Can you explain a bit? How can they design chip based on software requirements? I mean - they can add more threading, cores, etc. to ensure that heavyweight software like gaming, photo or video editing etc. can benefit from them, but still, the chip design is generic and any heaveweight software can benefit from it, not necessarily Apple's own upcoming in-house software, right?
Hmm thought so. They make hardware chips first, right, packing as many cores and transistors as possible in heat efficient manner? They make software like OS, apps, UX on top of the chips? Or is it that they plan the software first and build custom chip that is powerful and efficient enough to support their software vision? Seems unlikely, but just want to know.
Oops, sorry, I meant Air. Editing the question, thanks. But the Pro also rarely seems to emit sound of fan, unlike my earlier MacBooks (pre-2016), so something's changed for sure I think.
Hmm got it. If a Linux skin is rewritten in Qt, and the SDK and tool chain are exposed through Qt, can they be as performant, smooth and give the native feel like Mac OS or iOS apps?
Is Xilem remotely as mature a framework as one required for writing an OS and generating a toolchain and SDK at par with Mac OS (or iOS), Cocoa/Swift/Flutter?
Hmm I read the post. Cloudfare handles almost 1 trillion requests per day, Google does that per year. However, the request types are different, Cloudfare handles a variety of requests like caching and forwarding, while Google requests are about serving complete web pages. May be for the webserver purpose like Google Nginx may suffice?
Got it. Thanks. Which servers are best suited to handle such high levels of load, and are available for free and open usage like Nginx or Apache is? I read that Apache has even more problems than Nginx.
Good to know. Any idea why Google chose to use custom servers instead of opting for Nginx or Apache? Specially when Nginx offers excellent load balancing capabilities in-built?
I am aware that I need more learning, no need for that advice. I also know that BM25 and PageRank are different, were they the same, there wouldn't have been a need for two of them, my question was ver clear - which one in the long run yields better (in terms of relevance) search results comparatively. I am also aware that ES is a starter pack and Google is a beast that will need much much more than just an ES stack, what i wanted to know was - whether ES offers the capabilities to fine tune it to make it behave like such a beast. Thank you for your advice, but it is better if you read the question first before lecturing others in a condescending manner.
Yes of course. What I meant is - when I query a phrase, that phrase can be found in one million webpages, yet I get a bunch of them sorted by relevance. Surely that is a combination of two things - deep rooted crawling that gathers data from most websites, and secondly, a nice algorithm to sort them by relevance that is based on a variety of signals. ES has nothing to do with crawling, that is custom to the user using ES, but for the content fed to ES, how much does it allow customizing signals, combining them into a custom relevance logic, and how much does it allow to modify and edit the indexing logic so that say I can use a combination of BM25 and PageRank?
If you observe the Ubuntu Touch videos on YouTube, you will find that the animations, the graphics are not smooth and seamless, they stall, they freeze, they lag. Do you reckon it is more due to low end hardware underlying those phones as opposed to a fundamental problem?
You mean to say Telegram is smoother than other apps? Will try it out. In general, would you say that Qt is supposed to work just as buttery smooth and native on Mac or iPhone as a native app? And will an OS built on Qt like Ubuntu Touch will be as smooth and beautifully craftable as iOS apps on iPhone?