Probably different projects though. Not sure what projects the US has but in the UK you have a number of types of warehouse:

- Fulfilment centres: Where all your normal run of the mill Amazon orders are picked and packed.

- Distribution centres: Centralised locations where orders are routed through; i.e. you might have 20 fulfilment centres sending packages to a distribution centre which then amalgamates them onto individual trucks (or planes) destined to further away locations. So imagine 20 trucks bring packages in from the closest fulfilment centres, those packages are then reorganised such that maybe 4 trucks worth are amalgamated to go down to London, 4 upto Scotland, 2 the South West and so on, whilst the remaining ones might go to local delivery centres because they're for local parcels.

- Delivery stations: These are the last mile stations, where parcels are offloaded from trucks onto local delivery vans.

- AMXL Warehouses: This is Amazon's extra large project for oversized goods. If you buy something like a washing machine, or fridge on Amazon it's picked and dispatched through AMXL centres. They're kitted out with equipment for shifting heavy goods.

- Prime Now Warehouses: These are local all in one time centres that have a smaller selection of goods people want quickly, i.e. typically groceries, the latest video games, batteries that are picked, packed, and dispatched all from one place for same day deliveries within 2 hours to people local enough to them to offer that.

- Returns centres: These handle returns unsurprisingly.

I'm sure there are other types I'm not aware of.

It's not uncommon for Amazon to build clusters; i.e. AMXL, Distribution, and Delivery all next to each other; some are even interconnected so parcels destined for deliveries local to Distribution Centres for example might have conveyors straight from the DC into the Delivery station so they can be routed straight through without packing and unpacking trucks.

So there is method to the madness of them building warehouses next to each other. On the outside they all look the same on the inside they're all doing completely different things.

I can kind of understand the use case for this, the problem is that for serverless code execution cloud providers are currently typically using containers to deliver FaaS, the problem is even in the best case you still have sometimes unacceptable cold start times if no instance of the execution environment is cached and available to serve.

This means the promise of cloud based hyper-scalability through FaaS for web apps has some real problems, on both ends of the scale:

- At the bottom end, low rates of concurrent execution, FaaS suffers from the cold start problem, you can't realistically serve backend requests for a front end site using FaaS in this scenario because there's never an instance ready to serve the request, so each time a user visits the site and a call is made to your FaaS function the cold start means you could see response times as bad as on the order of seconds, that's too long for user interaction.

- At the middle range the cold start problem goes away some degree because you have enough frequency of requests to your service that there's always a warm instance to serve the request and don't have the cold start problem for all your users. You still have it for some of your users however as demand ebbs and flows; your functions still have to scale up and scale down appropriately and so it becomes a headache making sure you don't under or overprovision (note you can have this problem at the low end too using things like provisioned concurrency for AWS lambdas or Azure Premium functions).

- At the high end you have different issues, the promise of FaaS, serverless, and infinite scalability vanishes. AWS only allows 3000 concurrent Lambda executions in even their largest data centres for example, that's a reasonable load but I've worked on services where you need to go to say 50,000 concurrent requests and so AWS Lambdas just can't do it - your users get sporadic HTTP 429 errors as it throttles your requests. AWS can up this limit for you, but at that point again you're really fudging a solution into a cloud architecture that's straining to cope. Amazon's limits are because for all the hype, even Amazon having to fire up 3000 containers for a number of customers at once can become a strain on their capacity; forcing people to explicitly ask for a higher cap means they can better do capacity planning for customers on any given region.

So it's not entirely surprising therefore there's a push for a more granular type of container; one that's faster to spin up, whilst still be isolated from other execution environments, and has less overhead than even Linux containers. Such a thing is needed to get us closer to that goal of a cloud environment that can support both small and large web app back ends alike, because right now the issues above mean that FaaS is often limited to other types of workflow, like background order processing and that kind of thing.

I imagine therefore, that this is what this solution is oriented towards. The problem is it's not language agnostic, meaning you'd need a similar solution for other supported languages. Ideally you need an execution environment to be able to guarantee it'll spin up, process and respond to a request on the order of mere milliseconds in an isolated execution environment.

Disclaimer: I 100% agree with you around the usage of JS, I use it professionally day in day out at a FAANG scale company right now, but have worked with C, C++, Java, C#, PHP, and Python professionally in the past. Companies shouldn't be using JS like they are, it's genuinely leading to poorer quality code, but employers are being baited in by the hoards of cheap young code camp students getting taught JS. We also use TS, but unless you understand OO and types properly these devs just end up treating TS like JS; the second they encounter the need for a complex type they just resort to the any type and go back to the JS way of doing things and it rapidly becomes a clusterfuck once more. By the time you've taught them to code properly you might as well have just used a more appropriate language like Java, C#, Go, Rust, C++ or similar and trained people from the ground up yourself through an apprenticeship programme, so it's really a false economy using JS because of the "ease of use", or "cheap labour".

Probably:

https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fearthquaketrack.com%2Fr%2F...

"North Atlantic Ocean has had: (M1.5 or greater)
6 earthquakes in the past 24 hours
51 earthquakes in the past 7 days
190 earthquakes in the past 30 days
3,109 earthquakes in the past 365 days"

Interestingly that page shows there was a magnitude 5.3 in the last 24 hours alone along the mid-Atlantic ridge. Unfortunately the page is a bit shit to navigate so I can't find an easy way of seeing the data for the 15th.

I think the problem is though that these things happen all the time, whether they cause any surface water movement though is dependent entirely on very unique circumstances of each one. You could have a magnitude 6 that no one notices because it had no real impact, but a magnitude 3 that just happens to trigger a massive underwater landslide resulting in a tsunami.

Having shore dived the Caribbean regularly, sometimes doing 5 dives a day and knowing that the waves can vary within a range of fuck all to a metre or so high in the space of just a few hours separate from standard tidal movements if the winds pick up. I'd wager there are plenty of 10cm tsunamis but the vast majority will simply be lost in natural variation of the waves driven by weather. This one was probably only noticed simply because someone was looking at tidal variation at the time of a big, internationally well publicised tsunami and has as a result gotten themselves a bit overexcited theorising without really thinking it through.

Eruption happened at 04:14 UTC, Tsunami hit Japan at 14:14 UTC. Three hours before that would be 11:14 UTC, but the shockwave was travelling at the speed of sound, which is around 761mph at sea level. The Caribbean is at least 7,000 miles away, so at the speed of sound it would take around 9hrs 30mins to get there, which would mean 13:44 UTC at the absolute earliest - only 30mins before the Japanese tsunami, not 3 hours before. Furthermore, if the shockwave itself was causing tsunamis this doesn't explain why the first Japanese tsunami happened after the first Caribbean one; you'd have expected shockwave driven tsunamis to appear in Japan before the Caribbean ones regardless, even if the main tsunami driven by the displacement of water at the site of the eruption itself took longer to arrive.

I appreciate it's possible the suggestion is that the shockwave passed through the core of the planet or similar rather than around the surface, but I'm not convinced they're not simply confusing correlation for causation here. I suspect more likely what happened is that movements within the earths core or crust that triggered the Tonga eruption also triggered a minor eruption or shifting of plates causing an underwater landslide somewhere in the Atlantic around the same time as the eruption near Tonga resulting in the minor tsunami seen in the Caribbean. This would be a far more plausible explanation because it would actually be physically possible in the timeframes given for starters.

It is, but it's worth noting as majestic as this octopus is that transparency like this is not uncommon in the ocean. Many many species of creature start their lives out transparent in the ocean; even many octopus that later turn out to be non-transparent. Even many baby moray eels start out transparent.

If you like that octopus look up Black Water Photography:

https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Fsearch%3F...

It's the practice of just taking underwater photographs in dark open water in the middle of the night of typically juvenile stuff like this using macro photography; because the ocean is absolutely full of this absolutely majestical stuff at night. If anyone ever decides to do it though my one piece of advice is even if you don't normally when you dive, wear a hood - there's nothing more creepy than feeling this shit crawling all over your head and feeling like it's gone into your ears at times - especially the creepy water millipede like shit that looks like it runs through water with hundreds of legs, stuff of nightmares!

It really is an alien world in the ocean; there's life there that makes things imagined in sci-fi look utterly tame and unimaginative in comparison.

I don't think so; typically medicines are always updated post approval when they're in the open market and new side effects are found because realistically if you're talking about a 1 in 500,000 issue the ability to even get 500,000 test subjects for most medicines is flat out impossible because a lot of the time you're talking about medicines for conditions that there just aren't even that many people suffering from it at any given time. The only reason it's making headlines this time is because we're talking about medicines that everyone is getting, so those rare case are, in absolute numbers, more obvious.

If you have a vaccine for something that isn't given as broadly, it's possible you'd simply never see such rare outcomes even though they're theoretically possible. So this isn't really a function of lack of testing prior to release as it is business as usual making headlines because it's relevant to everyone. If for example rabies, or Japanese encephalitis vaccines had side effects like this you wouldn't expect the UK's medicines regulator to even notice because the rarity with which those vaccines are given out in the UK is small, but that doesn't mean that rare side effects not found during testing like this aren't a possibility.

IMO it's only really an issue when for example as with the AZ vaccine the British government tried to bury it out of nationalist pride - first by saying it wasn't a real issue and Europe as just bitter about Brexit, then lying and saying it's only a 1 in 1 million chance, before finally admitting a few weeks back it's a 1 in 60,000 chance of getting a blood clot and effectively, in real terms, phasing out the AZ vaccine in the UK because no one else after that point is now getting it in the UK other than for second doses.

So all we're really doing here is seeing everything happen at high speed - whereas with many vaccines or medicines it might take many years before millions of people are treated with them for enough cases of a rare side effect to be noticed, here we're just seeing it in a much shorter time frame - that's not because rushing it has made things less safe, it's just made issues that are typically noticed over years or even decades in classically vetted medicines get noticed within months instead because of the sheer numbers involved.

"I can't let misinformation about plants to propagate!"

I can't tell if this is some kind of botanist joke or not :)

God the longer you open source zealots carry on this crusade against something that happened 20 years ago the more and more you look like complete and utter bitter losers.

It's really not a good look, you need to get over it. Gates grew up and became a better person, the fact you lot can't just shows how utterly pathetic and hopeless you are.

Weird, maybe it's a regional thing? I bought Halo Wars 2 via the Windows Store in the UK when it was on sale a couple of years ago.

Failing that I think it's on Xbox Game Pass as a cross play game, you could use one of the £1 deals and play through it in a month I guess :)

I'm not sure when you last looked for Halo Wars but it's most certainly available on Steam:

https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fstore.steampowered.com...

You can also get Halo Wars 2 on the Windows Store for PC too so I don't know why you think that's not the case.

It's been available for Windows for quite some years without simply being a code unlock, in fact, Halo Wars 2 was released simultaneously on Xbox and Windows supporting cooperative cross play from day one, in that respect it's never not been available on Windows post-release.

The article about this on the BBC stated only 90% of people developed an immune response after 1 dose. To reach 100% they had to give two doses.

I suspect the UK will give 2 doses as standard if the subsequent trial phases succeed and this ends up being used.

I'm not really sure how you've read my post and taken away that I'm talking about the 70s, about the only example I used from that time period was reference to the original Wild Weasels.

Beyond that I pointed to the MiG 29s in the Yugoslav conflict which was mid-90s. If your point here is that yes, it happened in the 90s, but the tech was designed in the 70s then I'm still not sure what your actual point is, that simply tells us there's a 20 year lag between design and active duty that will still apply to this day, thus most modern missile systems encountered now will have been designed in the 90s or early 00s. That said I believe the Serbs were flying updated versions with updated missiles at the time. The Harrier vs. MiG 29 example I used was a demonstration of the fact that even an old generation aircraft can defeat a newer generation aircraft without special equipment if vulnerabilities are understood in the system, and if you believe modern computing somehow is invulnerable to vulnerabilities, or that vulnerabilities magically no longer apply to military equipment then I've got a bridge to sell you.

But beyond that I also pointed to the ease with which Israel has spent the last 15 years easily penetrating Syria's air defence network despite it having completely uptodate versions of the likes of the S-300 and having one of the most modern integrated air defence systems in the world.

So there's really two points to make here; first that I provided modern examples of the ineffectiveness of missile systems regardless of your weird focus only on the single 70s example I made.

But secondly, and most importantly, that if you believe that countermeasures do not keep pace with missile technology then you have a significant hole in your understanding. Sure, a modern processor could track every bird in a swarm of thousands, but what good is that when a modern ECM pod can project millions? what good is it if the bird doesn't even project a useful radar signature in the first place? This is really the point; the era is quite irrelevant, with every era of missile tech there is a era of competitive countermeasures. Where easy shoot downs with missiles happens it's usually because you've got Gen X+2 missiles shooting down a Gen X aircraft, but even a Gen X aircraft can have Gen X+2 countermeasures strapped to it. That is after all why 70s tech as you would call it (F-16s, F-15s) are quite able to penetrate brand new 2010 era S-300 missile systems in Syria.

You've got to understand that every missile guidance system out there right now has it's limitations; we know that IR can be defeated by flares and lasers, we know that radar can be defeated with chaff and ECM, we know that electro-optical can be defeated with lasers and smoke, and we know that anti-radiation can be defeated by toggling radiation sources and ECM.

There isn't a missile available today with a guidance system that doesn't have effective countermeasures. Whether that missile hits will depend entirely on the availability of those countermeasures, and the competence of the pilot in deploying them, and that was precisely the point of the MiG 29 example - it didn't matter that it was a newer gen far more capable aircraft with far more capable missiles, it could still be duped into getting drawn into canon range by effective pilots in older aircraft, and that still 100% applies to this very day.

I'd actually argue with recent advances in low observability in fighter jets that the risk of bumping into each other close range is higher than ever. The only reason it's not really happened recently is because the US has had a near monopoly on stealth aircraft.

As soon as China and Russia's 5th gen fighters start entering the market I suspect close in combat is going to become a big deal again.

I read a book not so long ago about British Sea Harrier pilots in Yugoslavia, they genuinely feared the MiG 29s that the Serbs had because it could significantly out play them in terms of missile range so they were potentially sitting ducks if they ran into one, but they were aware of a vulnerability in the MiG 29's radar system such that it would only continue to detecting targets that were moving on a horizontal plane and would filter out non-moving targets. They developed a strategy and practiced it against ex-East German MiG 29s before arrival whereby the Harriers would fly in incredibly tight formation pairs so they'd appear as a single radar blip, when they detected a MiG 29, one would literally just drop vertically whilst the other would break off, the MiG wouldn't detect the one dropping vertically because it wouldn't appear as though it was moving and so would chase the one that broke away, this meant the MiG would chase into range of the one dropping off that wasn't visible on radar who could pull up hard and take it out from below in much closer combat where it's radar wouldn't see it coming.

I think this scenario proves that it's really not as straightforward as the layman often thinks; the idea that you can just see something on radar and press fire - it's not like that. See also the way Wild Weasel units work, their entire basis is getting SAMs to fire at them so they can evade the missiles and take them out; if missiles were that great the whole Wild Weasel concept would just never work. Part the reason Wild Weasels historically had no choice but to work this way was because SAMs outranged their anti-radiation missiles like the Shrike, so they literally had to fly into SAM range to be able to pop off a missile at the SAM and that usually meant the SAM getting a good few shots off before they even got to fire back; often Wild Weasel units, certainly Vietnam, ended up raking NVA SAMs with machine gun fire just to make sure the job was done.

The effectiveness of missiles is much more nuanced therefore; sure we hear about Syrian MiGs being shot down by Turkish F-16s like it was nothing, but that's primarily because Syria is utterly hopeless at defending it's forces against hostile aircraft - you only have to look at the ease at which Israel regularly bombs shit in Syria to see that. In this respect it's much the same way that when insurgents like the Taliban attacks US compounds by the hundreds they usually die in the hundreds with minimal to no US casualties, but this isn't a statement on the uselessness of hand to hand combat for US troops, on the contrary, when US troops have been pulled into battle on the terms of insurgents hand to hand combat has been incredibly important - Fallujah in 2004 was a prime example of this. The point is therefore, that whilst missiles work great in ideal conditions; when you're up against an opponent that isn't competent enough or isn't capable of evading them or doesn't have any training or technology for evasion, then they're basically easy mode; up against a more serious opponent? dogfighting will still always be relevant.