minutes of opening up reservations.
However the lottery is implemented exactly (wardialing, picking applications at random), it's pretty much how you have to do things. Raising prices until supply meets demand is (properly) politically a non-starter even if it's the "correct" economic solution.
You can have a waiting list (as I believe many Grand Canyon permits use) but creating multi-year waiting lists have their own set of problems because it makes it hard for people to plan.
You can say what you want about megaholding corporate conglomerates, but this has so much more style than abc.xyz.