The article states a new price of $0.00003 /1k requests, an order of magnitude lower than your indication. Maybe you have miscounted the number of zeroes, or did I miss something in the calculation?
Before this change, 1000 512KB GET requests cost $0.0002 ($2e-4).
After this change, 1000 512KB GET requests cost $0.00003 + $0.0006 / 1024*3 * 512 * 1024 * 1000 = $0.00003 ($3e-5) + $0.00029296875 (2.93e-4, dominates the cost) = $0.00032296875, so roughly $0.0003 ($3e-4).
It's because before this change all data transfer charge was waived as long as requests are smaller than 512KB.
The announcement did mention it explicitly, but it tried to downplay it, by starting the sentence with a price reduction:
> In addition, S3 Express One Zone has reduced the per-GB charges for data uploads and retrievals by 60 percent, and these charges now apply to all bytes transferred rather than just portions of requests greater than 512 KB.
This "and" should be a "BUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUT".
No, not individual message boards per se, but when they're connected they are called a social network. Case in point: Reddit is called a social network.
And Mastodon, by its inclusion in the fediverse, is part of that fediverse social network.
Yes, it isn't a monolith, but when has that become a requirement for something to be called a network?
That would be a "social" "network" (any network formed with social properties), not a "social network(ing service)" (an online platform primarily used to replicate and often independently construct social networks in the human society). They are not identical in usage and the latter is the common sense.
Most Internet users who have used Facebook and likes? (And even I, who never have used Facebook, primarily use that sense.) It is the first sense in the Cambridge dictionary [1], the second sense in the Oxford dictionary available via Google Search, and the second sense and also the first non-academic sense in Wiktionary [2]. It is clearly common enough for me to say so.
Yes, but even if you take the first definition of the Oxford or the second of Wiktionary, then still would Mastodon be a Social Network, as it does match both descriptions.
This might not be enough reason for the full extent of 160ms, but I'd imagine something like, from low to higher latency impact:
- Digitized music needs a DAC, and this conversion takes non-zero time (few us)
- Compressed data is frequently chunked, thus not realtime (few ms)
- Data streams are buffered, because the channel (wireless) is quite lossy and may need multiple retransmissions. (few ms more)
> - Digitized music needs a DAC, and this conversion takes non-zero time (few us)
Digital musical instruments exist who also need DACs and they produce near real time audio.
> - Compressed data is frequently chunked, thus not realtime (few ms)
This is a problem with the limited bandwidth of Bluetooth. If Bluetooth had more bandwidth, you wouldn't need to compress as much or at all.
> - Data streams are buffered, because the channel (wireless) is quite lossy and may need multiple retransmissions.
Again a problem with Bluetooth. You can play computer games over wifi with others across the world with less than 30ms of ping. If you have more bandwidth, you don't have to retransmit. You just use an error-correcting code.
I wouldn't fully blame Bluetooth. Part of the problem with streaming audio is how you tolerate lag. Playback requires a constant sample rate of audio but your network is not guaranteed to deliver data at a constant rate. Designs need to accommodate for this and one of the solutions is to have larger buffers to tolerate some network lag.
For live music, as thread OP wants, you can simply switch to a different transmission mode with minimal buffer. It would then be up to the user to ensure direct line of sight between the receiver and transmitter, and do other things necessary to ensure good signal quality.
It isn't broken per se, but the behaviour of inheritance with its many gotchas can be very surprising to a user. Like "IDs are not guaranteed unique across inherited tables" is probably not something you want from your database.
So definitely a case of "do not use", but that's only for your sanity, not because it doesn't work as advertised.
TFA says "First of all, there is ONE global sequence for all tables, which means that all IDs across the entirety of the systems are unique", that does sound like "IDs are guaranteed unique across table", no? Maybe there's some gotcha there?
That relies on the ID generation to be unique, rather than unique constraints.
E.g. INSERT INTO t_country (id, name) VALUES (1, 'NL') is valid and would not fail in the demonstrated database, but it would result in multiple rows when querying SELECT FROM t_global g WHERE g.id = 1.
A user inserting their own values or resetting the sequence would not necessarily cause immediate unique constraint faulures while duplicate IDs are routed into inherited tables that don't already contain that ID.
Hi, I'm the tech lead of VectorChord-bm25. It's not based on pg_search (pg_bm25). We just chose the same name during our internal development, and changed it to the formal name VectorChord-bm25 when we released it.
Yes, but isn't a big driver of layer costs the cost of the machines to build those layers?
For patterning, a single iteration could be (example values, no actual values used, probably only ballpark accuracy) on a 300M$ EUV machine with 5-year write off cycle, patterns on average 180 full wafers /hour. Excluding energy usage and service time, each wafer that needs full patterning would cost ~38$. If each wafer only needed half the area patterned, the lithography machine might only spend half its usual time on such a wafer, and that could double the throughput of the EUV machine, halving the write-off based cost component of such a patterning step.
Given that each layer generally consists of multiple patterning steps, a 10-20% reduction in those steps could give a meaningful reduction in time spent in the machines whose time spend on the wafer depends on the used wafer area.
This of course doesn't help reduce time in polishing or etching (and other steps that happen with whole wafers at a time), so it won't be as straightforward as % reduction in wafer area usage == % reduction in cost, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was a meaningful percentage.
> Yes, but isn't a big driver of layer costs the cost of the machines to build those layers?
Let's say the time spent in lithography step is linear the way you're describing. Even with that, the deposition step beforehand is surface area independent and would be applied across the entire wafer, and takes just as long if not longer than the lithography.
Additionally, if you were going to build a fab ground up for some specific purpose, then you might optimize the fab for those specific devices as you lay out. But most of these companies are not doing that and are simply going through TSMC or a similar subcontractor. So you've got an additional question of how far TSMC will go to accommodate customers who only want to use half a wafer, and whether that's the kind of project they could profitably cater to.
> Enschede is serviced by German rail operators though
Yes, there is a train service to Germany, but the majority of the connections from Enschede are to/from the Netherlands.
> In fact a lot of trains in this region of the world are operated by neighboring countries
If a service to Germany causes the whole station to be labeled as German, the website might just as well label Berlin as Czech, or Brussels as Dutch: CZ (Czech national railway) has train services that extend to at least Berlin, and NS (Dutch national railway) has trains to Brussels.
> python doesn't have anything like a semicolon to combine multiple statements
Python does have a "semicolon to combine multiple statements", and has further (lambda f: f(f)) expressions for complex expressions with local names and scopes.
(not that using either for those would result in pythonic code, but it is certainly not missing from the language)
reply