You can recover the history using their tooling build on top of their bugtracker and GitHub. Specifically they capture the discussions and all small changes over time in their skara tools and are prepared to leave GitHub if needed. They had multi de adres experience and had multiple prior code repos. Still do if i understand as the Oracle team has the sun and bea code repositories pre openjdk preserved.
Hmm. Is this about Github or Git? Dependency on Github seems tangential to treating Git as a first class record of history.
edit: rereading, I guess the implication is that there's tooling built on top of Github outside of Git, so Git history is indeed not meant to be contain some things.
Not for atomic writes, which is the important bit here. When dealing with concurrency the choice to make us will you allow tears when writing i.e. thread A writes aa and thread B writes bb. Will you allow the option of seeing ab or ba or only aa/bb. This is the thing that costs performance. Plus do you allow null which makes it harder too.
That being said, x86_64 has supported 128-bit atomic writes via cmpxchg16b for over a decade. Modern 64-bit ARM has several ways to do them as well.
Probably still not widespread enough for OpenJDK to unconditionally assume it's supported, but I think we're getting there. (Is there "caniuse" for CPU features?)
Working on the uniprot services that might be used from the connector it would be nice to learn if this uses public resources or if there is a private anthropic copy of certain uniprot data sets.
Funnily enough, for a long time the lakes of Switzerland had been stuffed into a database table of municipalities at SwissTopo for 2 decades before that was refactored out. Or at least I recall having heard this story.
The plants that are willing to give supply for the most negative price are the ones that will not be curtailed. So market forces. Basically at such points power plants are paying for the privilege to be allowed to supply power. This is dominated by restart costs and as such is often paid by classic "baseload" plants such as nuclear ones. i.e. they will accept losing money during one part of the day/week so that they can make money during a different part of the day/week.
Yes, and no, maybe ;) the economic incentives are designed to always provide enough power and no more at the cheapest possible point for that time slot. The market (if free enough) searches for that point over time. One possible solution may be peaker plants (this was financially so in the burn fuel age) another maybe overbuilding (e.g. your home backup or off-site generator power that are sized at peak load/demand, not the actual demand). All constrained by what is physically possible on a grid.
Peaker plants gamble that there are going to be peaks (sure financially plan for but they are not guaranteed to make their profits).
In the peaker plant categories the storage options are different from the spin options because the incentives are slightly different. Specifically battery storage is not just a peak plant exercise it is a grid connection optimization exercise. Grid connections limit how much power one can sell from a generator. A battery system can be placed on the grid or between the grid and the generator. In the case of between grid and generator, it allows a generator to run at it's optimal speeds more often than not, and sell more because one can guarantee a wider range of output for a longer amount of time.
Some of the first battery storage systems were sold to gas peaker plants because it allowed them more time to react. i.e. idle at a more efficient level their gas turbines or even shut them off and start them on demand.
Primary energy compared to electricity as energy. The first adds energy used in driving, chemical industry etc. the second is just the amount of electricity generated.
Still, in the second figure of your link, you can see how gas is more or less stable since the start in 2005, and coal + peat is being slowly replaced almost 1:1 by renewables, mainly wind as hydro is stable and solar is marginal in Ireland.
I was wondering how the existing case law of translated works, from one language to an other works here. It would at suggest that this is an infringement of the license especially because of the lack of creativity. But IANAL and of course no idea of applicable case law.
There is a significant fine to be paid by the non delivering supplier. This still happens and that is why there is also an auction for reserve power. Oversupply is fined even higher as that is also bad for grid stability.
RDFa/Microdata is more interesting for people whom sell objects instead of content. e.g. marking up that a page is about a kitchen cabinet that is 60cm wide and in the color white might lead to more sales in the long run. As people whom are looking for 60cm wide cabinets might get to your page instead of one about one 36 inch wide.
That's an oddly specific search and even Google doesn't have any kind of tools for queries like that.
What is more likely is that you'll find companies specialized in selling cabinets and they'll have a browser/search to restrict choice by given dimensions.
There is not a lot of benefits for them to expose all that data to various search engine, best case scenario they end up competing with a bunch of other brands on a generic search engine page where they have absolutely no control how things are presented etc...
And even before thinking about that, you can actually put the dimensions in a description, which some do (like Ikea) and Google is definitely able to pick up on that, no RDFa was ever needed. As far as I can tell, LLMs can work that out just fine as well.
The problem with the metadata discussion is that if they are actually useful, there is no reason that they are not useful to humans as well, so instead of trying to make the human work for the machine it is much better to make the machine understand humans.
