My ethernet is also capped at 1 Gb/s for most of my computers. The 10 Gb/s connection is still useful as it makes sure that things running at different devices won't affect each other. Streaming won't affect games won't affect work-related video calls. It's great.
Yes, in that sense you'd have a "dedicated" 1Gbps for each device. But realistically, how often do you need that?
I don't know about you, but the only time I would reach such a peak would be in case I download something huge while watching Netflix at 4k (which I don't have) and while at the same time downloading an update for my phone and a game for the PS5 (which I don't own).
I would argue that the likelihood of all the above things happening at the same time is quite low, at least for me :)
Perhaps we would not have to rely on other entities such as Apple/Google/Microsoft/Dropbox/etc to serve our content if we had decent upload bandwidth at home.
I mean in 1980 how often did you need 128kb ISDN? A hunter gatherer would have told you they have no use for a spaceship, yet modern society uses them do deploy satellites of all kinds. Just because you dont have a need doesnt mean that needs dont exist.
I'm not saying that. I'm just saying that as of today, I personally think it's useless.
Sure, being 10Gbps-ready is already awesome, but it feels like buying a 16k TV today. For some niche use cases it might make sense, but until this technology is mainstream and makes sense it would take a while
The last time i streamed 4K video while gaming on my PS4 during a work related video calls was just a couple days ago.
Joke aside. I get your point, but how many people do you have to have on a single 1 Gbit line to saturdate it? Some things will get faster for sure (like downloading large files, if the other side is fast enough), but I feel like most of the time it's driving a Ferrari within a city.
That is a narrative that misses the point of the thread and is generally not compatible with hard data. For example, the amount of suicides in US during 2020 went down.
And the number of deaths due to seasonal flues is practically 0. I actually do not think any of these statistics matter, because data driven decisions are not timely by definition. What mattered is that the entire western world failed to react in time.
Off-premises alcohol sales were up; the article indicates it's a shift from on-premises to off-premises, which... shouldn't be surprising, given a lot of those premises are shut.
It's not a string either though: in the same way integer addition (almost always) does not make sense, string concatenation (almost always) does not make sense either. The proper type would allow for equality check and explicit string (de)serialization only.
I guess it depends how you think about it. From computational perspective, it's heavyweight. On the other hand, it really optimizes for minimal human effort, on several levels:
* GPT-3 is conceptually simple: the effort to invent it and engineer it amortizes well.
* Once the model is trained, it can be reused to very different tasks.
There's no way Google Translate will ever be monetized. So yes, it's effectively an expensive art project for Google, not something that brings real business value.
Hotword detection ('ok google') is a practical application of AI, but that's really slim pickings considering how hyped 'AI' was. (Also, the costs of data collection for this feature are still way too high.)
I think we are really torturing language here. I don't want to get into specifics of what constitutes business value, how to value brand and customer satisfaction and so on. I can add more examples like https://deepmind.com/blog/article/deepmind-ai-reduces-google... that shows how neural networks helps in the pure bottom-line sense you care about.
Let me close my argument: neural network techniques developed in the last ten years are super useful here and now, they are used by billions of people every day and they do make their lives easier.
Why are you so confident Google Translate is not monetized?
"We collect information to provide better services to all our users — from figuring out basic stuff like which language you speak, to more complex things like which ads you’ll find most useful, the people who matter most to you online, or which YouTube videos you might like..."
> Why are you so confident Google Translate is not monetized?
Obviously I don't have access to Google's accounting sheets, but there's no way in hell Google Translate pays for itself if you take all the costs of R&D into account.
Reason being that professionals who might pay big money for it want stuff other than just shiny 'AI' - they might want stuff like professional dictionaries and cited sources, etc.
And obviously people who translate random webpages for the lulz won't be paying much for this service.
Google's main income comes from its adverts business and that heavily relies on data collected from its users. Mail, translate, maps, and search are monetized. It's just not you paying for them.
If you all of a sudden start using Google Translate for Spanish and you think the phrases you are translating won't get used to serve you more targeted adverts for your upcoming vacation, you're being a bit naive.
Google Translate is being monetized. It's as easy a guess as yours to say that there's no way in hell Google Translate stays around if it didn't already pay for itself a long time ago. But let's stop guessing please.
That's not been my experience, actually. The first CI service I used was hosted entirely in Europe, and we needed to ssh in to debug something, the keystroke latency was maddening. We eventually unsubscribed and just bought a big EC2 instance in us-east with Jenkins running on it. It cost approximately 100x more, but our productivity was high and frustration low. Well worth.
I personally think it will breed huge organizational problems if things like CI are slow. "I'll get a cup of coffee while this runs" and then you come back and forget what you were going to release. Soon it becomes "let's get another change into this build before we release" and then it's "well, it's been six months since we've released anything, what do we do." You have to start fast and stay fast if you want to keep developers productive. So saving a couple bucks on computers that are half a world away can end up being a huge expense if you're not careful.
As other comments mention, you also have to be careful about transfer costs. In the CI case, getting your source code into the CI server is cheap, but getting the containers out is going to cost you, especially if you don't make an effort to optimize them. For batch data processing jobs, the same applies; getting the result out is cheap, but getting the data in is going to be a lot of transfer. (If you were using Small Data, you could just run the job on your laptop, after all.)
The speed of computers half a world away is not great either. I remember updating some Samsung drivers once, which were served out of a Korean AWS region instead of CloudFront... and the downloads were glacially slow. Their website is the same way. I couldn't believe how a multinational corporation could push bits at me so slowly. When you're reading their documentation all day, or tweaking drivers, you notice it, and you start to think "next time I'm going to buy Intel". (Compare Samsung's SSD website with McMaster-Carr's website. What site do you hope to interact with again in the future?)
Anyway, you get a bill for compute resources, and you don't get a bill for unhappy employees context-switching all day, so I see why people want to craft clever schemes to save pennies on their compute costs. But be careful. Not every cost is charged directly to your credit card.
I don't understand why you think it's hard to tell your CI/CD pipeline to run itself on a schedule. I find this totally consistent with my tooling (I have CI/CD in place for many different reasons, this is one of them) and I don't know how this CI/CD cron makes me "packaging maintainer and infrastructure maintainer".
"With containers, you are responsible for figuring out which ones need which packages and how to re-build them."
Yeah, you need to know how to rebuild your world in ANY CASE. It's not an argument against containers that they require an approach that is the best practice.
