It's about both cost and risk analysis. If you've got a lot of infrastructure, then you've probably already got a team of decent admins. Adding another server has a very small marginal cost. If you haven't, then the cost is basically the cost of hiring a sysadmin. Even the cheapest full-time sysadmin costs a lot more than you can easily spend with GitHub. Alternatively, you get one of your devs to run it. Now you have a service that is only understood well by one person, where installing security updates (let alone testing them first) is nowhere near that top priority in that person's professional life, and where at even one hour a week spent on sysadmin tasks you're still spending a lot more than an equivalent service from GitHub would cost.
In both of the latter cases, the competition for GitHub isn't a competent and motivated in-house team. It is almost certainly better to run your own infrastructure well, but the competition for GitHub is running your own infrastructure badly and they're a very attractive proposition in that comparison.
Outsourcing things that are not your core competency is not intrinsically bad, the problem is when people outsource things that are their core competency (e.g. software companies deciding to outsource all of the development - it's not a huge step from there to the people working for the outsourcing company to decide to also handle outsourcing management and start up a competitor, with all of the expertise that should be yours), or outsourcing without doing a proper cost-benefit analysis (other than 'oh, look, it's cheaper this quarter!').
If you think outsourcing storage of documents is bad remember that, legal companies, hospitals and so on have been doing this for decades without issues - storing large quantities of paper / microfiche is not their core competency and there are companies that can, due to economies of scale, do it much cheaper. Oh, and if that still scares you, remember that most companies outsource storing all of their money as well...
My wife got a Kindle a few years ago and liked it but still found it hard to read.
At one point I saw her reading something in Comic Sans and I thought it was odd and unrelated.
Somewhat later she found about about dyslexie font and OpenDyslexic font and started using them on various devices.
I found out you could manually import fonts onto the kindle paperwhite so we ordered one.
Amazon patched all the Kindles to block importing fonts and limit you to the preloaded fonts.
There is a workaround involving downloading free ebooks and converting them in such a way that you embed the font but it isn't an option for the vast majority of what she would like to read on the Kindle.
We then sold our Kindles and she just reads on a laptop instead.
To add to the fun it isn't just Amazon, I haven't found a way to add the dyslexie/opendislexic font to a non rooted android phone. How hard would it be for device manufacturers to just add a simple font import or heaven forbid actually include more fonts in the base configuration?
As is phones/phablets/tablets are more common than Kindles and now big enough/cheap enough to make the Kindle less important but it's just moved my concern about this issue from Amazon to Android.
no windmills glued on the plane please
What do you think those big things under the wings are? When the throttle is at idle, they're being pushed around by the airflow from forward momentum.
money supports the Clintons.
A plane travelling at 500 miles per hour, at an altitude of 40,000 feet, has to lose a huge amount of both kinetic and gravitational potential energy before it's stationary on the runway. If you can capture 1% of this, then you can taxi around the airport for quite an extended period.
A number of airlines are now also powering the flight systems from the ground when connected to the terminal, so that they're not burning expensive avgas to generate electricity.
All testing was performed with default (disabled cache). Further, cache settings have little effect on NVMe RAIDs on Z170. Additionally, our minimum latencies were 6us *longer* in an array vs. single SSD, so clearly no caching taking place.
PC Perspective's new testing demonstrates the triple RAID-0 array having just 1/6th of the latency of a single drive.
That was with a queue depth of 16. Not exactly representative of a normal desktop user.
It's reasonable for peak power user load. Folks running / considering triple SSD RAIDs are not exactly 'typical desktop users'
Yup, it's been corrected. Should have been 6 micro (u) sec.
Yup, we had a scale error as our Excel-fu was not as strong as we'd hoped when we made the custom format for the axis, and I totally fell for the error. I've updated the article with corrections.
The first 90% of a project takes 90% of the time, the last 10% takes the other 90% of the time.