We did for years, and even have a pretty cool one with dual filtration that prevented almost all grit. (the Espro) However, I didn't enjoy the wasted coffee and cleanup, and found that using refillable pods used less coffee and mess for the same product.
The annoying cleanup and wasted coffee seems specific to the espro.
Cleaning a normal one is really quick and I don't mind the remainder of fines as they quickly settle at the bottom of the cup.
While I hate Spring, it is much easier to deploy than django/python projects.
Spring is a single-file deployment and apt install openjdk, while django needs a venv or a whole container, dependency installs on the host etc. it's not even a contest.
Same for me, but MacBook Air M1 and T7 Shield. But it doesn't always seem to be the cable. One of Samsung's was definitely broken and they replaced it, but it keeps happening with other cables too.
FlowTracker reminds me a little of taint analysis, which is used for tracking unvalidated user inputs or secrets through a program, making sure it is not leaked or used without validation.
search keywords are "dynamic taint tracking/analysis"
They only guess the performance difference is because of GC, generating code on the fly and compiling it to classes in your hot path is also probably not cheap.
Memory allocation/deallocation overhead is always present, just look at different allocators, fragmentation issues and so on. Using a GC is not intrinsically much different performance wise.
The Intel Lion Cove cores and the AMD Zen 5 cores have much more similar microarchitectures than any previous Intel and AMD pairs of competing CPUs, with the exception of the fact that in the consumer P-cores used in Lunar Lake and Arrow Lake Intel has removed the support for SMT and for AVX-512 (a.k.a. AVX10). I.e. for most operations Lion Cove and Zen 5 have the same number of functional units that can execute them, unlike for earlier competing cores where there were greater differences.
The only significant difference between Intel Lion Cove and AMD Zen 5 is that the former has an instruction decoder that can decode 8 instructions simultaneously, while the latter has 2 instruction decoders, each of which can decode 4 instructions simultaneously. Other small differences will matter only in special applications, e.g. it is likely that Lion Cove can compute floating-point divisions faster.
Therefore it is expected that at the same clock frequency in single-threaded applications the performance of the Core Ultra 200K series will be almost the same as that of the Ryzen 9000 series, perhaps with a very small advantage for Intel. Because Arrow Lake S is made by TSMC, the top Intel models will no longer have a higher clock frequency than AMD, which will contribute additionally to very similar single-threaded performance.
In multi-threaded performance, there will be large differences between the applications that use 512-bit AVX-512 instructions and those which do not use 512-bit AVX-512 instructions. The former will be much faster on Ryzen, while the latter are likely to be faster on Arrow Lake S, because Intel uses a better TSMC process, with higher energy efficiency.
The new Skymont E-cores have double AVX throughput in comparison with the E-cores of Meteor Lake/Raptor Lake/Alder Lake, so the contribution of the E-cores to the throughput of multi-threaded AVX applications will be much higher than in the previous Intel hybrid CPUs. For AVX instructions, a 24-core Arrow Lake S CPU will have 3/2 more vector functional units than a 16-core Zen 5, while when using 512-bit AVX-512 instructions a 16-core Zen 5 will have 4/3 more vector functional units than a 24-core Arrow Lake S. So the ISA used for compiling a program will lead to great differences in benchmarks. Compiling for AVX-512 is not enough for Zen 5, 512-bit instructions must also be selected. For the older Intel CPUs with AVX-512 the 512-bit instructions were frequently avoided, because they lowered the clock frequency. On the other hand, on Zen 4 and Zen 5 the 512-bit instructions are always better.
Exhilarating? These are ~10% faster in single/multi than the 13900KS from 23Q1. Power consumption drops largely coming from everyone, including Intel this generation, using TSMC's latest nodes. Apple does have a pretty decent perf/w showing compared to the others but only if you want it for their walled garden. I'm extremely disappointed in the rate of competition this year, especially given all the hope I had for it.
Given how close the leading performers all are, the increase in total high end competition, and having alternatively licensed architectures in that mix we're getting the same types of generational improvements we did when Intel was the lone king. About the only people really floored are the ones rocking the iPad.
Who knows, maybe the X3D variants will still leave something interesting in the near term.
That doesn't make any sense when one to two races ago participants posted 20-25 percent gains and single core crowning performance is the same between the highest end desktop CPUs and a fanless iPad.
Sure, it's not the 90s where the highest end CPU is doubled every 2 years. It's also not the point where 10% is because we've just hit the limit (like the mid 2010s when everyone was saying the same thing and it turned out there was plenty of generational gain achievable). This generation sucks for desktops, it's just how it is and not something we need to make excuses for.
I mean, the 9950X has around 2x the single core perf of the 3950X and 2.5x multi core in geekbench 6. This is pretty great my my eyes.
Even Apple isn't doing yearly architecture refreshes anymore.
The (discontinued) microsoft 4k wireless display adapter works pretty well for me in combination with Windows. much more responsive than chromecast or airplay.
I plugged these in the every display in our building because they are so much more reliable than anything else. They worked so well that they all found new homes within a few months :(
