Right, the 20% boost is unrelated to the Gilectomy.
> though, as Guido van Rossum noted, the Python developers could always just take the performance improvements without the concurrency work and be even faster yet.
Why be 10% faster single threaded when you can be 20% faster single threaded!
I don't think the goal is to "compete on speed", but I'm sure people wouldn't complain about their Python scripts running 15x faster on their 16 core CPU.
And it is also about flexibility. What I love about Python is the simplicity, and let's be honest, multiprocess anything but. Especially if you fall into one of the gotchas (unpickable data for example).
Is that true? From my understanding, Oculus has exclusive games, as well as supporting all open games, so Oculus basically supports all Vive games + a bunch of exclusives Vive doesn't. What games do Vive support that Oculus doesn't?
Yeah, I am not sure either. Unless there is some Vive Store (similar to Oculus Store), that doesn't seem right.
I know for a fact that on my Quest 2 I can play any games from Oculus Store (both for Quest and Rift), as well as any SteamVR games (played halfway through Half-Life:Alyx with Quest2). Wasn't aware of any Vive-exclusive SteamVR games though.
For all intents and purposes, Index and Vive are equivalent when it comes to the game support, so while at a hardware level Index is better (though Vive is about to announce new stuff too, and the Vive Pro is quite competitive with Index), it's besides the point here.
> It’s not required that you have an account or even use the software
That's the key point. The fact that some people weren't even able to use their Oculus device when FB went down for hours is insane. Imagine not being able to use your mouse or keyboard because Logitech went down.
There's a very big difference between an optional cloud system that brings convenience (settings sync) vs a required cloud system that the device cannot be used without.
From my understanding, the comment about was specifically trying to write regulation against the latter.
Would be ironic since OP caught an exploit that their entire team wasn't smart enough to catch... yet somehow he wouldn't know about something as basic as VPNs?
Zero chance this was an issue of an entire team not being smart enough to check - everyone who touched this would immediately understand it wasn't in the authenticated flow. This smells like bad requirements being delivered to the implementers.
Assuming you didn't care about the path, could you also take some optimal path where you go east to west to prolong the days, then go west to east to shorten the nights. Could probably play with south/north too depending on the time of the year to get longer days. Or maybe you can go far enough to the pole where it's always day.
is 10$ the cost the customer pays, or the cost of the delivery? I highly doubt the little electricity (or maintenance cost over time) is 10$ per delivery.
Also, as a straight comparison, drones are faster, scale better and are able to work at hours humans wouldn't. So even if it was 5$ vs 10$, some could argue that it's worth it. Obviously not in all situations, but sometimes there's an item you need right now and not tomorrow.
$10 is the "willingness to pay" (the number is in the article). There's no good estimate of drone delivery costs since the interested parties cherrypick locations and distance.
Again, not to take away by the amazing feat Tesla has achieved, but Google has had similar videos going back 2-3 years, and they are still not ready to release.
So either the problem in practice is much harder than a simple video can show, or something else is up.
Though, I think the real issue is that google wants to go straight for L5 (meaning 100% automated, and you can remove the steering wheel). As compared to an L4, which is more like 99.9% automated, but you still need steering wheel for those rare edge cases.
I attended one of Google's talks on this. The rationale is that humans can't be trusted to take control in a timely manner for that 0.01%. Their internal testing with an L4 system on trained Googlers (who were told to remain alert in the event that action needed to be taken) had instances of testers sleeping, eating, putting on makeup, etc. They concluded that if Googlers with explicit training couldn't behave themselves, then L4 definitely wasn't sufficient for the general public; autonomous driving had to be all or nothing.
> though, as Guido van Rossum noted, the Python developers could always just take the performance improvements without the concurrency work and be even faster yet.
Why be 10% faster single threaded when you can be 20% faster single threaded!