This right here! I commented about that in that thread, it's like: This 5G calls drops, LinkedIN uses GB's of memory, my fridge needs an update to get the light on but Voyager 1 is out there on 69kb.
replyThat was probably an incredible amount of memory back then. And it probably cost $1,000 USD for 1KB. Who knows how much radiation-hardened space memory was. 10 times that?
replyWe now have simple chat apps capable of doing almost anything LinkedIn does while using under 100 MB of RAM.
replyA probe collecting data in space takes <70 kB of memory. I fail to see how this statement should make me feel happy
replySpace is mostly empty there is not much interesting stuff to collect and who’s going to buy that data
replyLinkedIn on the other hand has user behavior, computer details etc. that’s a lot of interesting data.
As someone was pointing out in a thread the other day about memory usage, a lot is fonts and images.
replyEDIT: Just mind boggling to get d/v'ed for pointing out voyager doesn't have to render fonts or images...
How much? You typically don't want more than a few different fonts on a given document. And neither fonts nor web images should be bigger than hundreds of kilobytes. How do we get to gigs?
replyWell, and then you have Claude Code which at one point needed 68GB of RAM to run https://x.com/jarredsumner/status/2026497606575398987
reply:)
Aka poor resources management.
replyIf you have significantly more images loaded in RAM than what fits on your screen, something wrong is going on. (Not counting the filesystem cache here, because it works in a best effort way).
deleted
replyI’m guessing you mean “does” in the sense of a user-facing feature.
replyI’ve heard that LinkedIn searches for several hundred known browser plugins to identify potential abusive users. If the “simple chat apps” aren’t doing that, then it’s apples-to-oranges.
Voyager 1 is several orders of magnitude simpler as a product so it makes sense that it uses several orders of magnitude less memory.
reply