One use case I can see this being valuable for is for a client based application and Postgres being a centralized database. The client would just query SQLite and not need to write Postgres SQL.
I understand the environmental reasons for a company to do this, it’s very important and would you happen to know the business incentives for them doing this?
IMO (and I'm talking from a perspective here that I believe aligns with their incentives) it's basically at this stage rational self interest, and I'm not talking about survival lol. Straight up makes sense investment wise because companies are starting to be shamed (rightfully so) for not being green, so there's a business case for increased investment returns on your capital, also with some of the carbon credit type deals (an area I have little knowledge of other than it being "important"), being able to trumpet cleaner production processes means that your product will be chosen over another. I figure there's a fundamental shift in the market coming, and I (and others who want to see their investments grow and not shrink) want to be on the wave.
Most stick listed companies have similar actions underway or will do so shortly. The market will demand it. A good thing in general however there will be green washing...
It almost seems like their is an opportunity to build a cloud hosting service, where mom and pop data centers can plug in their infrastructure to a cloud service and let the platform manage the renting and latency based routing.
If the software is developed enough, this enables an even more global distribution. Software services don't want to manage machines and data centers don't want to manage customers.
Let’s not forget that this could be a value add, they can easily increase flight ticket prices by $20 and offer the service for free. They can also remove inflight monitors from the planes, reducing the weight of the overall plane, increase plane tickets by $10 and offer it Free.
There’s many ways to play with the numbers
Not sure they'd need to go as far as removing the IFE completely, but a vastly more simple and cheap system could be used instead.
Airlines still rely on those massive clunky boxes under each seat, plus a server rack which adds a fair bit of weight.
Swapping to an all-in-one system - essentially a smart tv built into each monitor that just provides a browser and basic apps for major streaming services would reduce the overall weight of the plane, fix the annoyance of that big box where your legs are supposed to go, and provide entertainment on board.
There's also the costs that airlines normally have for licensing content - those would go away completely if everyone can just log into their own netflix or prime account.
They could add around $3 per ticket and pay for it.
But removing seat-back would be bold - 100 people using a shared 350 connection would probably not work well. 200-odd using it would kill it. Leaving your passengers with a very unhappy experience.
Plenty of flights in the US are BYOD already. You connect to the WiFi and have access to a website (on a laptop) or it's in their app on mobile. And it has video on demand served locally from the plane. It's airline edits with watermarks but a good enough selection I wouldn't expect most people to pay for Internet for streaming.
And on top of that all the major streaming services allow for download for offline viewing. I'm just going to download a bunch of stuff ahead of time to make sure I can watch what I want.
This just serves the folks who want to pay to access the rest of the Internet. And I don't see incentive for anyone to pay and try to use a streaming service. More useful for someone traveling on business needing to join a call or something.
350 Mbps for the entire flight. You're looking at speeds in the 5 Mbps territory optimistically per person. No way can you remove a NAS serving video content with that.
Almost like building a business around “engagement” is a model that leads to a death spiral. Social media sites are basically giant MLM schemes that sell the idea that become real companies before the scheme runs out.
Perhaps there are multiple groups searching with the same terms, but expecting completely different results. Google takes its best guess at which group you're in. To get better at that they have to gather more info about you personally. I'd prefer to change my search query than give lots of extra personal data to Google.
Why would we make that assumption? It isn't mentioned anywhere in the article and FSD Tesla's, despite the hype and publicity, are a tiny fraction of the Model S's on the road.
I agree with you on this. For me personally, I find that my ADHD fuels my obsession where I am extremely persistent and every new “shiny object” is related to the interesting topic I am working on. Like new nodes to add on a mind map.
