Maybe, but what's the mechanism for government guarantees below a certain range increasing demand above that range? Someone who can only qualify for a mortgage because it's guaranteed by the government isn't going to be able to make the jump into a non-guaranteed mortgage easily.
Sure, but they why kWh/h instead of kW? If you're inclined to measure the quantity of gas in terms of its energy, why not measure its flow in terms of power? (of course kWh/h _is_ power, but why denote it so strangely?)
This conveys the state of the mind, what's important. A more clear example is car mileage, which is expressed in l/(100 km), but can be shortened to area unit like mm² (and it even has a physical interpretation: https://what-if.xkcd.com/11/), but that's not what we need to know (how much mm² of petrol your car burns?).
Similarly, we don't need power of the transfer of the gas, we need to know how much gas gets exchanged, because it's priced per kWh, so removing h from each side actually makes things harder in another equation.
Why would one presume that the reason has anything to do with computation error rates, rather than something obvious and mundane like "Graviton instances are more profitable"?
> If you talk to Dell/HP/other, they can advise you and sell you large storage appliances. Problem is, the larger appliances will only host 1 or 2 PB. That's nowhere near enough.
This is just incorrect.
If you talk to HPE, they should be quite happy to sell you the my employer's software (Qumulo) alongside their hardware. 10+ PB is definitely supported. (The HPE part is not required)
If you talk to Dell EMC, they will quite happily sell you their competing product, which is also quite capable of scaling beyond 1-2PB.
Most (all?) enterprise vendors will go well beyond 1-2PB.
Four years ago, one of the all flash vendors routinely advertised “well under a dollar a gigabyte”. Their prices have dropped dramatically since then, but the out of date numbers translate to “well under a million per PB”. That’s at the high end of performance with posix (nfs) or crash coherent (block) semantics. (Some also do S3, if that’s preferable for some reason)
With a 5 year depreciation cycle, those old machines were at << $16K / month per PB. Today’s all flash systems fit multiple PB per rack, and need less than one full time admin.
I've checked what I could find on Qumulo. It is software that you run on top of regular servers, to form a storage cluster.
It seems to me you're only confirming my previous point, that you need to invest in complicated/expensive software to make the raw storage usable.
>>> Then you're going to have to handle "sharding" on top of the storage because there's no filesystem that can easily address 4 racks of disks. (Ceph/Lustre is another year long project for half a person).
There's no listed price on the website, you will need to call sales. Wouldn't be surprised if it started at 6 figures a year for a few servers.
It looks like it may not run on just any server, but may need certified server hardware from HP or Qumulo.
> Then you can mine the currency and provide them to other players in the game, either by giving it away or selling it.
> “It’s a way to compensate people who really believe in us in the beginning,” Schiermeyer said. “That’s how we’re structuring the blockchain. The people who were first to play it are going to get more than people who are last to play it. So, I mean, there’s definitely a reason to come in.”
So, uh, it's a pyramid scheme, thinly disguised as a game?
"the third-child deterrent appears stronger among wealthier families"
So this has both the most and least effect on families that have little reason to care about needing a bigger car (because they can easily afford it, or they can't afford any car at all, respectively). When you go fishing for a correlation, form a post-hoc hypothesis for its mechanism, and then other data fits that hypothesis poorly, it's a strong sign you've found yourself a red herring. Which is the usual result of failing to properly understand the distinction between correlation and causation.
With increasing wealth, per-child cost goes up. It's self-imposed of course.
Getting a larger Porsche or BMW or Mercedes is going to be harder than getting a larger used Hyundai or Kia. At the extreme, you're just out of luck; there is no Ferrari with more than 4 seats.
So, honest question, because I'm genuinely bewildered: why would you bother doing this, when Firefox exists, is perfectly functional, and isn't made by Google?
I’m back to Firefox after many years, it’s quite good and I don’t miss anything from Chrome other than one click translate page button. Also looks like FF has caught up Chrome performance-wise. It’s fast, it respects your privacy, very nice!
I've been using Firefox as my daily driver for perhaps a year or more now.
As well as the translate page button, the other great feature chrome has that I miss dearly is the highlights chrome has in the scrollbar when doing a ctrl-f find-in-page. That is super-useful and a real pain in the arse that Firefox does not support it.
I played around with prototyping an extension to replicate it (or as close as I could get) but it was hard to nicely override the ctrl-f hooks.
It actually feels faster than Chrome to me. I've been primarily on Firefox for the past few months and was really surprised to find Chrome not feeling as responsive when I tried to use it recently.
I'm slowly cutting the cord with nearly all social media sites and other sites that track me for any reason, and as part of that, I'd like to get away from Chrome and use a truly open and privacy-focused browser. Every time I start Firefox, I'm turned off by how unpleasant it looks. The UI is just bad. Sharp corners, asymmetrical margins, crowded menus, lack of whitespace. The rendered colors don't match Chrome. Fonts aren't as smooth. It's like switching from MacOS to Linux. Things just don't look good, and that matters.
I am not entirely confident in this but from my perspective, a simplistic reading of what you say appears to be "I want privacy but only if I don't have to endure even minor inconveniences for it."
This may never happen unless privacy was as profitable as selling data on people's behaviour.
You put a gram of sarcasm on your simplistic reading, but I think you need to realize that anything people use daily, even hourly, needs to make them feel comfortable. For whatever reason, the poster you're replying to is bothered by him but for something he has to deal with so often, it's hard to override that feeling.
I guess what I'm really saying is that frequently used things probably involve human phycology and emotions just as much as someone's intelligence.
That’s awesome. I took that cord cutting one step further.
I completely stopped using all products and services from FAAMG and committed to a complete digital detox plan. Using my devices with a clear intention in mind, rather than getting sucked into a dopamine driven vortex of dark patterns, has changed my life for the better.
For email, I made a protonmail and I’m still in the slow process of changing my email over on all the critical websites I depend on. For my phone, I got a Light Phone II. For my desktop and laptop OSes, I use Linux distros (Solus and Manjaro are my favorites). For GPS, I use a Garmin, and for reading, I use a Kobo e-reader.
It’s ironic that devices that do everything for us, instead of specializing in one important thing, have negatively impacted our lives when they were supposed to improve them.
For me sadly it's the WebSpeech API. A lot of sites that use speech-to-text and text-to-speech break on FF and also the voices FF aren't nearly as good as Chrome.
This bug has been pending for many years now and I don't think it ever going to be on their priority list soon.
I have an intermittent issue in FF across platforms/networks where I can watch in network console as I enter a URL, and I can see it not even trying to send the request. All I can find is a fixed issue from 2017 and I don't have the time nor inclination to try to figure out why this would be happening. Searching for a cool new browser for the Linux box but I might just install Chromium and be done with it.
I'm having a similar issue with FF. When I open FF and go to gmail.com, it doesn't load. I filed a bugzilla some time ago and it's still not fixed yet. FF is not usable for me so I switched back to Chrome.
There are some convenience issues with Firefox that bother me:
- It starts slower then Chromium.
- Right click and "Open in new private window" actually opens in a new private window. I prefer how Chromium does it, grouping all sites opened like this as tabs in one window.
- In Chromium, I can easily set any URL as a custom search engine with whatever parameters I like. In Firefox, I can't.
In my experience, Chromium renders and is interactive ~~faster~~ earlier, but they have about the same time between launch and browse. On Chromium, I launch, type in a site, hit enter, and wait and wait as it finishes actually starting up. FF takes longer to appear but is ready to browse as soon as it does. Or at least it did until some time in the last year or two, at which point it started taking a page out of Chromium's book. But honestly, I don't do cold starts that much so it doesn't bother me much one way or another.
While I dont think you can set any url as a "search engine", you can set any url as a parameterized keyword bookmark. Create a bookmark, then edit its properties, put %s in the url, and assign it a keyword. This behavior is more straightforward to setup in chrome but it at least exists in firefox.
I can't remark on the first two (I don't start my browser that often, it just status open, and most of my private browsing use cases are covered by the temporary containers extension), but the search engine issue (which is super annoying) can be solved with an extension:
Im back to FF for almost a year now. I am experiencing a lot of hiccups, freezes and crashes. I think FF should concentrate to improve the browser first and foremost. They’ve been adding a lot of useless (to me) features but the broswer is still buggy. It’s their time to claim their market back from chrome, or it will start happening soon and I think they should just concentrate on the browser.
Are you on Windows by any chance? I experience that with Firefox only when I use Windows (i.e. almost never, fortunately). I switched to Firefox on my main computer (Linux) a year ago and I could not be happier. It consumes much less memory than Chrome, it's way faster (that's my impression, I haven't measured that in any way) and it is a lot more customizable. I removed a lot of stuff from the context menu for example.
As a bonus, it isn't made by Google. I was a hardcore Google fan a few years ago, but after seeing what they are doing with Chrome and the internet, I just could not keep using Chrome any longer.
> Also, I block firefox myself. It phones home a lot, even when you tell it not to.
Do you have sources on this? I use Firefox on Mac OS with Little Snitch and have never had Firefox try to phone home with analytics disabled (a one click decision on first start of the app).
Shavar is the server from which Firefox downloads update to its Safe Browsing and Tracking Protection site lists. “Shavar” is the name of the differential update protocol Google designed and uses for Chrome Safe Browsing site list.
aus5 is the server from which Firefox downloads new Firefox updates. “aus” stands for Auto Update Service.
I’m not exactly what data is downloaded from firefox.settings.services.mozilla.com.
Settings one is interesting, it does appear that you cannot block it[0] and that is sad.
The other two appear to be safe browsing and automatic update related. Those two services can be disabled form the regular settings UI, I think? Have you found that to not work?
I really really really tried to give Firefox a chance, but gmail and some other sites are unusable, 40% are slower and admittedly the other 50% work just as fine as in Chrome.
I have had some problem with Firefox for many years, maybe 5 years since I've tried to use it.
The problem is whenever I start FF it hangs for 30 seconds before I can type the first url in. That duration and the fact that it's consistent means it's clearly a network timeout.
I have a locked down computer, layers of security enhancements so I kind of understand something I've done is causing it.
However, why should it lock up for 30 seconds if it can't do some background thing! On startup! It's an atrocious UI failure. And it's been this way for 5 years that I've been counting, through their Quantam speedup etc. Major flaw and unfixed for aeons of 6 week release cycles.
Btw it's not updating as it still updates ..
It's actually really bad design to have a lockup like that, and especially on the critical hot path of the first time you use it! It's a sign actually of bad user experience design, and it's one of a number of bad anti-user things I've found about it. Things that Chrome gets so right!
I want to ditch Chrome because of the many Google anti-features, but UX is also very important to me I use the browser all day every day and I'm extremely fast at the UI with advanced shortcuts etc. Firefox locking up for 30 whole seconds before I can use it not only destroys my flow but is actually an eternity - I could have about 40 chrome tabs opened with urls types and autocompleted or pasted into the url bar in that time ..
Sadly Firefox blows on a large number of design decisions. I get the impression that user experience is down the list at Mozilla, below either Google donations or SJW antics. Whatever, but they consistently fail on important points. I wish it wasn't so I truly do. I'm in the process of moving to Brave in anticipation of uBlock finally being sabotaged by Google.
I have the opposite problem, strangely: Firefox always starts instantly, but at some point in the last two months the autoupdate feature stopped working. A minute or two after starting FF, I get an in-browser popup that the autoupdater couldn't download the latest version automatically (even if I am on the latest version as I now update it manually).
There are lots of games that run on linux these days. Personally, my wishlist has a deep enough backlog of linux-supporting games that there's very little risk I'll ever be "forced" to dip into the windows-only portion of the list.
For those times when I really just want to play a specific game that's Windows-only, dual-boot works great. I couldn't care less if telemetry tells Microsoft I start my PC every few months to play a few games ;)
I'm pretty skeptical that there are many real cases where eliminating Windows as a primary OS is a matter of "can't" and not "don't care enough to tolerate an occasional minor inconvenience". The latter case gets little sympathy when they complain about Microsoft's bad behavior.
Unfortunately, many modern shooters use anti-cheat software that stops you from running them in Linux. They're my biggest barrier to being full Linux all the time.
We are not talking about just a few games as in the pre-steam days, but ~30% of all games on steam have native ports for linux now and over 70% can be played with proton by now.
And in the end you will always have to make a choice what games to play, since not everyone owns every console ever (which have exclusive titles) or the latest and greatest hardware to play the very latest AAA titles (quite a few of which have native linux ports by now)
I'm not sure it's as much of a contradiction as you think it is. Noting "It manifests itself in the declining visit and posting frequency on Facebook across many cohorts", I find it entirely plausible that feeding the trolls yielded short term lift in target metrics at the expense of (much harder to measure and correctly attribute) long-term attrition of non-troll users. That hypothesis certainly fits the popular perception that FB is dying/dead. It somewhat fits my personal experience: I fairly aggressively pruned my news feed of any political content, which seems to have kept away the trolling, but the personal content that I wanted has dried up and my feed is now mostly ads and generic "recommended" clickbait. Why bother visiting?
