Worse, there's sales in NOT doing it. When I buy a Mac, I get extra memory "just in case." I would've been fine with 24 gigs on my MacBook Pro, but I got 48.
That doesn't address the problem at all. Viking is connecting two grids together. This can help stabilize them in some scenarios. But much like in any other network, even if you have enough capacity almost everywhere, it doesn't matter, if you have a bottleneck on the path.
Existing grid has been built up with several high density sources, often very close to urban and industrial areas. Wind farms are, by their nature, neither of those.
There is enough material online about this issue. I'll gladly direct you to it.
You can take it one step further: imagine you live in a smallish country (10 million people).
If your market share is 10% of the population and they make 1 request per day, that is just 10 requests per second.
10% is a large market share for everyday use. So you can use 1% market share and 10 requests and it will still be just 10 reqs/sec.
In fact, 1% market share of 10 million people and you can use the number of requests each user makes as the number of requests that your server will get (on average) per second.
There is a lot of business in small countries that never need to scale (or business in narrow sectors, e.g. a lot of B2B).
If an application gets 4 thousand req/s for an hour, and an additional 10% requests in the rest of the day, it is handling nearly 15 million reqs/day, which is completely different and of course requires scaling in most cases.
That said, even then, there are a lot of business cases where you are not constrained by the time required to sort or traverse a custom data structure, because you spend more time waiting for an answer from a database (in which case you may want to tune the db or add a cache),or the time needed to talk to a server or another user, or a third party library, or a payment processing endpoint.
There are also use cases (think offline mobile apps) where the number of concurrent requests is basically 1, because each offline app serves a single user, so as long as you can process stuff before a user notices the app is sluggish (hundreds of milliseconds at least) you're good.
What do you do with those 4 thousand req/s? That's what makes the difference between "processing everything independently is fast enough for our purposes", "we need to optimize database or network latency", or "we need to optimize our data structures".
A peak of 4k/s does not mean they get that for the entire hour. The point I was trying to make is that simply computing the mean over a 24hr period will almost certainly ensure you size things incorrectly.
If a stretch of road was used by an average of 10 cars per minute over a 24 hour period, is it congested?
In both cases, you need more specific traffic data to size things properly.
iPhone chips are largely produced in Arizona, and TSMC's 2nm fabs are scheduled to come online by 2028. 30% of TSMC's global production is schedule to be produced in America.
USA has been strategically re-homing TSMC to the USA mainland for a long time now.
Contrast with the EU which has done nothing to become self-reliant, and really just has no ideas. It is unfortunate.
> First Fab: High-volume production on N4 process technology started in Q4 2024.
> Second Fab: Construction was completed on the fab structure in 2025. Volume production on N3 process technology targeted for 2028.
> Third Fab: In April 2025, TSMC broke ground on the site of the third fab, slated for N2 and A16 process technologies. Targeting volume production by the end of the decade.
> TSMC Arizona will play a crucial role in increasing U.S. production of advanced semiconductor technology and elevate the state of Arizona as an American center of innovation.
> In July 2025, Wei indicated that the company would speed up its production timelines on multiple manufacturing facilities following an additional $100 billion investment in Arizona. He stated that the completion of a "gigafab" cluster totaling six facilities would account for 30 percent of TSMC's 2-nanometer and more advanced capacity semiconductor production within the state.
Creating good smartphone software is not easy. Only Apple has achieved it. Google is close. The rest are so far behind in the race they think they are leading.
Because there was arguably no need for a third option. The current duopoly only exists because it was seen as risk-free, and propping up an alternative was seen as uneconomical.
> Creating good smartphone software is not easy.
Yes, but it's not rocket science either (and even if it were, the EU has both rocket scientists and a space port).
Maybe it's been too long for people to even imagine it, but European companies were fully capable of developing a smartphone OS and running an app certification platform (there were no app stores yet, as the industry was very fragmented) less than two decades ago.
I would argue MS did with windows phone, and Palm and Nokia did too. BlackBerry as well, but less flexibly.
They weren’t commercially successful because of network effects, which I think matter less when your back is against the wall to migrate away from the duopoly.
Android is open source (decreasingly, but still). A reasonable starting point would be forking it and adding replacements for the proprietary Google Play services, app store etc.
Gobally Android also has a much larger market share than Apple. (Yes the US is the opposite, it is an outlier.)
It can be done, but a few things are needed: money. A lot of money. And competent project managers / architects / visionaries.
The money problem is the sticking point; even if you can find investors, if you don't have guarantees of sales you're boned. Actually, this is the other problem: Android is not profitable per se, you don't get an "android license fee" on your bill if you buy a new phone. It's the tie-in with Google's services (default search engine with ads, app store, etc) that make it work. And even without those, Google is a company that originally made money off of ads on webpages, they could do whatever they want outside of that because their primary source of income was so reliable.
Android is a solid basis for a homegrown solution. We just never had the need to build one just yet. What Google and Apple built was convenient. But it's not as irreplaceable as some might think.
That is not a problem of Android but of the hardware and funnily enough much of that is not produced in the US. I think we could cobble together a working phone in a short time and iterate upon that if it is necessary. Hardware has advanced sufficiently that we don't need the latest greatest to have an okay experience.
e-boks sends a text message to the phone, so I see it much faster than a paper mail.
e-boks is like gmail (and others) in that it keeps your old mail. So you can easily find old stuff, a great improvement on paper mail.
I don't even check my physical mailbox once a week.
Denmark is one of the very most digital countries. Physical mail is very much on the way out. We no longer has mailboxes to send mail, you have to go to a shop to send letters, which now cost at last $6 per letter due to the low amount of mail sent.
It is only a matter of less than 10 years before letters will be fully gone.
I think it would be better to require quotation marks around all string values, in order to avoid this kind of problems. (It is not the only problem with YAML, but it is my opinion of how any format with multiple types should require explicitly mentioning if it is a string type, but YAML (and some other formats) doesn't.) (If keys are required to strings, then it can be reasonable to allow keys to be unquoted if the set of characters that unquoted keys can contain is restricted (and disallowing unquoted empty strings as keys).)
It might be that there’s some setting that fixes this or some better library that everyone should be switching to, but YAML has nothing that I want and has been a repeated source of footguns, so I haven’t found it worth looking into. (I am vaguely aware that different tools do configure YAML parsing with different defaults, which is actually worse. It’s another layer of complexity on an already unnecessarily complex base language.)
The 1.1 spec was released about _twenty_ years ago, I explicitly used the word _implemented_ for a reason. As in: Our Yaml lib vendor had begun officially supporting that version more than ten years ago.
1.1 partially fixed it, so that strings (quoted ”no”) did not become Boolean false. 1.2 strengthened it to remove unquoted no from list of tokens which could be interpreted as Boolean false.
> 1.1 partially fixed it, so that strings (quoted ”no”) did not become Boolean false.
Do you have a source? Afaik v1.1 didn’t introduce such a change, v1.0 specified the same behavior for quoted strings, i.e. in v1.0 a quoted “no” would remain a string “no” as well.
Because there's a metric ton of software out there that was built once upon a time and then that bit was never updated. I've seen this issue out in the wild across more industries than I can count.
I’m not here clanking down on Java for lacking Lambda features, the problem is that I did not update my Java environment past the 2014 version, not a problem with Java.
I think this mixes up two separate things. If you're working with Java, it's conceivable that you could probably update with some effort. If you're an aerospace engineer using software that was certified decades ago for an exorbitant amount of money, it's never going to happen. Swap for nearly any industry of your liking, since most of the world runs on legacy software by definition. A very large number of people running into issues like these are not in a position where they could solve the problem even if they wanted to.
That’s about 99% of the argument I am making. The problem is legacy software and bad certification workflows, not the software being used.
If I’m working with Java it’s indeed conceivable that I could update with some effort.
If I’m working with Node it’s conceivable that I could update with some effort.
If I working with YAML is it not conceivable that I could update with some effort?
PHP is stupid because version 3 did not support object oriented programming.
CSS is bad because version 2 did not support grid layouts or flexbox.
Why should I critique on these based on something that they have fixed a long time ago instead of working on updating to the version which contain the fix I am complaining about?
There is a gradient limit where the onus shifts squarely to one side once the spec has changed and a number of libraries have begun supporting the new spec.
Apple leadership makes decisions based on money.
That is also why there is no iPhone mini even though there is a small number of people that really prefer a small phone.
reply