Insurance?

I’m sure there are countless other benefits. But how many layers of abstraction, services and things that need configuring are their compared to basic RAID to get support for magical hard disks that can be yoinked without affecting workloads?

> Compared to basic RAID to get support for magical hard disks that can be yoinked without affecting workloads?

These things aren't mutually exclusive though. I've spent the last few years working with kubernetes at work and running a 'simple'(but with tons of containers and weird edge cases / uses) unraid server at home for all of my needs. At some point I flipped over from 'jeez kubernetes is just too much, almost nobody should ever use this' to 'wow I have to migrate 99% of my home services to a cluster, this is driving me nuts.' I haven't quite gotten around to that migration, but I do think that k8s cluster for services / temporary storage / parallel jobs and separate unraid box that runs NFS (and doesn't do much else) is going to be a great setup for a home lab.

You get an aligned infra layer. You get a great opensource ecosystem (k8s, argocd, git / gitops, helm, helm charts, grafana, prometheus etc.)

You get basic loadbalancing, health checks, centralized and nearly out of the box logging and monitoring and tracing.

You get a streamlined build process (create a container image, have an image build, create your helm chart, done)

Your RAID commment is quite far away of what k8s makes k8s

Aren't disks so large those days that losing a disk almost means you will lose a second disk during resilvering unless that by "basic raid" you're doing not-basic-raid things such as btrfs raid1c3?

Waymos all the way back

They claim the panels produce 20% more energy not that they are 20% more efficient.

How do they produce 20% more energy in the same area without being more efficient?

Easy! They have a little diesel engine strapped underneath. /s

Solar panel energy production is their efficiency in converting solar radiation into electricity.

So yes, they seem to be 20% more efficient in converting solar radiation into electricity.

Though I have to say that this is an iterative upgrade, not groundbreaking. If they increased their efficiency by 20% in absolute terms - that would be groundbreaking.

It’s one measure of their efficiency. We could also talk about their cost efficiency or their area efficiency.

Solar panel efficiency is already based on the area, just as solar radiation is measured in W per square meters.

Interesting thanks. So could you have a panel that is slightly more efficient in energy capture than the current best alternative but uses 20% less panel area? I’m entirely unfamiliar with how testing is performed

Even LLMs can see the false dichotomy here

Then it should be trivial to point out the error. So do it.

Perhaps there are more lucrative applications where LLMs can be applied

Maybe. But in the list of lucrative applications I think bug-fixing is near the top. I think it's lucrative enough to attract at least a decent chunk of engineering talent.

Agreed. There have been many assessments of what bugs cost, and the assessments are often very high, and that's the reason the industry has, for decades, been working towards having _fewer_ bugs.

Checking buildings you already know to have a license seems wasteful, but perhaps I missed something?

Might there be other reasons to report lower profits?

Is the first more fallible because it’s quantified? Otherwise isn’t it easier to falsify a “powerful security feature” as it could be neither powerful or security related. Whereas a “bad” request is much less specific and thus harder to disprove?

That is what falsifiable means. It is a claim the truth of which can be disproved. “Powerful” is no more falsifiable than “best.”

Words matter but so does context. You weren’t confused by the words here why assume others would be?

Restaurants?

Often give or display a menu with prices.

Often or always? Is reading a generic description of a product (menu) seeing the thing?

What about alcoholic drinks in pubs or bars “2 pints of your best and a glass of house red”.

Alexa may not be great for purchasing from Amazon but this isn’t because humans have never shopped using only their voices. Nor is seeing things required.

People who can see and read almost never use voice-only to shop.

Restaurants and catalogs have menus. Street vendors show you their goods.

You don't need to take my word for it. No one uses Alexa this way. The proof is in the outcome.

The dash button doesn’t use voice it hasn’t proved popular either. Various other threads suggest stability of pricing as an issue. Voice ordering may be part of the issue, as might being unable to see the goods. There is likely a number of issues. The fact something doesn’t work doesn’t prove a single explanation.