Product launches are the vehicle for attaining promotions at Google, allegedly. Maintenance does not get similarly rewarded, nor does launching projects and having them live on to actually be successful.
When the launcher got promoted and moved on, they have to figure out whether to keep the thing around, and the answer is generally going to be no since few things can really compete with the infinite money glitch that is search ads.
The cost of storage in this case is more or less irrelevant - traffic is what matters here. You’re also not getting any mentionable bulk discount on the servers for that matter.
The key is that you can engineer things in completely different way when you have trivial amounts of traffic hitting your systems - you can do things that will not scale in any way, shape or form.
Their scale was also an insignificant fraction of what Netflix has, making the point even more irrelevant.
The best figure I could find on Jetflicks user count was 37k, where as Netflix has 269 million users.
At that point, you’re basically just listening to podcasts. Leaning into it might be a good choice, since there’s no visual element that gets lost when listening to podcasts, as compared to YouTube videos.
I don’t see any good reason why the merits of hydrogen for vehicle fuel would be any better than production and disposal of batteries. The other cases I agree that hydrogen will have a useful niche.
It’s hard to assess the validity of those claims as the article doesn’t bring any numbers and the paper itself is paywalled. As the fossil fuel industry is pushing hard towards wedging in hydrogen as a means of keeping themselves alive for a while longer, it’s vital to be able to assess the actual claims, lest they are just planted there by the fossil fuel industry.
There are some use-cases where hydrogen will be useful, but I don’t think storage is one of them. Nor do I think vehicles are a particularly good use-case either, as compared to just iterating on battery technology.
and is a good way to store excess energy from solar and wind.
Is it really that good of a storage method, though? The round-trip efficiency is quite bad when compared to other methods of storage.
I mean, not really. This is actually a non-trivial topic, and true random is a really bad label for what someone actually wants out of a shuffling algorithm.
See the following engineering blog post on the subject: https://engineering.atspotify.com/2014/02/how-to-shuffle-songs/
Data takeouts are non-optional under the GDPR, so I would be very surprised if that happens.
True random shuffle would be a terrible idea. No one wants the same track showing up multiple times in a row, which would not be uncommon in true random shuffle.
Rookie mistake if I’m being perfectly honest