We indeed never encounter the technical issues. A couple of years ago teams had issues with images in chats, but that’s the only technical issue i encountered.

And yeah, it’s got the usual bloat, but it’s not hard to ignore all the useless features. But indeed, if you have issues with calls, that sounds annoying.

Such as?

I use teams all the time at work and it seems to do what it needs to do well. Calls/meetings work wel, chatting works well. It’s not perfect, but more than good enough.

I love docker, it of course comes with some inefficiencies, but let’s be real, getting an app to run on every possible environment with any possible other app or configuration or… that could interfere with yours in some way is hell.

In an ideal world, something like docker is indeed not needed, but the past decades have proven beyond a doubt that alas, we don’t live in this utopia. So something like docker that just sets up a private environment for the app so that nothing else can interfere with it… why not? Anything i’ve got running on docker is just so stable. I never have to worry that any change i do might affect those apps. Updating them is automated, …

Not wasting my and the developers time in exchange for a bit of computer resources, sounds like a good deal. If we find a better way for apps to be able to run on any environment, that would of course be even better, but we haven’t, so docker it is :).

Indeed, it’s a very nice boost, and great work, but this clickbait nonsense is just so stupid…

And i’m really bothered how it’s just parrotted everywhere… Doesn’t anybody wonder “94x faster is like… really a LOT… that can’t be true”

Whomever wrote this article is just misleading everyone.

First of all, they did this for other kinds of similar instruction sets before, so this is nothing special. Second of all, they measure the speedup compared to a basic implementation that doesn’t use any optimizations.

They did the same in the past for AVX-2, which is 67x faster in the test where avx-512 got the 94x speed increase. So it’s not 94x faster now, it’s 1.4x faster than the previous iteration using the older AVX-2 instruction set. It’s barely twice as fast as the implementation using SSE3, and instruction set from 20 years ago…

So yeah, it’s awesome that they did the same awesome work for AVX-512, but the 94x boost is just plain bullshit… it’s really sad that great work then gets worded in such a misleading way to form clickbait, rather than getting a proper informative article…

But is that the fault of XML, or is the data itself just complex, or did they structure the data badly?

Would another human readable format make the data easier to read?

There are people who find XML hard to read?

GP specifically talked about the first version of PHP, sounds like it was just a dummy implementation as they were working on PHP, that then later got replaced with a proper implementation :)

Isn’t it also just because it’s old and people get bored of it? People crave new things, and even if it’s just as good as in the beginning, it’ll get lower ratings because it’s not new anymore.

I remember quite some years ago i was like “i’m finally going to watch southpark”. And people were already complaining about how the latest seasons were worse than the first seasons. Watched a ton of seasons in a short period, and honestly can’t say the later seasons felt any worse than the first ones when you’re not bored of the series yet. Now so many years later when i watch some more southpark, it’s not as fun as when i started watching it since the “it’s new and exciting” feeling is long gone.