Unless I misunderstand, AWS SnapStart and their memory snapshots are the same feature (taking memory snapshots to speed up cold start). It doesn't seem a fair comparison to ignore this and my assumption is because AWS Lambda SnapStart is faster.
I think it's fair because AWS charges extra for it.
They are comparing the baseline product of all three platforms. Why should we take paid add ons into account for 1 platform.
As I mentioned, if you are ok with paying, then you should also compare Provisioned concurrency on AWSbas well, which has 0 cold start (they keep a prewarmed lambda for you).
Product comparisons are not purely technical in nature. As a user, if im paying extra, I would much rather the 0 cold start than just a reduced cold start especially with all these additional complexities.
It wasn't an intentional omission, we weren't aware of this feature in AWS Lambda. The blog post has been updated to reflect that the numbers are for Lambda without SnapStart enabled.
Python Workers use snapshots by default and unlike SnapStart we don't charge extra for it. For many use cases, you can run Python Workers completely for free on our platform and benefit from the faster cold starts.
The main reasons for micro services (that I didn't see covered) is that it reduces cross team overhead. 10 people working on a service is fine, 100 people working on a service requires processes which slow development down (as no one can keep what is changing in their head)
> The real case for microservices is to support going fast in highly competitive markets. Microservices support functionally highly independent teams with an architecture style that provides them with complete independence from other teams all along the IT value chain.
The interesting thing is that it that night trains can be quicker if you consider the waking. e.g. Zurich to Berlin - the train leaves at 8pm and gets in at 7am. So it is 2-3 waking hours spent.
(Does of course depend on how well you sleep on trains)
Immich (https://www.immich.app/) is still under heavy development, but looks like it will hit most of those requirements (but not automatic album generation).
4 out of the 5 people I know with Garmin watches need the battery life while tracking to exceed 8 hours (this watch lasts 1 hour).
I doubt any of them are going to see this and swap their Garmin for an Apple watch.
I think the Apple watch and Garmin are aimed at very different markets and with current technology Apple can't provide what Garmin does without compromising their design.
Can Apple improve its battery life faster than Garmin can improve its UI, app ecosystem, and integration with the world’s best selling phone? I think so. I think Garmin is going the way of Blackberry.
It's really a shame how the UK abuses the word country for internal divisions, and the US abuses the word state for the same purpose, so now we have to either accept weirdness or use unwieldy terms like sovereign state.
I know there's good historical reasons, but it muddles language regardless.
Well, I don't speak German (only recognize a few words), but the meanings of "Land" seem to include both "country" and "state". (As it's part of quite a few country names in German. Including Deutschland itself :) )
“Deutschland” historically meant “the territory where German-speaking people live”, not a country. The name comes from early Middle Ages when the concept of a national country was not established yet. The idea of Deutschland as a country exists only from 19 century.
Well, that's true for most countries. The idea of nation states originated (or at least became popular) in the 19th century. Before that the areas were mostly organized around rulers (like kings).
But it has little to do with the current meaning of the word. I've looked up a few more countries that have the word 'Land' in their name: Weißrussland, England, Estland, Finnland, Griechenland, Russland, etc.
Keep in mind that a modern US state is not the same as US state 200 years ago. At this point, the US federal government dictates substantially more of every aspect of a states rule: from education to exports, licensure to healthcare.
The US was an unique attempt at parallel state rule, but consolidation is always inevitable.
However, the legal systems can still be wildly different. The ounce of marijuana that anyone over 21 can buy from a state-licensed shop and possess in Colorado could mean a $2000 fine and up to 6 months in jail in Texas.
Denmark is yet another multiple-country sovereign state- Denmark (proper), Greenland, and the Faroe Islands are constituent countries of the Kingdom of Denmark.
That's not such a great example, since Greenland and the Faroe Islands are both of zero significance. (Greenland is significant geographically, but not as a political entity.)
There's no abuse about it. The UK invented the English language, you can't really claim they are using it wrong. Country, state and nation are different things.
> Scotland is a country that is part of the United Kingdom (which is also a country).
Depending on how you define "country", of course. The definition that makes Scotland "a country" seems mostly historical and peculiarly British. (One would think that also makes Northern Ireland "a country". Is it? Or Cornwall? If not, why not?)
In ordinary day-to-day language, though, "a country" is mostly synonymous with "a sovereign nation", which Scotland isn't. As several comments in this discussion have shown, it seems mostly to be a question of recognition by others, mainly neighbours. Scotland's closest neighbour, the United Kingdom, certainly doesn't seem to recognise it as a sovereign nation. As for international consensus, the closest proxy seems to be membership of the United Nations. Which Scotland has as much as Sealand does. (Perhaps the easiest way to see the conflicting interpretations is that something can't by definition be sovereign if it's part of something else.)
So "Scotland is a country" is true for some values of "country", but not all. (And IMnshO, not the most pertinent ones.)
Your suspicion is correct, under conditions that generally apply.
Trains on level ground have extremely low rolling resistance. This means that if you have enough train sets for peak service, running the train sets all day often makes sense, because the additional cost (in terms of CO₂) of operating a train set for an additional hour is so low. It also means that adding passengers to a half-full train is practically free (again, in CO₂).
Diesel trains are better than diesel cars. Carrying a 1000 kg shell for an average of 1.something persons with its own engine and air resistance, and needing to be able to stop in a few hundred meters even at top speed, is less efficient than having one engine and one front side to push air out of the way and low rolling resistance for transporting many people, if you compare equal fuel sources.
But then cars are more flexible because you can take your portable shell anywhere at any time, not like the train. Then again, I like train rides (especially the Arriva trains between Sittard and Roermond are super comfy). There's a future for both, I'd say as someone who takes the bus and train at every opportunity (including for daily commute) but still finds himself in a car regularly.
For context, the example from the Serde wiki written in Java using Jackson
public record Point(int x, int y) {}
// [...]
var objectMapper = new ObjectMapper();
var jsonString = objectMapper.writeValueAsString(new Point(2,1));
It isn't obvious to me what advantage Serde offers that you couldn't get with Jackson or other similar libraries in Java (although I get that Java and Rust are different languages, and that there may not be something this ergonomic in the likes of C++)
For that example there's no advantage. But it's really, really easy to find examples where there are (the simplest example is, anything with pointers with @NonNull annotations, or anything which is performance-sensitive and contains other objects).
In my view, if the answer involves a topological sort the interviewer should know how to solve it and be able to follow and find errors in the candidates code. If the interviewer, knowing the answer, cannot find any issues then surely the code is fine (for code written in an interview)
It's also possible that she hadn't seen the particular algorithm used before, or that she was having an off day or stressing about a meeting immediately after the interview, or that there were errors that she did see and she didn't want to say "yeah there are errors here" because doing so could affect the candidate's confidence in the interviews after hers. I could imagine any of these being true. Or she could just be a bad interviewer.
That is irrelevant. Asking someone to type non trivial code outside of IDE and then expecting it to compile and run without issues is lunacy. Even junior programmers know this. The interviewer in this story was either an amateur, an idiot or on power trip.
I guess I'm also an idiot then, thanks, how kind of you to say that.
Actually hang on, I'm editing this to be slightly meaner. Your whole take that doing this is a sign that she's either an idiot or on a power trip is a very familiar thing that people say about women in tech and I'm honestly tired of it, because I can see myself doing exactly what she did and I don't like it when people say those things about me. Please don't do that.
You just can't tell someone to type code into google docs and expect it to just work and worst off all judge a persons skill on this basis. It takes minimal experience of programming to learn this. Hence all the jokes that people are surprised/suspicious when their code runs after first compile.
If you disagree with this you could have provided any sort of counterargument. Instead you took this weird "women in tech" angle. Wrong is wrong, interview here was wrong, gender did not play a role.
If you can't assess someone on their response then you're not interviewing them, you're just giving an exam by proxy. But that might very well be because the whole recruitment process is thoroughly stupid.
