I find it interesting for your example you chose Moment.js -- a time library instead of something utilitarian like Lodash. For years I've following Jon Skeet's blog about implementing his time library NodaTime (a port of JodaTime). There are a crazy number of edge cases and many unintuitive things about modeling time within a computer.
If I just wanted the equivalent of Lodash's _.intersection() method, I get it. The requirements are pretty straightforward and I can verify the LLM code & tests myself. One less dependency is great. But with time, I know I don't know enough to verify the LLM's output.
Similar to encryption libraries, it's a common recommendation to leave time-based code to developers who live and breathe those black boxes. I trust the community verify the correctness of those concepts, something I can't do myself with LLM output.
One unexpected upside moving from a DC to AWS is when a region is down, customers are far more understanding. Instead of being upset, they often shrug it off since nothing else they needed/wanted was up either.
This is a remarkable and unfair truth. I have had this experience with Office365...when they're down a lot of customers don't care because all their customers are also down.
It was originally an internal tool, so I would guess either A) he doesn't have permission from all the contributors or B) he used reused code from elsewhere within Microsoft that wasn't open source compatible.
A lot of people here put Unix on a pedestal, so finding a published book that so explicitly hates Unix is quite novel. Furthermore, the criticism doesn't come from the typical demographic, Microsoft Windows users.
Solr and Elasticsearch are both Java servers built on top of the Java search library Lucene. There are plenty of articles on the internet describing how they differ. However since they share the same core, so they are very similar as well. For the context of this discussion, you can consider Solr & Elasticsearch as interchangeable - a potayto, potahto situation.
Black start of a single plant seems reasonable enough, but black start of a whole grid seems almost absurd.
How could one possibly balance the load with the plants coming online? If the generation and load is too mismatched, the generators can literally automatically trip off the grid, so generation and load must be carefully balanced as things get brought back up.
One would almost need to shed nearly all the loads from the black grid (Which may have happened anyway as the grid collapsed, but any loads not already shed by the collapse could prove interesting), and re-add some some gradually as plants come online, which still seems crazy difficult.
And inrush current demands from many loads as they are get reconnected must be pretty insane.
Offhand, that's pretty much the plan for a black start.
Something about bringing up a designated plant and feeding the output over 'cranking' lines that other plants along the route can synchronize their output against. Then gradually adding load and source until the system is meta-stable again.
Edit: additional data
Not only synchronize, but also use for internal needs like all the pumps and particularly the 'excitation current' that establishes the magnetic field for the generator. It allows control over the output voltage. There are also other drawbacks to the more obvious solution of fixed magnets which can be oversimplified as 'ware'.
The problem is not so much the concept, as how tricky it would be to add the loads back in at just the right rate to not trip some or all the generation back off again. Sure once you have enough generation and load already online, adding the rest is relatively straightforward. Still need to be careful, but after a certain point it would look to utility operators much like the usual work restoring loads and sources after a large area blackout.
The trickiness seems worst close to the very beginning when even relatively small misestimation of a chunk of load being restored would have a proportionally bigger impact. Many loads are not completely predictable, so presumably they would need to favor bringing some of the more stable loads online early so that normal variation from the loads that can only be predicted well in aggregate won't vary enough to trip everything back offline.
I think they mean to say that the animated gif[0] your site is misleading as it shows an animated transition that doesn't actually occur in the product.
If I just wanted the equivalent of Lodash's _.intersection() method, I get it. The requirements are pretty straightforward and I can verify the LLM code & tests myself. One less dependency is great. But with time, I know I don't know enough to verify the LLM's output.
Similar to encryption libraries, it's a common recommendation to leave time-based code to developers who live and breathe those black boxes. I trust the community verify the correctness of those concepts, something I can't do myself with LLM output.