I know someone that still has a VB6 job. It's apparently repetitive and they haven't had a new client for many years, but I guess it'll continue until their clients don't need the software.
There are sites that will block curl and python-requests completely, but will allow curl-impersonate. IIRC, Amazon is an example that has some bot protection but it isn't "serious".
In most cases this is just based on user agent. It's widespread enough that I just habitually tell requests not to set a User Agent at all (these aren't blocked, but if the UA contains "python" it is).
In this case, he said it's a fun and interesting way to add resiliency to the existing co-location they have.
I frequently see people default to AWS, without any consideration of any other options. If you're running beyond a couple of small EC2 instances, it's worth looking at other options such as colocation. 37signals wrote about their cloud exit and how much they saved.
I have a few machines I use to mirror / duplicate data from my tenants and client tenants when working on larger projects. It makes it much much easier.
While Egress pricing is a pain in the ass on AWS, that's usually a small fee on the customer side comparatively.
To reduce curtailment, more transmission is required. However, the planning process is absolutely ridiculous, so multiple years of consultations are required before there's a chance anything might actually get built.
Well I find it understandable. I was recently looking for a terrain to build a house and I didn't choose the one that was within the area for the new high voltage power line that they're planning.
I bought another terrain in a slightly less interesting place nearby, but that is definitely not on the path of the power line. I think it's a normal reaction.
Those transmission components are expected to cost the taxpayer at least £54 bn (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-62085297). Transmission, of course, doesn't solve storage, which, to quote the article, "can’t really be stored or stockpiled on an industrial scale". Because it can't. Batteries are orders of magnitude less than what is needed, as is hydro.
Do you think anyone would be building mammoth turbines in the North of Scotland without access to the Southern markets? Oh yes please, I really want to invest several billion pounds in order to serve Ullapool and Wick, that makes my capitalist bones tingle.
But "nuclear expensive", and of cause that isn't to do with the planning process at all. Not if you have a competing product to sell.
The UK has the most expensive electricity in the developed world, and approximately 10 times the CO2 footprint per kWh of France, or of France since the 1980s. If the goal of the renewable energy policy was to be a world leader, it has dramatically failed.
> Batteries are orders of magnitude less than what is needed
The Chinese are about to do to the battery market what they did to the solar panel market: they are going to make the bottom drop out.
Even with current battery price projections, the German transmission operators got applications for 240 GWh (peak output of 160 GW) of new industrial battery storage capacity, in 2024 alone [0]. Not all of those applications will result in realized batteries on the grid (they probably can't even connect that many), but as of today, the financials work out and now investors want to connect more industrial storage to the grid.
So batteries in Great Britain will grow - by orders of magnitude. And the nice thing is that a battery build-up like this takes a lot of strain out of the transmission lines. It allows local renewable production to be used to an even greater extend, and if local production falls short, the existing transmission lines don't need to deliver peak loads cross-country, but instead can charge the local batteries before and after a projected peak demand.
£54 bn over eight years is around 0.2% of the UK's GDP. A lot of money, but doesn't sound unreasonable for a major overhaul of a central price of infrastructure.
Ruling out the possibility of storing energy at industrial scale might also not age terribly well.
Especially if the energy being stored is heat. Heat is embarrassingly storable, much more cheaply per unit energy than electrical energy. Any industry that uses heat can be a target for thermal storage of renewable energy.
I wonder if you could use tunnel boring machines to dig tunnels to run power cables to avoid some of the NIMBY objections. Expensive sure but the tunnels will be there basically forever.
While it is not Django's responsibility to unite the Python ecosystem, continuing to rely on a tool a sizeable share of the community deems inferior to a popular alternative will keep these discussions open and results in the fragmentation OP is talking about.
Now of course it is not Django's responsibility to unite the Python ecosystem in the first place and they can value other factors and arguments as they see fit.
Although this very thread shows that there might have been something to it.
A corollary is the debate itself leads to a waste of effort that multiplies across all users. I use Rails only in anger, but to see literally nobody bike shed on the ORM is pretty amazing. Seems like you use Active Record or you write SQL and either way move on with life.
In ruby, the sequel database toolkit is vastly superior to activerecord, and that is a subject of discussion here and there. The difference is that rails is what most rubyists use at work, unlike in python, where choices are more diverse.
Why would Django move away from an ORM that works, at scale, in millions of deployed websites? They'd have to support both for many years in any case.
> a sizeable share of the community deems inferior
Well, yeah, SQLAlchemy is standalone, you can use it in a lot more situations than Django's ORM in practice, because you're not tied to using it in a Django site. But that doesn't mean it's "better"
reply