yes. took part in a hackathon and decided to make my own webframework while doing it. It was supposed to be compatible with deno and bun and I chose deno deploy to deploy my stuff. But 17 hours before the deadline this happened:
https://twitter.com/spirobel/status/1786665928954085562
deno deploy just showed a completely useless error message and stopped working.
I installed caddy on a vps and got it to work in 5 minutes.
I ripped out the deno compatibility and switchded to bun sqlite instead of turso and the website got even faster.
That is because the server has the data in the sqlite db. No need to roundtrip to turso.
It is like a non bloated version of nextjs. My intention is to displace php and wordpress. It is possible to get started with just html and css knowledge, but you have the whole javascript ecosystem at your fingertips.
It has no external dependencies, just 3 modestly sized files you can understand in an afternoon and it will reload your browser and rebuild when you save your code.
I’ve noticed several YouTube channels that have hundreds of thousands or millions of subscribers but new videos are watched only by a fraction of a fraction of that subscriber number. iJustine has 7.1 M subscribers but her latest videos have between 0.05 M to 0.15 M views.
Either TikTok and Instagram pull all the viewers over to their platform or there is a problem with YouTube’s subscribtions feed. In any case, many YouTubers are frustrated by the few views.
There's definitely a problem with Youtube's subscription feed, well, many problems. Recommendations suck and I can't find anything even when searching for it explicitly. Who could've predicted that user-hostile crap would get users to leave? Not Google!
If people stop watching a channel, even if they're subscribed, unless they have all notifications enabled for the channel, YouTube will just stop recommending it to them and notifying them about new uploads. This isn't a conspiracy; it makes a lot of sense for a recommendations engine, and it more accurately models a pattern that repeats itself time and time again: person gets big off of something popular, that something falls off a cliff, and unless they pivot and their audience pivots with them, they also fall off a cliff as their audience gets bored and stops coming back. Why should YouTube keep prioritizing and recommending videos to the people that no longer watch them?
IMO, YouTube has done a much better job recommending content from small channels the past couple years, and has introduced me to some great creators I would otherwise never have known about. Perhaps part of the recommendations have come at the expense of "channels you used to watch and maybe still would if they actually put out something fresh for a change," and there certainly is a conversation to be had there about the lack of transparency from YouTube whenever they change the algorithm, but as to which is better (subscriptions vs. small channels tangentially related to your viewing habits) is a matter of personal preference.
In the beginning of the article it sounds like he saw the object they caught in the net (“What Olver’s net eventually brought to the surface”, “As soon as I saw it I knew what it was.”). In the end of the article where they cite an email he wrote in 2017, it sounds like he never saw the object but his gut instinct told him it was a wing, not a shipping container (“I am convinced this was an aircraft wing”). The wording of his email doesn’t help his case. Leave out all the irrelevant fluff and just say you caught a commercial plane’s wing or large part of it in your fishing net in 2014 and state the coordinates where you dropped the net.
Regarding the authorities’ response: It’s strange they did not start an investigation when he claimed he found plane debris.
> Do podcasts that could be played on iPods but started publishing in a newer audio format cease to be podcasts?
No. You can still play play it on an iPod if you save it in an alternative format the the iPod can play or if you install custom software.
The term "podcast" should be discontinued only if it stops meaning anything because e.g. people insist it means something that's the exact opposite of what it should mean. The word "algorithm" is approaching this level. We're going to have to come up with a new word because journalists ruined it.
It’s worse. The configurator is labeled with a relative price upgrade but an absolute RAM size. The actual deal is +$200 for +8 GB RAM which is outrageous.
Sure, but they aren’t charging you anywhere close to cost. It’s painful for a company that size to add an option like this. Plus they know they can add a chunk on because if you’re in the market for that option, they know how much you want it.
The same discussion about cost/value comes up every single time.
Often, people will search for a random part that fulfills the same function, sort by cheapest, and then let their indignation run wild, completely ignoring the difference in form factor, other properties, or even quality.
That said, it’s no secret that Apple adds a healthy margin and an “inconvenience” tax.
In Apple’s ideal world, all people would purchase a handful of mass-produced configurations. This saves them in manufacturing costs, assembly costs, and logistical costs.
Apple also spent an ungodly amount on engineering to “make more with less”.
In the long run, this saves them money on lower-capacity components, especially at the quality and with the ancillary properties they're purchased.
This is why spec for spec their iPhones and Macs look underpowered compared to competitors while performing the same if not better.
So, from their perspective, it’s “fair” to upcharge the “spec peepers” and professionals who really need it. The latter is generally less price-sensitive.
As you've stated people will make comparisons between the cheapest bottom rung slot-in ram against what's on offer from Apple's UMA. It's naive.
But even when one could just pop in your own RAM, many would still buy Apple's upgrade, which sounds insane on the surface. But there are actually pretty sound reasons for it:
1. They're buying the Mac hardware because it works. That's one of the core motivations for spending the extra to begin with.*
2. Adding ram is the gateway to unexpected crashes, such as errors that only pop up during heavy use, higher temperatures and the like. It doesn't have to be cheap either.
3. But if one is going for those cheaper components, one gets what they pay for: "mislabeled"(online fraud schemes), counterfeit, bottom-rung binned components sold as legit are par for the course.
--
* A lot of brands say their products work, when they simply don't. Here's some of my own examples:
I'm now onto my 3rd brand of mesh wifi routers - why? Because what's out there is garbage, even when you pay a lot for it. It's clear that there is insufficient QA on many top brands, and they simply won't acknowledge that the product they've sold you doesn't perform.
I purchased one of the pricy 5k LG screens that were a total lemon, at this level of expense you don't expect school-boy errors in hardware. LG handled it poorly, both in their return and exchange options, as well as customer support and patches.
I 100% agree with your comment down to your anecdotes on mesh routers and TVs.
Specifically, when it comes to routers, it seems that manufacturers only ensure that the basic routing works adequately and that all the bells and whistles exist solely for marketing reasons.
This is so bad that their CS is trained to have you disable said marketed bells and whistles during troubleshooting, only to conclude that everything is fine as long as the basic routing functionality works and that anything that doest work beyond that is a “you” problem.
Pasting my comment from another post on this news:
Seems these Nazca aliens have already been debunked two years ago as a re-arrangement of human and animal bones. If you can ignore the comedy skits, the video below points out all the inconsistencies.
Seems these Nazca aliens have already been debunked two years ago as a re-arrangement of human and animal bones. If you can ignore the comedy skits, the video below points out all the inconsistencies.
