> Basically they've overspecified their datastructures and we're now paying the price
I strongly disagree, and I'm perplexed how anyone can describe fundamental traits such as object lifetimes of fundamental infrastructure such as standard data structures of being over specified.
Just imagine the shit show it would be if upgrading your compiler broke your code because std::set started leading your code to throw exceptions because they sneaked a major breaking change such as moving objects that should not be moved.
It's also perplexing how breaking backward compatibility is depicted as a perfectly acceptable thing to do to a major programming language while completely ignoring the ability to release code as a third-party library. If the new implementation of a std::set alternative is any good, people would be lining up around the block to adopt it. I mean,it's already a standard practice in game development to use custom data structure implementations with custom allocators. Why is this not an option, but breaking half of the world's code suddenly is?
Because if you need something to remain in the same place you box it yourself. Ruining the performance for everyone else because you don't want to handle some boxing on your own is hardly reasonable. This goes fully against the C++ mantra of if you don't use it, you don't pay for it. It's why you have sort and stable_sort rather than unstable_sort and sort.
Just because Hyrum's Law applies to an implementation of the standard doesn't mean that you should pessimise your implementation. You should actively hurt those who rely on implementation quirks
A significant portion of these transfers went to Ukraine. Thanks to them, is managing to resist Russia's 3-day invasion for the second years and counting.
Given Putin's repeated threat of nuclear Armageddon and annexing west Europe up to Lisbon, undoubtedly the world feels free thanks to its ability to oppose these imperialist ambitions of a few tin-pot dictators.
> Feels kind of gross to include the nieces observation that he had been stressed as some kind of counterpoint to the statement in the title.
You're grossly misrepresenting what the nieces actually said.
The article is quite unequivocal: the quote in the article is literally "stressed and depressed".
Why did you opted to omit the reference to depression? Do you think direct statements from his family should be ignored but your personal baseless assertions should take center stage?
In addition to that, here's what his own brother had to say about the apparent suicide:
> “He was suffering from PTSD and anxiety attacks as a result of being subjected to the hostile work environment at Boeing, which we believe led to his death,” the brother said.
> You have two options: -highly accomplished and highly experienced engineers were actually too stupid (...)
You're making quite clear you are the type of person who is extremely quick to accuse everyone and anyone of being incompetent in the absence of evidence or in spite of evidence.
You do not need to Google too hard to find tons of open-source benchmarks of real world servers showing off performance gains from switching to HTTP/2 and HTTP/3.
But here you are, claiming everyone is incompetent and that their work was bad. In spite of all the evidence.
It's clear that you have nothing relevant to say about the topic and no evidence to even suggest your beliefs have a leg to stand on.
> Your error in thinking is that you assume that they really wanted to build something better instead of building something new that would propel their careers.
How do you explain that some HTTP/2 server implementations handle an order of magnitude more connections than their HTTP/1.1 implementations? Is this something you downplay as accidental benefits of doing something to propel their career?
> (...) they will just turn around and say your real world data is not valid or that they need peer-reviewed article in Science.
This sounds like a bullshit conspiratorial excuse. If you have real world data and you aren't afraid of having peers looking through it, nothing prevents you from presenting it to peers.
So where is that data?
Instead, you just have vague unsupported unbelievable claims made by random people in the internet, as if that's any way to decide over policy, and any faint doubt raised over that claim is faced with conspiratorial remarks complemented by statements on how everyone around OP is incompetent except him.
I will go as far as to claim OP's assertion is unbelievable, to the point of sounding like bullshit. It's entirely unbelievable that people designing protocols for a multinational corporation whose bread and butter is stuff done over TCP connections were oblivious to how TCP works, and the most incompetent of them would bother to design the first major revision of HTTP. Unbelievable.
But hey, some random guy online said something, so it must be true!
We've banned this account for repeatedly breaking the site guidelines, and not just in this thread.
If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
We've banned this account for repeatedly breaking the site guidelines, and not just in this thread.
If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
> But I can't help but think of one "technology" that could make a scheme like this MUCH more effective.
I think this is one of those things that drive home the point that there are fundamental differences between physics and engineering.
The article states that the thermal silos are heated with excess energy from the power grid. This alone tells you right from the start that efficiency is not the primary requirement.
Sand is inert, doesn't decompose or degrade, is readily available, is easy to work with, and has no moving parts. You can make it work in a silo, or digging a well to fill it with sand. In fact, geothermal heat pumps are already used extensively in residential buildings to regulate temperature. You just have to drill a hole in the ground that's deep enough, run a water pipe through it to heat/cool the water, and run that water through your building to heat/cool the environment. The nifty trick of Polar Night Energy is that they introduce the extra step of actively heating the thermal source with cheap energy supplied by the electrical power grid.
This sort of argument is like complaining that a Formula 1 car is far more efficient than a Volkswagen Golf. Yes it is,but that's a mute point.
I can't endorse this perspective enough. The amount of energy storage we need is staggering and ever-growing. We've someone convinced ourselves that the 'baseline' is consuming with abandon millennia worth of stored energy and anything even slightly less responsive than that is too inconvenient. Given those parameters, we need any and all energy storage options and efficiency is not a priority. Tesla powerwalls were never going to power the world, but giant caverns full of sand might.
> What do you consider a budget phone needs to cost?
Spending $300 on a phone is not something anyone anywhere in the world does if they are on a budget. In some corners of the world, $300 is close to a monthly wage. How out of touch can someone be to claim this price tag is something someone spends when they are on a budget?
The reason why Chinese manufacturers like Huawei are gobbling the smartphone market in particular and the telecommunication sector in general is that they understand what "budget" means. Their product line targets budget-minded consumers, with plenty of models that cost less than $150. You can get low-end models for around $50. What could possibly suggest anyone that "budget" implies a price tag that's 6 times greater than that?
Prices are relative. Not many folks in the US are buying $50 smartphones. Sure, you can buy a smart phone that is $50, but it sure is a crappy smartphone, at least in the US. We're talking about US market here, obviously.
Obviously there's markets that need to be serviced by super cheap phones... but it's a much more brutal market to compete in.
You also need to sell literally 20x the amount of $50 phones as you do a $1000 phone to make the same amount of money (assuming your margins are the same... which they likely are not). Nobody really wants the super low end budget segment, the numbers are just bad.
> If there is one industry that is the most resistant to change, it's the construction industry. There are still people who have been roofing for 50 years and refuse to change a single thing they do and learned 50 years ago.
I think your comment is misguided and lacks reflection. Change for the sake of change is never good because by definition there is no upside. Construction technology is also expected to be reliable and have long service life, and traditional techniques ensure that by the fact that the are tried and true.
Just the comments on my comment alone justify my comment. I never said it was negative, it just is a fact. There are plenty of good new and old methods for everything. But it is resistant to change because it has to have a long service life.
I strongly disagree, and I'm perplexed how anyone can describe fundamental traits such as object lifetimes of fundamental infrastructure such as standard data structures of being over specified.
Just imagine the shit show it would be if upgrading your compiler broke your code because std::set started leading your code to throw exceptions because they sneaked a major breaking change such as moving objects that should not be moved.
It's also perplexing how breaking backward compatibility is depicted as a perfectly acceptable thing to do to a major programming language while completely ignoring the ability to release code as a third-party library. If the new implementation of a std::set alternative is any good, people would be lining up around the block to adopt it. I mean,it's already a standard practice in game development to use custom data structure implementations with custom allocators. Why is this not an option, but breaking half of the world's code suddenly is?