Oh aren't you clever. No Windows boots in seconds.
With a decent SSD and a decent CPU. I would not put it past some companies to still be running with CPUs that barely pass minimum requirements and using the slowest HDDs.
The alternative is developing a progressive web application (PWA) that runs in Safari instead of a native iOS application.
Considering that Grab has building iOS apps for over 12 years instead of developing PWAs, I would guess they know more about their business than you. Have you presented your ideas to Grab?
Even as someone who votes left more than any other way, I'd be entirely okay with killing the AMT. It is a huge pain to deal with.
The real problem, IMO, is that Congress needs to get off its a** and pass laws requiring brokerages and retirement plans to provide all of the tax data in a fully computed form so that you can fill in the boxes on your tax worksheet and be done, rather than having to look through every single line and figure out which ones were short-term, which were long-term, which had foreign tax, etc. Even with TurboTax, even with basically everything coming from Edward Jones, it *still* takes me two or three hours every year to fill in the information correctly for my taxes. I can't imagine trying to do that by hand on paper.
I love to hate on macs but this isn't terrible at all. The old and new icons are both quite clear and their purpose is most always understandable 'except for the two window icons replaced by an right-pointing arrow, I have no clear idea what either that could be doing), supported by shape and colours (though a more intense contrast could be desirable). These are icons I would enjoy using instead of the current "flat design" trend that exists elsewhere, for example the Breeze style in KDE which is what I would call terrible.
The real problem with requiring icons to be a specific shape is that it makes apps harder to recognize. Just look at how much confusion Google's icon rebranding has been, with every icon looking a lot like a multicolored square, and you'll understand what I mean. Now imagine every app icon on an entire operating system being a rounded square.
most cars are more efficient at 55 to 60 MPH than at 40 MPH
I think the studies show 50 mph is the sweet spot for the same distance on highways. But you are right it varies by both vehicle and driving style. But the difference between 50 and the current 70-80 mph people drive on freeways is substantial for any vehicle.
Certainly true for highways, yes. There's also next to no good alternative to individual cars for highway driving, though. Amtrak is very, very limited, Greyhound is slow *and* very limited, airplanes are grossly fuel inefficient and are generally limited to relatively long distances, and that's about it.
The other part of the equation is how many miles someone drives. Lower speeds mean people drive fewer miles because the real cost of a trip is the time it takes. If you drive 8 hours at average 50 mph you only go 400 miles. You drive at average 60 miles per hour you go 480. If you use 5 gallons to go 100 miles then you use an extra gallon of gas.
Not sure why you think people would drive fewer miles. Most people in cars are trying to get to a specific place, not driving just to drive. Would people plan shorter trips? Maybe for some small percentage of leisure driving, but leisure driving is already a small percentage of driving, so that's a small reduction in fuel use for a small percentage of a small percentage of trips. That's hardly worth the negative impact on everything else.
It is basically impossible for Tesla to ever be a profitable company now. It is madness to be investing in it. But so many people have put so much money in it and they are so afraid of losing out that we all just have to pretend.
That's not how stock grants work. That trillion dollars doesn't come from Tesla. It comes from the stock market through share dilution. The company can absolutely still be profitable no matter how much equity it chooses to give out.
You never had any brothers or cousins doing double suplexes to each other after watching WWF? Your anecdotal evidence is discounted by mine. And since mine is real I think I have a case.
1. Wresting was on TV long before video games. 2. Brothers and cousins were hitting each other slingshots and rocks long before TV was invented. 3. Your anecdotal evidence does not "discount" everyone else. It only reflects your ego that you think that it does.
but they said they are "saving" this much money, so doesn't enter the cost.
Like many things in the cloud, the flexibility was probably they could add/remove more machines easily with no long term commitment. The problem with cloud has always been at some point, the cost of leasing is greater than building on premises as the number of machines/data/bandwidth reached a certain threshold.
.
If cost savings is the goal, they could save a lot more by switching to Windows, or better yet, Linux.
Only if saving money was the only goal and nothing else. In this case, not being able to develop iOS apps using Windows or Linux is a significant obstacle over any cost savings.
This seems weird, I've never heard of a company using Macs as servers. Desktops, yes, but servers?
Then you haven't been paying attention. Since the Mac Mini launched many, many companies have used them as servers. The main reason is they offer high performance per watt in a small package. The demand is high enough that companies offer custom racks for Mac Minis for higher density in cabinets.
Repatriation makes sense for expensive edge cases, like running Apple hardware (which is a questionable architectural decision).
And why is it a questionable decision? Currently, the M series chips are the best in performance per watt and can beat Ryzen chips in some benchmarks. For Grab, since they need Macs for iOS development, what alternative do you propose?
Seriously, the reason why there are so-called "hosted Macs" in the cloud is so you can develop and test shit on a Mac without buying one. Use actual server technologies for your servers.
If you read the story, the main reason they are going away from a cloud based solution was cost. As the number of Macs increased over 200, they found that buying their own hardware was cheaper. The major change for Grab is they own the Mac hardware now instead of renting it.
Those ridiculous Mac Mini servers were the worst idea ever.
In this story, Grab is replacing 200 Mac Mini servers they are renting on the cloud with 200+ Mac Mini servers they have on premsises:
“We have got four 42RU (600x1200x42RU) racks housing 200+ Mac minis, plus some spare racks to house upcoming scheduled capacity upgrades,” Grab’s post states
Obviously Grab does not think Mac Mini servers as "the worst idea ever".
10 to the 12th power microphones = 1 Megaphone
