Why bother with macos version at all then? Soon current version becomes unusable as well, and needs windows fallback to run since macos version is useless
If there's a macos port, it'll of course be better optimized. I play CS2 on mac from time to time. It runs really smoothly on my Studio, but if it were a native port I could run it on a macbook air.
from the point of the dev - work done on the port will rot very soon, return of investment is really low. Also, the studio may not exist at all by time changes will be necessary - as fast as few days after public release nowadays :(
It doesn't make the economics any different. In a browser environment, you're maybe looking at the acceptable lease being 100MB for 1 second. Much more than that, and you start hitting limits of what browsers will let you do on low-end phones. Longer than that, and we're back to the user-observable latencies being too long.
100MB for 1 second just is not much of a deterrent.
Sure, but end users as a group still have a significant amount of RAM.
Even on a low-specced machine you can afford to have the currently-active website tab consume a few hundreds of megabytes of RAM. It was mostly sitting idle anyways, so most people aren't even going to notice. Multiply that by a few thousand concurrent visitors and you're burning hundreds of gigabytes without anyone caring.
Some scraper being forced to install hundreds of gigabytes of extra RAM in their crawling node? They will notice having to go from a $0.50 / h instance to a $15.00 / h one, solely for the extra RAM requirement.
There's a lot of places without fiber, e.g. all the ships/jets etc. there's a lot of low-density areas, there's islands with no internet or VERY expensive internet
Ships and jets are different segments from residential. Planes are definitely a textbook use case for satellite internet, but just like airlines are in a race-to-the-bottom for everything from in-flight snacks to legroom, they're not going to spring for premier high-quality internet service, they're just going to scrape by with the bare minimum. The market potential is not spectacularly impressive. Meanwhile, for residential services, rural areas continue to shrink, the people remaining in rural areas tend to be poorer, and the rural areas where rich people live have fiber, because the rich people can pay for it. Satellite internet will remain a crucial service for certain rural populations, but it's not going to take over the world, and it's not going to justify an order of magnitude more launches. Let's stop beating around the bush: the bull case for both Starlink and SpaceX is that the US military sees them as indispensible military assets, the former for global logistics, and the latter for the rapid weaponization of space.
One ton (HVAC unit) is 3.5kW of heat moved for each 1kW of input power under relatively ideal conditions, assuming a max COP of 4. The unit chosen to represent the amount of heat that can be transferred is irrelevant, you get the same information.
It is pretty simple and standardized. The spec sheet will list the cooling and heating output in kW, and then also the input in kW. The number they have displayed most prominently is the cooling output while the others will be in the specs.
Did anybody compared these directly using exactly same prompts and harness? I assume V4 Pro could be real frontier model, and if it's true, it'd be better to use it in automation or routine steps instead of simple models (e.g. haiku or even sonnet if V4pro is better)
> ActiveRecord is more pleasant to work with than the ORM of Phoenix IMHO, but not everyone shares the same feeling.
Well, depends on what you do. Ecto is closely follows SQL logic and allows to translate weird sql queries into code directly. All queries are explicit, e.g. you either do preload(...) or can't access nested records at all, no chance of N+1 by design.
Changesets are also different and are just functions you can define as needed.
defmodule MyApp.User do
...
def changeset(user, attrs) do
user
|> cast(attrs, [:email])
|> validate_required([:email])
# This matches the error from the DB uniq index to the :email field
|> unique_constraint(:email)
end
Calling it not an ORM just cause it implements a DTO is splitting hairs. It's an ORM. If you are hydrating an object that saves to storage and you are manipulating it's life cycle and then casting types between your storage primitives and your language primitives from memory to disk you are writing code that every other ORM is writing and it's not special.
As soon as you add use Ecto.Schema to your model it's an ORM.
> But it doesn't require a database and queries have to be explicit!
I'd say Rails is faster than Phoenix (as in development speed) only for the first day or so. After that you'll stumble upon impicit logic, method-missing and this kind of stuff, which will require more time to figure out how it works. Elixi/Phoenix is more exlicit in that regard, making long-term support (as in anything past first week) a breeze. No hidden state, no figuring out where ModuleName.method(params) is coming from, no need to setup stuff to launch said method (just pass right arguments). The only downside i see is smaller library of ready to use packages
Elixir and Phoenix is a better production platform than Django.. I’m not throwing shade on Django, many production systems use it happily. I’m saying that Phoenix/Elixir is better, partly because of the BEAM and OTP and partly because of the language and the framework. Real concurrency. Better performance. Far more robust in production. The language is pre-compiled, and while not statically typed, that alone provides one more safety layer. It’s functional, which avoids a lot of the ugly patterns in both Rails and Django. It has a built-in fast and reliable KV store. It has distribution between the nodes if you want it (e.g. for a distributed cache). It enables you to debug with a remote shell connected live to the running system. There’s a lot more than I can add here.
I am a Go dev, too. I consider Go my main language. The BEAM has a very, very similar architecture to the M:N scheduler in Go. Goroutines are not dissimilar to BEAM processes. You can similarly run thousands of processes on the BEAM. But Go does not have a real Phoenix equivalent and there are reasons to use Elixir and BEAM, especially on the web side, including some of what I already mentioned above.
Equivalent Go code would be very long and very ugly.
Golang has its positives but you also lose a lot. Whole ecosystem is not comparable, like "debug live production cluster" is one-command away for Elixir vs "fuck you" for Golang
Probably going to be replacement rather than direct recompilement of structs. I imagine all sorts of corner cases are lurking around if you swap implementation around, e.g. if someone force-pushed unknown key into a struct at runtime. Would be nice to keep current struct syntax though with the only difference in declaration
