Is the streaming you talk about here and in the RFC over websockets, or the event-stream HTTP content type, or something more custom? Will the architecture have the potential to support realtime applications where the server will push updates to the client without the need to poll on an interval?
It's just regular chunked encoding, which we consume via a ReadableStream[1]. The key part is that we're able to consume partial data because we read it row by row. Each row represents a piece of JSON with placeholders for missing values. When we receive a row, we try to "continue" rendering on the client, and if we have a loading state we can show (even before all values arrived), we do that.
>Will the architecture have the potential to support realtime applications where the server will push updates to the client without the need to poll on an interval?
The article mentioned that after 5 yes-or-no questions in 60 minutes, the patients became exhausted. I'm guessing that activating certain parts of the brain requires considerably more effort for them than for a healthy person based on that.
The areas in question are areas tied to physical activity. They've been lying in a bed for a decade. It's not surprising that activating areas tied to physical activities is difficult.
I'm curious if the same fatigue would be present if the Yes/No responses were tied to critical thinking activities (though those are obviously more ambiguous to detect).
As someone with a traumatic brain injury from over two years ago that stI'll had cognitive problems on a daily basis preventing me from a range of tasks such as working in IT (careel of 10+ years) to (depending on the day) understanding the question "are you hungry?": i get mentally fatigued from answering questions, both critical and non critical thinking. Both are taxing and after less than an hour of ~15 questions I am unable to proceed or comprehend the information. The best analog I could give is when you wake up groggy and turn on a tv show that is in a language you don't know. Your brain is trying and searching but there are no connections being made and you only are aware that you are struggling but can do anything about it besides rest and give your brain time to recouperate.
"New-space" aerospace companies are operating on a different funding framework from the old aerospace juggernauts. Instead of cost-plus funding that came almost solely from the government and which allowed rockets like ULA's Delta IV and Atlas V to stay competitive in the $300-400 million range without having to find ways to cut costs. SpaceX, Blue Origin, and Orbital Sciences, as well as other new companies, have to innovate in order to make their businesses feasible.
Additionally, Blue Origin and SpaceX have different goals from traditional aerospace firms that requires them to drive costs down below what a government would require. Blue Origin want to offer rides to space to tourists; for that, their costs need to be low enough for a person to buy a ticket. SpaceX wants to land their rockets on Mars, and then take off again. Being able to land the first stage of the Falcon 9 allows them to perfect the landing and reuse of rockets on Earth, before taking that knowledge to Mars.
Thanks. I've heard the story but I haven't seen evidence of it, it smells too much like a marketing story (we're young and exciting, those old people are boring and stuck in the past), and it seems very unlikely: I don't buy that the 'old' companies wouldn't want to reduce their costs by 75%, greatly increasing demand for their very expensive service, greatly increasing their bottom line - even in a cost-plus arrangement.
Usually changes like this result from a technical or economic development.
It's not that we're young and exciting and the early attempts were old and boring. The comment you're replying to is pointing out the very different incentives between several private companies competing for and government-funded projects with totally different funding structures.
Different incentives = different goals. SpaceX had to cut costs down to even be remotely competitive, and they had the benefit of starting from scratch, with no prior commitments in design of machine shops, etc. and with access to several decades worth of spaceflight experience.
And they have a drive, too. Mars is not a marketing story, Elon seems to really believe in doing it, and a lot of people at SpaceX buy into this vision.
"Cost-plus" funding means they didn't have any incentive to reduce costs. The thing that got them money was keeping politicians onside, so it was more important to e.g. provide jobs in relevant states.
And for every way you zoom it, the hockey stick moment will be in a different point. A completely different point if you try completely different views.
So I think the elbow analogy has value when you note that there are two ways of describing in an elbow in the exponential function when considering finite human lifetime.
Given two points in time t,u they have progress exp t and exp u and relative rates of progress exp u / exp t = exp (u-t). So of course the relative rate of progress between 2 points in time is fixed and so we can scale our y-axis to make any 2 points have the characteristic "elbow" of an exponential.
But if we consider absolute difference between 2 points on the scale of a human lifetime over different periods of time we can see that absolute difference doesn't have the same property as relative rate of progress.
exp u - exp (t-u+u) = exp u - exp u (exp(t-u)) = exp u (1- exp (t-u))
Which I guess I'll interpret as saying that the absolute difference of progress between 2 points in time is proportional to an exponential. So for most of history that exponential was very close to zero and humans did not experience must change in a lifetime. Now however we live in a time where the exponential can be said to be nearing an "elbow."
So while over time relative rates of progress between 2 points do not vary, absolute progress between 2 points certainly does vary can be described as an elbow when measured against a human lifetime.
Ok, the lifetime of a person is a preferential zoomlevel for the time axis. But a zoomlevel for the productivity axis is still missing, so that everybody for the last 500 years did experience an elbow just before the time they were living.
And if our growth had been exactly exponential+, everybody for the last 500 years would have experience an elbow with the exact same shape. Just the magnitude would change, and so fast that everybody would dismiss the previous generation claims, just like you are doing now.
+ Now, it hasn't been exactly exponential. The exponent is accelerating since we got precise enough measurements, and funny thing is that this fact just extends that "no sudden change of behavior" further back, while still not creating any privileged zoomlevel for the productivity axis, and not letting any new generation have any claim that their time is different.
What's the difference between that and any other type of media on the internet? Take YouTube videos for example. An MP4 video file is also "nothing but a regular file served from a web page," yet YouTube doesn't include a "download" link for any videos on their site.
Right. So one has to install additional software to automate jumping through their hoops and download the MP4 file. In other words: no difference – I wish they would just give us the file in both cases.
I already have a video player that works the way I want it to work. Same thing with e-books and audio. (Having an app to manage the library of media is convenient once the collection gets larger, but I'll choose the app myself.)
Which podcast doesn’t just let you download the file?
I just checked all I’m subscribed to and they all just let me download the file, no problem. Subscribing just makes it much more practical and persistent.
There is no need for extra apps, they just make it more convenient.
"Take YouTube videos for example. An MP4 video file is also ..."
But there was a podcast recently that took me quite a while to get the real URL for because they only linked to iTunes. They seem to have fixed it now though (with a libsyn.com RSS link).
