As you might have guessed, connection pools don't work well with Lambda. For database connection pool, they came up with another chargeable service, RDS Proxy, to fix the problem created by Lambda :)
That's true, but the term itself is archaic; at the time (early 19th century) the most widespread gaseous fuel was coal gas, also known as "town gas" because we piped it to urban homes for lighting. There's not much need for the distinction anymore, plus "methane" aligns with the other trade names for other fossil gases (propane, butane).
The argument is that humans are part of nature and therefore anything made by humans is still natural.
I tend to agree with this - there is a dichotomy here, but it is "natural" vs. "supernatural" - not "natural" vs "synthetic". I think it would be fine if for most cases we simply said "man-made" vs "not man-made" as it succinctly describes the dichotomy we're aiming for.
The "greenwashing" here is that you _could_ call anything that's not a ghost or a god "natural" by a certain definition...
> The argument is that humans are part of nature and therefore anything made by humans is still natural.
Sure, if you completely disregard the context. “Natural” when talking in the context of humans is “nature vs man”.
A beaver dam is nature. The Hoover dam is man-made. If you want to red herring you could say “but man is part of nature” - there’s no point to doing so other than to argue semantics, but you could.
"Natural gas (also called fossil gas, methane gas or simply gas) is a naturally occurring mixture of gaseous hydrocarbons consisting primarily of methane in addition to various smaller amounts of other higher alkanes." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_gas
Alright, so it goes by several names but it's sold to consumers as "Natural Gas". I'm not sure if it was green washing, but obviously the marketers were going for the most palatable name for consumers.
Natural gas was merely a name to differentiate between 'gasoline', short form 'gas' for many english speaking countries. And the name is valid, it's mostly in its natural form, compared to 'gasoline aka gas', which required loads of processing to create it from oil.
And the name comes from a time before most of the population had even heard of global warming, at a time before people cared about using fossil fuels. There was in no way any attempt to greenwash, because absolutely no one cared one iota back then!
And the same is true for being palatable. It was just fuel. There was no reason to make it sound better. This was the age when most homes were heated by heating oil, or wood, or coal even!
People didn't get "triggered" back then, not in the 1950s or whatever. No one really cared except in the most extreme of cases. The earliest marketing concern over a name I know of, is "canola" oil, created by Canadian research programs, first on market I believe in the 70s, which is rapeseed oil.
(Rapeseed oil was added to cattle feed before this, but was considered too bitter for people until processing improvements were developed.)
It was thought that women would associate rapeseed with rape, and not buy it. This was in North America, the rest of the world generally, at the time, just called it rapeseed oil.
> Natural gas was merely a name to differentiate between 'gasoline', short form 'gas' for many english speaking countries.
No, it has absolutely nothing to do with gasoline. Other languages, e.g. Russian, which don’t use the word gasoline also call it natural gas (coming from nature). This extra confusion is a late American thing.
There is a grain of truth in the previous speaker's comments.
"Naturally occurring gas" does not magically transform itself into energy. The process along the way from being a resource to being usable as energy is usually anything other than "natural" and "green."
There was a sort of a equivalent - GWT. And it was really good and ahead of the time: it covered intermediate API out of the box, provided quite nice way to develop FE in plain Java, it was async, it allowed common BE and FE codebase.
I am not familiar with Replicate, but based on their website, they charge per GPU type. I didn't see the GPU type set in the example. Is it baked in as part of the "a16z-infra/llama13b-v2-chat" model?
flickr links? That cannot be the best they are able to do, can it? Don't they have their own website, where I can simply go and look at the images? I wouldn't consider a flickr album to be proper publishing by a project like James Webb telescope. With all the billions of cash in that, were they not able to make a proper website?
But at least links, I guess. With pictures. If that is the best that exists, OK sad. But at least something, so thanks.
