SST is AWS-specific and focuses on infrastructure-as-code for serverless apps (CDK wrapper). Encore is cloud-agnostic and works by parsing your application code to understand what infrastructure you need, then provisions it automatically on AWS, GCP, or locally. SST gives you more control over AWS-specific resources, Encore optimizes for development speed and portability. Different trade-offs depending on whether you're locked into AWS or want flexibility.
With SST v3 you're still specifying specific resources in code though, so at implementation time you have to decide which underlying infra you want to use. E.g. will you use Lambda or Fargate, this means using different SST components.
How Encore is different is that you only declare the semantics in code, and then at deploy you decide which infra to use depending on your needs for each environment. Similarly, you can choose at deploy time if you want to colocate services or deploy as separate processes, with no refactoring needed.
You don't need an external machine. Since games are set up to allow twitch etc streaming, it's easy for apps on the same machine to get access to the video.
Don't know about britain, but generally a popular neoliberal thing with PPPs is to copy the private sector and "turn capex into opex".
If you lease a road or school for 20 years, it doesn't show up as debt in your books, which the city has made necessary for itself, because it has saddled budgeting framework with some arbitrary debt caps that are constantly at the limit.
This can be sold as a success story depending on how it's told - it lets you get the school you need after all (even if it's wasting money vs doing it the normal way). And it's making the participating companies great profits, just don't mention whose pockets it comes out of.
PFI has been an absolute disaster in Scotland: not only incredibly expensive, but there were some substandard construction issues that became very public when a wall in a school simply fell over (fortunately outside hours so no injuries!)
That has happened in Britain. it was how Gordon Brown claimed a balanced budget while running up what would be classified as off balance sheet debt if anyone other than the government did it. A lot of things like hospitals were financed this way.
I would say the motive here was mostly to avoid increasing the government debt numbers. it would not work if the government did not exempt itself form the rules applied to everyone else.
This isn't really true, running things in the government also cost a huge amount of opex. Sure you do get one time payment and the resulting company will have to be hired but it will usually also have to start to compete. This could potentially result in more or less opex.
Running an airline just so you don't have opex seems a bit silly to me for example.
Well, the brits eventually decided against it after a thorough investigation found it to be a waste of money - "a January 2018 report by the National Audit Office found that the UK had incurred many billions of pounds in extra costs for no clear benefit through PFIs". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_finance_initiative#End...
Another antifeature is the lack of transparency. The costs and operations of the private company aren't public, which means the public doesn't know if the quality problems are due to skimping on costs or mismanagement etc and don't get the feedback necessary for decisionmaking for subsequent contracts.
Regarding your airline analogy: my criticism wasn't about the private sector, my criticism was about copying it (poorly) in the public sector. There's things to criticise in the private sector side accounting incentives as well but it's a different kettle of fish.
Britain is also uniquely bad at government contracting. As we can see in detailed studies about cost of transport engineering.
As with everything things can be done well and can be done badly. And it really depends on this exact situation and the exact contract.
And both well done likely not that different in cost and other factors need to be included.
In terms of transparency having an isolated outside of government structure, you can potentially be more transparent as you can get detailed contracts down to item levels and have all those things be public. This is done in other nations when it comes to transport projects. But it of course depends on the government writing the contract to demand the level of transparency.
"As far as current models suggest, we conclude that the risk of a northern AMOC shutdown is greater than previously thought,” Drijfhout and his colleagues wrote.
The biggest variation is above 6 GHz: most of the world allows 5.9-6.4 but reserves 6.5-7 GHz for cellular or haven't decided yet if it'll be for wifi or cellular. There's a nice map on https://6ghz.info/
I suspect the first compilers were named that because they were making compilations of assembly routines, probably slightly modified/specialised to the rest of the routines.
Compilers still do that. Some of the input is your source,
but there's also "the compiler runtime" which is essentially a lot of extra routines that get spliced in, and probably "the language runtime" which gets similar treatment.
So compilers are still joining together parts, we've just mostly forgotten what crt or udiv.s are.
Linking and loading are more dubious names, but also they refer to specialised compilers that don't need to exist and probably shouldn't any more, so that may resolve itself over time.
The first compilers were called "translators". The first linker/loader (kinda, A-0 was a... strange tool, by modern standards) was actually called "compiler", precisely because of the generic meaning of the word "compile".
What's the Android situation there? Last I heard Google didn't license Android there and they were using Chinese app stores with forked AOSP Android. Which would seem to put the sideloading decision in the hands of the forked OS.
