This is the exact opposite of my experience. Maybe it was true 10 years ago when K8s was new and trendy so many engineers wanted to try it out. Now it's just boring tech at large orgs.
I'm proud to say I retired more k8s clusters than I created. And I've created 5 production ones, still in production.
One that I retired was used for serving ftp(among other transfer stuff), ftp of all things, it needs to have ports open and routed back from the client. And for extra points they had the pods capped at 1 cpu. And I had to explain the thing to the perpetrator and their boss, madness.
> Who is "we"? Definitely not Google or any other major tech company, they're all actively encouraging this.
Google has been fighting aggressively to replace its search results with snippets, now generated by LLMs, to avoid sending traffic to other websites. If they continue, they will basically lead Google Search to a tipping point where a good competitor can take this market by storm. Microsoft also believed Windows is indestructible and now they have a rude awakening.
The fact is what people really want from a search engine is a single perfect result that answers their query exactly. An LLM does the 'single result' bit, but it's dubious whether or not it's a perfect answer. Most of the time that's probably not very important so long as the answer satisfies the search enough that the user is happy.
Google is trying to turn Search into that product e.g. the single answer to a given search. They could do that now with Gemini, but the ads in the results are what makes them money, and the backlash to embedding adverts into the output of Gemini would drive millions of people to OpenAI overnight. They have to do it slowly. Give it 5 years though, and search engine results pages will be a thing of the past.
What I meant was that it'd a good answer but maybe not perfect. For example, if you ask for a coffee recommendation you might get something that's in your top 5, but not number 1. That's better than getting a page of links where the top 3 have paid to be there, the next 5 are SEO-farms, and then maybe there's a site about coffee that will answer your question.
I'm not sure why you are not sure - S3 was using Cadence's Xtensa 32-bit LX7 dual-core microprocessor, but the article on S31 only mentions "dual core" without too much detail.
Tangentially related but Iran wasn't much of a threat to the USA before Trump decided to attack it. And apart from Israel, nobody is backing this war. The sooner he realizes it makes zero sense, the better for the whole world. It seems that apart from Russia and the USA, other countries are not so eager to start wars. And what is happening now is a bitter lesson also for China: starting a war is easy, winning it is nearly impossible. So I hope we won't really start to build all infra in under-earth bunkers after all.
> You are paying to be using that limit some of the time.
This makes zero sense. I'm paying to use that limit all of the time. If that's too much for Anthropic, they are free to lower the limits or increase the price. Claiming otherwise would be false advertising.
They lowered limits opaquely before this. They "announced it" in a twitter by a tech lead. This time it was in an email on a Friday to only some customers.
Ditto, I made a "/codex-review" skill in Claude Code that reviews the last git commit and writes an analysis of it for Claude Code to then work. I've had very good luck with it.
One particularly striking example: I had CC do some work and then kicked off a "/codex-review" and while it was running went to test the changes. I found a deadlock but when I switched back to CC the Codex review had found the deadlock and Claude Code was already working on a fix.
I actually work the other way around. I have codex write "packets" to give to claude to write. I have Claude write the code. Then have Codex review it and find all the problems (there's usually lots of them).
Only because this month I have the $100 Claude Code and the $20 Codex. I did not renew Anthropic though.
reply