Really nice idea and product. Does it update and cache changed schema for the target API? For ex. an app makes frequent get calls to retrieve list of houses but API changed with new schema, would Superglue figure it out at runtime or is it updating schema regularly for target API based on their API docs (assuming they have it)?
> Spraying a form of sulfur from a plane is incredibly cheap. A full programme would cost less than $20b per year. That’s much cheaper than carbon removal ($600b per year, to remove just 10% of annual emissions @ $100 / tCO2).
It is 30x higher both in time and cost to capture carbon. At $20B/yr geoengineering the atmosphere can be done for 50+ yrs. In 50yrs, carbon capture would need $30T vs only $1T for spraying sulfur. Carbon capture as a long-term solution doesn't make sense. Also, how much carbon you can capture in 50yrs? At 10% of annual emissions, you can probably reach 30% by the end of 50yrs. Carbon capture is still leaving 70% carbon in the environment. It's a make believe solution build to give us false sense of action for saving climate.
> “Of course the AWS S3 Express storage costs are still 8x higher than S3 standard, but that’s a non issue for any modern data storage system. Data can be trivially landed into low latency S3 Express buckets, and then compacted out to S3 Standard buckets asynchronously. Most modern data systems already have a form of compaction anyways, so this “storage tiering” is effectively free.”
This is key insight. The data storage cost essentially becomes negligible and latency goes down by a magnitude by making S3 Express as a buffer storage then moving data to standard S3. I see a future where most data-intensive apps would use S3 as main storage layer.
Mindless money that's being poured into carbon capture projects, would help grow and maintain forests for at least 10yrs. A recent example like Heirloom that just started its facility and would only capture 1000 tons per year. It took them 4yrs and $50M+ to build one facility. Even if they somehow were to build 1000 facilities annually, they would only capture 10M tons of carbon. Also think about the carbon they would release by building those facilities. We need to remove 2 billion tons of carbon per year at current levels of pollution. Carbon capture projects are just another type of climate grifting like carbon offsets etc.
This makes sense as Ford just adopted Tesla's NACS (North American Charging Standard) and GM would logically follow. We can now assume that the charging industry is disrupted by Tesla's NACS. Existing EV charging companies for ex. EVGO would need to upgrade all their chargers to adopt Tesla's connector.
Currently none of the existing chargers, if it all, work with Teslas. The worst thing of this all Tesla would start selling chargers to networks and only moat existing charging companies have is the 10-15 years leases they have on charging sites.
Another thing I haven't seen mentioned in comments is that CCS standard is owned by BMW and they charge $50 patent fee on each connection.
This makes sense as Ford just adopted Tesla's NACS (North American Charging Standard) and GM would logically follow. We can now assume that the charging industry is disrupted by Tesla's NACS. Existing EV charging companies for ex. EVGO would need to upgrade all their chargers to adopt Tesla's connector.
Currently none of the existing chargers, if it all, work with Teslas. The worst thing of this all Tesla would start selling chargers to networks and only moat existing charging companies have is the 10-15 years leases they have on charging sites.