It would be nice if they'd let you see the whole thing at once.
148 karma · joined May 11, 2017
Tesla has smart people, just like any tech company, but they're not uniquely smart and they're not immune to the same short-sighted thinking that plagues other tech companies.
Note that I think this particular idea is not necessarily bad for the company, it's just not anything special. It's basically Folding@Home, monetized. If you can convince enough people to leave it on (or force it on and somehow avoid legal/PR issues) then I guess you can save a tiny bit of money on certain kinds of workloads.
It also depends a lot on what your hardware is, whether you're doing a full scan or a partial scan, whether you have more than one NIC etc, etc.
I highly recommend using BetterTouchTool to get the most out of it if you still have a device with the touch bar.
It doesn't quite work like that. When someone in your family goes to hit the purchase button, it pops up a window saying that someone else has already purchased it. I'm not sure why you have to hit the button first, maybe for some measure of privacy from your family members?
The logic of "they were going to die anyways" means we might as well change every cause of death to "old age" or "natural causes", because if nothing else gets us, that's how we will all eventually die. But, of course, that would be stupid, and it would make death statistics meaningless - which is why we don't do it for COVID deaths.
There are two sides to this, the encoding side and the decoding side. Google can frame it charitably towards themselves by saying "the Roku won't be able play 4K HDR", but we could just as easily frame it as "Google doesn't want to encode non-AV1 4K HDR". Both companies are trying to save costs, but Google's trying to frame it as Roku failing its users (users which are Google's as well, if they're trying to watch YouTube TV).
To be clear, I think open-source codecs are great, and it makes sense for devices (especially plugged-in / home internet devices) to support as many as is reasonable.
This is practically the definition of confirmation bias.
It's the same thing with my Switch, Xbox, 3DS, whatever. They all keep working well over time because apps are limited in what they can do, and they are curated.
Meanwhile, because on Windows and macOS you aren't limited to their respective app stores, the app stores don't have as complete a selection as their locked-down counterparts, meaning you have to go outside the store to get everything you need. Consequently, a Windows computer gets slower over time, and you're never sure if you've completely uninstalled something, unless you use one of the now numerous 500MB+ launchers/updaters. MacOS is marginally better, but I still have to go and clean out LaunchAgents and LaunchDaemons, and wonder if it's the Razer kext causing kernel panics because it was cheaper for them to make one than build everything necessary into the mouse. On both OSs, it's extremely nontrivial to figure out if some software is causing the device to wake from sleep and drain the battery. The consequence of allowing application developers to do anything is that they will do everything, and it's very hard as an OS developer to keep all the user software well-behaved.
This is the part that Apple took issue with. Either they remove references to the external paid service, or they provide a way to pay for it from the app, with the usual fee. It's misleading to characterize this as "Apple forces a free app to become paid". Apple is just doing their usual thing of requiring that payments for features of an app cannot bypass Apple's payment system.
Microsoft also offers an app store, and even a way to restrict Windows to only running software from that app store (S mode), but they take the somewhat-standard 30%. One nice thing they do that I think Apple should adopt is taking a smaller cut if you visited the store through a web link (meaning Microsoft didn't provide the "discovery" and thus shouldn't be compensated for it).
This is true, but I'm being pedantic and calling the quadratic form of insertion sort just "insertion sort", and the form that does a binary search on the sorted items "binary insertion sort".
But, while we're here... Insertion sort is O(n^2) on the number of comparison operations, because this step is O(n) on the number of sorted items (you start with 0 of them, and end with n of them, for an average of n/2, which is O(n)):
> find the place within the sorted books where this book belongs
You do this once for each unsorted item (you start with n of them, and end with 0 of them, for an average of n/2, which is O(n)).
Granted, in real life, your brain does a better job of remembering roughly the correct place for each book, so I would say average case with a small number of books you are correct. If you're sorting a large number of books, you need to find the correct spot in less than O(n) comparisons to do better than O(n^2) on the algorithm. I think finding the correct spot would still be O(n), just with a small constant.
Interestingly, if you were sorting a massive volume of books like this and you started to forget the right spot for things, you might modify your strategy and start binary searching for it. This would help you find the spot in O(log(n)), and you'd be doing the sort in O(n*log(n))! It's a small improvement that yields binary insertion sort.