You might be joking, but memory compression a legit strategy. Even with the compression overhead, memory is much faster than disk or network. You can achieve higher cache-hit rates with a compressed in-memory cache since it can store several times more entries.
I frequently make prototypes/experiments in python, and then when it comes to making the actual program I may switch to C++ or Java
I like to think I'm doing the same thing, but in reality those performance problems rarely comes up, and when they do they're usually not CPU-bound. So most of them are still in Python.
Eventually someone will implement a faster Python interpreter and the problem will be moot.
You just don't recognize what the real trade off is. It's not about the execution time. It's the time from noticing you have a problem to having the solution.
So you have 600 files. It takes you 30 minutes to write a C program and 4 seconds to run it.
I can write the same program in 10 minutes in Python. The rule of thumb is Python is 100x slower on the CPU, but same speed as far as IO is concerned. So in the worse case it will take 400 seconds, most likely significantly less, since your 7 ms number includes IO and file processing is almost entirely IO-bound.
Overall my work took 16 minutes, 40 seconds, while your's took a little over 30 minutes. Moreover, 6 minutes of my time is waiting, during which I can go start on my next task.
It's even more obvious when you look at cost. Let's say my time costs my employer ~$100 per hour. Over the course of a week, I'll save somewhere between 18 and 33 hours of work, which translates to $1800 to $3300. For that money, my employer can buy 3 or 4 new computers to run these extremely inefficient programs. Of course, in reality they'll pay me for the 40 hours anyways and I'll just be 100-200% more productive.
Part of the problem is determining what is more efficient. I ruined several days of productivity by insisting the team reuse an existing platform instead of inventing their own. Since setting up the existing platform is a one-man operation, the rest team sat around twiddling their thumbs until management found something else for them to do.
Common sense says that's a benefit to the business. But if you look at any productivity metric, they definitely did worse that week.
Disposable income, also known as disposable personal income (DPI), is the amount of money that households have available for spending and saving after income taxes have been accounted for.
Disposable income is just income minus taxes. Even at $26,000, that still doesn't reach the $32,000 that people in Mississippi makes after taxes (2016 data).
Actually I made a mistake earlier, Spain and Italy aren't the poorest. Latvia, Greece and Poland are even worse off.
The poorest countries in the EU, Spain and Italy, are have median household incomes of around $20,000, while the poorest state in the US, Mississippi, is at $40,000. The richest European country is Luxembourg, with 600,000 people at $52,000. Fairfax County, Virginia, with 1.1 million people, is at $115,000.
Though I don't agree with GP's categorization of "failed states", those are reserved for the likes of Syria.
I think the real objective is winning the hearts and minds of your political base. The US military is fully capable of wiping out Syria and ISIS entirely, but what's the point?
If the US wanted a poor country with shitty infrastructure to take care of, it already has one called Puerto Rico.
Phone makers are even worse than Google. Look at all of the shitty homegrown apps they force on people, or how infrequently they provide security updates (with the hope that you'll give in and splurge on their latest new gadget). Letting Google dictate what they can do provides a better phone in the end. As for the competition, only other option is Apple.
It might be a win against monopoly, but it's still a loss for consumers.
That's not an argument for requiring 1500 hours for the copilot. Captains should have a lot of experience, but the 1500 hours + ATP requirement hasn't changed for captains since the Colgan crash.
Also, as amazing as the ditching was, it does not in any way prove that a less experienced pilot would've failed. I mean, how many deadstick ditchings were there in A320s? How many of those where flown by glider pilots? Frankly, requiring glider training probably would've done much more for improving the average skill level than the flight time requirement.
The play store and all of the bundled apps are currently free (as in beer). Google can start charging for that. ASOP is free (as in libre), and Google cannot charge for that. What's so difficult about this concept?
If they flew 3 hours a week, that's 156 hours per year, or 9.6 years before they can apply for a job at an airline. In the mean time, they'll need some way of feeding themselves, which means they'll need some other well-paying job.
At that point, it's no longer a career choice, but a hobby.
You're mixing up disposable and discretionary. Disposable is income minus taxes. Discretionary is what you're describing, total minus taxes, rent, food and all the monthly bills.
Haha, no I actually drive to work every day. I just live 15 miles from my work. Back when I lived close enough to walk to work, my car could go 3 months without a refuel. If you need to get gas every 3 weeks despite not using it, there's probably a leak in your tank.
Companies can go bankrupt whether they make capital investments or not. For every Amazon that managed to hold out until it was profitable, there's a dozen Solyndras that went bust before they could. Of course the economy is doing well right now, so you see more of the former than the latter, but a recession will come eventually.
In an efficient market, when demand outstrips supply, prices rise and demand drops. There will simply not be a shortage.
The only reason we see a shortage now is because of government policies. California's EV mandate forces manufacturers to sell EVs at a lower price so that they can reach the mandated volume. Once they do reach that volume however, they have no reason to sell even more, since that would involve significant capital investment.
Of course over many years, manufacturers will figure out where to price the EVs so they both maximize profit and reach the mandate, but they will err on the side of running out until that's the case.
Wife fills the X3 up every week, spending 15 minutes for the gas station trip among other chores. That is 13 hours per year. Supercharging takes 15 minutes more than gas station breaks (200 miles in 30 minutes in supercharger). I need to use the supercharger 52 times to lose time in electric vehicles.
I think the problem here is your wife, who apparently makes an entire trip just to get gas and has a very long commute (35 miles each way if your numbers are accurate).
Meanwhile, someone like me only stop by the gas station for 5 minutes once every 3 weeks, almost always on the way to another destination, such as work or the grocery store. I also have an extra gas can that I can fill up together with my car, giving me an additional 40% range. If I cared for more range between fill ups, I can easily get another gas can or two.
Leaving aside the common theory that circular dependencies should be avoided, there are no real problems with them in JS. Let's say you have a bunch of functions, you can include all of them in the HTML file in no particular order. When everything is there, you call your main function, which initializes any global data you need and then calls all of the other functions. At that point, they will be executed with the complete context they need.
See this for a very simple example. Note that I can refer to "c()" in the definition of "a()", even though I haven't declared "c" yet. The contents of "a()" is not evaluated when module_1.js is loaded, but rather when I explicitly call "a()" from the inline script.
This deals with 99% of the use cases. But if you really need module-level static variables that have complex dependencies, you can always go with a singleton factory and construct it on first use.
Slashdot Mirror
You might be joking, but memory compression a legit strategy. Even with the compression overhead, memory is much faster than disk or network. You can achieve higher cache-hit rates with a compressed in-memory cache since it can store several times more entries.
If you add testing, Python development is even faster. Even Google's unit test library is leagues behind Python's unittest.
Of course, it's very hard to compare development times. I'm good in Python, decent in C++, but very rusty with plain C. You're probably the opposite.
I frequently make prototypes/experiments in python, and then when it comes to making the actual program I may switch to C++ or Java
I like to think I'm doing the same thing, but in reality those performance problems rarely comes up, and when they do they're usually not CPU-bound. So most of them are still in Python.
Eventually someone will implement a faster Python interpreter and the problem will be moot.
You just don't recognize what the real trade off is. It's not about the execution time. It's the time from noticing you have a problem to having the solution.
So you have 600 files. It takes you 30 minutes to write a C program and 4 seconds to run it.
I can write the same program in 10 minutes in Python. The rule of thumb is Python is 100x slower on the CPU, but same speed as far as IO is concerned. So in the worse case it will take 400 seconds, most likely significantly less, since your 7 ms number includes IO and file processing is almost entirely IO-bound.
Overall my work took 16 minutes, 40 seconds, while your's took a little over 30 minutes. Moreover, 6 minutes of my time is waiting, during which I can go start on my next task.
It's even more obvious when you look at cost. Let's say my time costs my employer ~$100 per hour. Over the course of a week, I'll save somewhere between 18 and 33 hours of work, which translates to $1800 to $3300. For that money, my employer can buy 3 or 4 new computers to run these extremely inefficient programs. Of course, in reality they'll pay me for the 40 hours anyways and I'll just be 100-200% more productive.
Part of the problem is determining what is more efficient. I ruined several days of productivity by insisting the team reuse an existing platform instead of inventing their own. Since setting up the existing platform is a one-man operation, the rest team sat around twiddling their thumbs until management found something else for them to do.
Common sense says that's a benefit to the business. But if you look at any productivity metric, they definitely did worse that week.
Why are mod points never there when I need them?
Interesting claim. You have a source for that?
Disposable income, also known as disposable personal income (DPI), is the amount of money that households have available for spending and saving after income taxes have been accounted for.
From the US Census (p 422):
Disposable personal income is personal income less personal current taxes.
Disposable income is just income minus taxes. Even at $26,000, that still doesn't reach the $32,000 that people in Mississippi makes after taxes (2016 data).
Actually I made a mistake earlier, Spain and Italy aren't the poorest. Latvia, Greece and Poland are even worse off.
I imagine letting Russia take care of the military would turn the entire continent into Russian territory in short order.
How about median household income?
The poorest countries in the EU, Spain and Italy, are have median household incomes of around $20,000, while the poorest state in the US, Mississippi, is at $40,000. The richest European country is Luxembourg, with 600,000 people at $52,000. Fairfax County, Virginia, with 1.1 million people, is at $115,000.
Though I don't agree with GP's categorization of "failed states", those are reserved for the likes of Syria.
I think the real objective is winning the hearts and minds of your political base. The US military is fully capable of wiping out Syria and ISIS entirely, but what's the point?
If the US wanted a poor country with shitty infrastructure to take care of, it already has one called Puerto Rico.
Not surprising. Samsung has every reason to make you buy a new phone, while Google doesn't care as long as you keep searching.
Phone makers are even worse than Google. Look at all of the shitty homegrown apps they force on people, or how infrequently they provide security updates (with the hope that you'll give in and splurge on their latest new gadget). Letting Google dictate what they can do provides a better phone in the end. As for the competition, only other option is Apple.
It might be a win against monopoly, but it's still a loss for consumers.
That's not an argument for requiring 1500 hours for the copilot. Captains should have a lot of experience, but the 1500 hours + ATP requirement hasn't changed for captains since the Colgan crash.
Also, as amazing as the ditching was, it does not in any way prove that a less experienced pilot would've failed. I mean, how many deadstick ditchings were there in A320s? How many of those where flown by glider pilots? Frankly, requiring glider training probably would've done much more for improving the average skill level than the flight time requirement.
The play store and all of the bundled apps are currently free (as in beer). Google can start charging for that. ASOP is free (as in libre), and Google cannot charge for that. What's so difficult about this concept?
Google aren't going to stop giving away Android for free, they want it to be used as much as possible
Only if it makes them money, which they do through the bundled search app and making Google the default search engine.
they are paying some carriers to make sure they install it, of course they're not going to reverse that.
They're paying those carriers because search makes it back. If those carriers don't include it, then Google has no reason to pay them.
50% of their ad revenue. It wouldn't make any sense to risk that.
With this ruling, phone makers don't need to bundle Google search with the phone, so the revenue is going away in any case.
If they flew 3 hours a week, that's 156 hours per year, or 9.6 years before they can apply for a job at an airline. In the mean time, they'll need some way of feeding themselves, which means they'll need some other well-paying job.
At that point, it's no longer a career choice, but a hobby.
You're mixing up disposable and discretionary. Disposable is income minus taxes. Discretionary is what you're describing, total minus taxes, rent, food and all the monthly bills.
Haha, no I actually drive to work every day. I just live 15 miles from my work. Back when I lived close enough to walk to work, my car could go 3 months without a refuel. If you need to get gas every 3 weeks despite not using it, there's probably a leak in your tank.
Companies can go bankrupt whether they make capital investments or not. For every Amazon that managed to hold out until it was profitable, there's a dozen Solyndras that went bust before they could. Of course the economy is doing well right now, so you see more of the former than the latter, but a recession will come eventually.
In an efficient market, when demand outstrips supply, prices rise and demand drops. There will simply not be a shortage.
The only reason we see a shortage now is because of government policies. California's EV mandate forces manufacturers to sell EVs at a lower price so that they can reach the mandated volume. Once they do reach that volume however, they have no reason to sell even more, since that would involve significant capital investment.
Of course over many years, manufacturers will figure out where to price the EVs so they both maximize profit and reach the mandate, but they will err on the side of running out until that's the case.
Wife fills the X3 up every week, spending 15 minutes for the gas station trip among other chores. That is 13 hours per year. Supercharging takes 15 minutes more than gas station breaks (200 miles in 30 minutes in supercharger). I need to use the supercharger 52 times to lose time in electric vehicles.
I think the problem here is your wife, who apparently makes an entire trip just to get gas and has a very long commute (35 miles each way if your numbers are accurate).
Meanwhile, someone like me only stop by the gas station for 5 minutes once every 3 weeks, almost always on the way to another destination, such as work or the grocery store. I also have an extra gas can that I can fill up together with my car, giving me an additional 40% range. If I cared for more range between fill ups, I can easily get another gas can or two.
I expect future ICE powered vehicles to add the software needed ... to reduce brake wear, that is if this isn't already a thing.
It's already a thing. If I ride the brakes down a hill my car will downshift automatically.
Leaving aside the common theory that circular dependencies should be avoided, there are no real problems with them in JS. Let's say you have a bunch of functions, you can include all of them in the HTML file in no particular order. When everything is there, you call your main function, which initializes any global data you need and then calls all of the other functions. At that point, they will be executed with the complete context they need.
See this for a very simple example. Note that I can refer to "c()" in the definition of "a()", even though I haven't declared "c" yet. The contents of "a()" is not evaluated when module_1.js is loaded, but rather when I explicitly call "a()" from the inline script.
This deals with 99% of the use cases. But if you really need module-level static variables that have complex dependencies, you can always go with a singleton factory and construct it on first use.