Ok, but recently? I too wrote code for obscure platforms once upon a time, but not in, say, the last 15 years.
Now that PCs, game consoles, and mobile devices are basically all either amd64 or ARM, there's just not such a long tail of weird platforms to develop for.
(the embedded world I will grant you, still lots of bespoke toolchains running around in that space)
I think this view is changing as solar adoption takes off in southern Europe. Here in Spain we're in the position that market rates for electricity are often negative while the sun is shining (although these rates are not really passed onto consumers at present).
That makes additional cooling load almost a non-issue, and can help incentivise the transition from diesel boilers -> heat pumps, as well as driving the grid upgrades we sorely need to make use of all the solar capacity.
Southern Spain may, but it's virtually unheard of up here in Galicia/Asturias/Cantabria. Even many businesses in these parts don't have AC, and our Ourense region has pretty regularly had 40+ C days the last ~5 summers
Similar age as well, and damn, if I could actually convince my bank to let me approve transactions with a dumbphone... The reality is just that a significant part of the modern world is contingent on carrying around a brand-name smartphone
> not limited to the very few architectures that rust supports
Of all the complaints about rust, this strikes me as one of weirdest. How much code do you actually write for architectures outside the Tier 3 support list?
> This is about temperature in the workplace, not outside temperatures
According to the article, the 30C threshold is for "more demanding jobs in sectors like agriculture and construction", which generally take place outdoors
> Under the proposals, employers within the European Union would be legally required to suspend work if temperatures exceeded 30C
That's... uh... the entire summer in most of southern Europe?
I agree with the general intention, but the thresholds probably need to take into account humidity as well (i.e. be based on wet bulb temperatures), and I don't really see how one can apply a one-size-fits-all policy all the way from Greece to Scandinavia...
> Renting something at a rate that'd be purchased in less than 2 years seems very myopic to me
And yet basically all AWS customers are doing exactly that. Turns out that making CAPEX "someone else's problem" is worth quite a lot to many businesses
> that would be implying that "private" really means anything for AWS
Insert your dedicated hosting provider of choice for 'AWS' (somewhere like Hetzner will be cheaper anyway).
But in general, AWS hosts are yours, running your code, with your security policies enforced. Sure, the US government can silently subpoena the contents thereof, but aside from that fairly extreme case, it's not like AWS is handing your data over to 3rd parties.
Hetzner will also rent you 768 GB of RAM with a Blackwell 6000 Max Q GPU for €2300/month [1].
Yes, it's a boatload of cash, but that's a €13,000 GPU and €20,000 of RAM at present prices. There is a segment of businesses where a fixed €28k/year bill is going to be preferred over plonking down €40k for a (theoretically) depreciating asset and ongoing colocation costs.
Do they care about locally-hosted, or only about self-hosted? I'm not really clear why a local box would be any better than running on a private AWS instance in any of these scenarios...
For sure, though I will note that a 8-rack of hellfires only accounts for around half the desired payload. I imagine they are still planning to strap JDAMs to these things as well
Maybe I'm overly cynical, but I don't know that directing some funding towards the open-source project that is the foundation of your whole tech stack is really "kindness" per se.
When you are vending a devtool to other open-source developers, and making a lot of hay about the specific technology choice, it's basically marketing spend. It's also often a way of buying favour (attention to issues, PRs, etc) from the project maintainers...
Right, I can see the need for both, but that suggests to me that they could differentiate the sensor package + loiter drone significantly from the shahed clone (which, given that it is a one-way trip, has a very similar operational radius)
Does one really need to bring along 2,500 kg of ordinance, when we can launch another $50,000 shahed-equivalent at whatever hard targets the loitering drone locates?
> The Defense Innovation Unit notice called for drones capable of carrying many different sensor and weapons payloads up to 2,800 pounds and flying with a combat radius of at least 2,300 nautical miles—or 8,000 nautical miles on a one-way strike mission—while executing the same missions that the MQ-9A Reaper drone currently performs for the US military
I feel like they might be taking the wrong lesson from this. The Reaper costs $30-50 million precisely because its mission profile is to deliver 3,500 pounds of payload over 1,000 nautical mile radius.
The cheap Iranian and Ukrainian drones these are increasingly competing with are only delivering 50-100kg of payload - which is plenty to blow shit up, and doesn't require a big, expensive, reusable airframe.
corporate != professional. Plenty of professionals who do not work in those highly risk-averse corporate roles
What's the actual risk here? I guess he could sue Andrew for slander, and then prove in court that his management style doesn't suck, and his code is not slop...