And then Valve "underspent" (although perhaps more of an MVP) by taking an existing good-enough chip, perhaps able to get very good yield out of fab (at a time when fabs were costing a fortune), and found yet another corner to cut on a device that is overall pretty low build quality, to hit an aggressive price point. I love my Steam Deck, and I loved the low price, but the build quality is "good enough" at best.
Valve have reversed course with the new generation, having a custom chip now that they've proved out the demand, and I expect the device will improve across the board as they take advantage of higher volumes, and perhaps an ability to price a little higher too.
I wouldn't be surprised if Magic Leap also reverse course (or already have done? are they still around?) by moving to much cheaper off the shelf or pre-existing hardware.
Genuinely curious, what do you consider low build quality on them?
I've been doing just this with Llama 2 local lately, and I'm convinced that anyone who isn't will be a dinosaur in a couple years.
Fact is, these things are damn good (at JS at least) when dealing with pure unit-testable functions. To the point that I can accept practically any solution it comes up with will be better than mine. Everything is still verified of course, but the days of writing algorithms from scratch are basically over for me.
I was going crazy with all the files you need to have for a small project.
It's like all the horrible sides of OOP and abstraction, but on steroids.
At first glance it seems "complete", but once you start building there's just so many insane edge cases that don't work well or have bugs. I also think that "integrating" RxJS was a mistake, while I get it and it's nice, it's imho too low level of an abstraction if you have many people that don't necessarily want to learn all the details (easy to shoot yourself in the foot with it), too different from anything else in JS, and too poorly integrated into angular.
And also the verbosity of everything.. was too much for me.
No matter how many subversive nuclear shills keep posting on reddit and other forums. Reddit drowns in fake marketing/PR accounts, you can buy them by the thousands. In the past, I have seen templates for responses written in the weekly pro-nuclear threads. But whatever - just one simple statement that remains true in 2021 is this:
Nuclear fission power is entirely uneconomical and already replaced by safer, better alternatives.
And on top of the insane cost - plants will never be profitable without lifelong government subsidies - the insane length of construction and planning to build new modern generation plants is completely out of what's reasonable because we have to tackle climate change NOW. You're looking at $20bn and 10-15 years of construction at least.
Finland is currently struggling to finish their new reactor and it costs them dearly. Just invest in renewables and be done with it far sooner at much lower cost and factor 1000 less problems (aside from lobbyism and shilling). Just look at this mess of cost and lost time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Finland#New_c... All that jazz for a measly 1600 MW.
Less than 1500 off-shore wind power turbines deliver a whooping 7.5 Gigawatt for Germany [1]. If you can build 300 wind turbines in 20 years at a fraction of the cost of a single nuclear plant you will have the same output and no possible nuclear incidents or nuclear waste to take care of. Mix it with other renewables and you get the power consistency you need. Nuclear in 2021 is so incredibly unreasonable it bothers me to no end.
In Germany, we still have no reasonable way to dispose of 1900 CASTOR containers containing dangerous plutonium with a half-life of 24,000 fucking years. The containers are rated for 40 year protection btw.
We have a super majority that rejects nuclear power. Do we struggle sometimes to make the shift away from fossil fuels AND nuclear at the same time? Yes. Do we have to buy power from France or other neighbors in times of high demand? Has happened before. But we are making progress and are able to sustain a large portion of our economy on renewables TODAY.
If we had this discussion in 1990, my opinion would have been different. But it's too late and too expensive now to shift back into nuclear. By 2042, when a plant planned TODAY would go online, our renewable infrastructure will far outdo what any nuclear plant is capable of in terms of risk-reward.
[1] https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/german-offshore-w...
What's the real solution here? If all countries did what Germany does, we'll have a lot of coal power plants, why not instead have nuclear ones? I don't know a lot about this topic, but it seems to me there isn't any viable solution here, even if nuclear costs a lot.
Just adding as it might interest someone :)
I wouldn't call myself a zealot. We chose functional components for a new project on my team as a direct response to problems we were having with maintainability of larger React applications. Specifically that class components tend to get massively bloated over time with business logic, lifecycle based rendering logic, and local state. I was skeptical at first as well. But it turns out that once you start fully separating things out into reducers and actions, the class becomes little more than boilerplate. When you enforce that there are no class members or local state allowed in UI components, it pushes people into proper separation of concerns. The project becomes much more maintainable as you don't have to dig around through components to find out what's going on.