hobos_delight

Disagree here - I recently took delivery of a BYD Shark 6 and was especially impressed with the build quality and interior quality. I'd say on par with the BMW X5 we had, and slightly better than the Polestar 2 that we have.

The software on the other hand... I would love per-key profiles (like the polestar) and buttons doing the thing they're labeled for when using CarPlay - but I _hope_ these things can be updated OTA. The UI and responsiveness is really quick however, especially compared to the P2 which feels woefully underpowered with constant UI lags.

Terrible software seems to be par for the course in cars.

I'm not sure I understand. I have had an Instinct, Tactix Delta, and Tactix 7 Pro and have always been able to see the data without a phone or any network present.

I love these watches after moving from an Apple watch, primarily for two reasons:

1) the battery life - I cant stand having to charge my watch every day or so - my (current) Tactix 7 will go ~3-4 weeks depending on how much GPS I use.

2) (this may be out of date) when I would use the Strava or Run app on the Apple watch, it would not signal when it had a GPS fix, which resulted in a number of runs that had a "teleport" at the start, resulting in messed up metrics. Only a small thing, but it really frustrated me.

Generally when they cross the international date line - for example when traveling from Sydney to San Francisco, I can take off at midday and land at ~7am on the same day local time.

Many years ago, I was writing Clojure for a job and took to finally learning emacs beyond just saving a file and closing the editor.

It took about a week to finally get used to paredit-mode (and rainbow-parens, because…) but once I did it is the most productive I have ever felt, I keep trying to find that experience again.

Unfortunately the dynamic types and slow build system (lein) made the build step quite tedious (this was 11-12 years ago) - but in terms of expressing ideas, man - paredit + lisp style was amazing!

Yeah I see your point where it just doesn’t matter, especially back the the original point where it may not be at scale now, but you don’t want to go through the budget / approval process when you need it etc.

I think my original point was more in the “engineers want to do cool, scalable stuff” realm - and so any solution has to support scaling out to the n’th degree.

Organisational factors pull a whole new dimension into this.

I think it completely matters - yes these orgs are a lot more wasteful, but there is still an opportunity to save money here, especially is this economy, if not for the internal politics wins.

I’ve spent time in some of the largest distributed computing deployments and cost was always a constant factor we had to account for. The easiest promos were always “I saved X hundred million” because it was hard to argue against saving money. And these happened way more than you would guess.

Scaling _if_ needed has been the death knell of many companies. Every engineer wants to assume that they will need to scale to millions of QPS, most of the time this is incorrect, and when it is not then the requirement have changed and it needs to be rebuilt anyway.

I completely agree. I love the tech and have spent a lot of time in it - but come on people, let’s use the right tool for the right job!

…yes - processing 3.2G of data will be quicker on a single machine. This is not the scale of Hadoop or any other distributed compute platform.

The reason we use these is for when we have a data set _larger_ than what can be done on a single machine.

> Java from Oracle

Oracle acquired Java with Sun Microsystems, it was originally designed for embedded systems and the dream of “write once, run everywhere”.

The idea of a “hardware JVM” always fascinated me, I seem to recall some parallax microcontrollers that could run a subset of jvm bytecode back in the 90s, but never actually got to play with them.

I don't think you can do better than a binary search here, so log2(1000000) questions, which happens to come out to 20 with rounding.

I tried thinking a bit outside the box for other questions that would break down the search space - but none of them were any improvement on the binary search.

This was winding down about 12 months ago, unsure of the current status of it.

It's the same model they use for operating in China.

From an operational perspective this makes things very hard - as you don't actually get access to the services - you need to run an operator from the independent company through the troubleshooting / mitigation for any incident.

Oh completely agree regarding the survival bias - I think the over-arching plan was to make it more accessible to more than just dev teams, and it seems to have worked. "Like MS Word" was thrown around a bit.