var _script = document.createElement('script'); _script.src = '//blablabla.bla/bla.js'; /* _script.async = '' */ (document.body || document.getElementsByTagName('body')) .appendChild(_script);
Works for CSS too, though it'd be better to append your link element to the head despite what Google says.
Handy for asynchronously loading fonts without link rel="preload" which is poorly supported.
You could also do this with a single style element in the body containing your @font-face, but that's a crap idea if you want to use Google Fonts, for instance.
Obviously with CSS, it's worth including a regular link element in a noscript in the head.
"Your site is slow, so we'll break your functionality. There you go, isn't it faster?"
It's not the browser's fault that a badly written page loads slowly. Has the speed competition become so important that browser vendors would rather load a non-functional page than a slow page?
Currently Ireland vs. Frankfurt is (more data needed of course):
Europe (Ireland): 25 ms 27 ms 24 ms Europe (Frankfurt): 39 ms 39 ms 42 ms
But for a quick test, this looks like a good tool: http://www.cloudping.info/
Will be interested to test this once released to see UK / Paris vs. Dublin.
 Article states UK region "due in coming months". No location announced?
 Hitting ec2.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com vs. ec2.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com.
This might also allow for mixing critical server roles hosted in other Paris data centers with AWS.
I'm thinking about connecting a web server (in AWS) with a DB server (in another Paris DC) while keeping the latency at a low level.
Shouldn't it at least be mentioned in the announcement that the french government can pretty much ask Amazon for any of your data without a warrant. Or is the situation better than a year ago?
EDIT: Warrant is apparently needed as noplay said.
> Today, I am excited to add the United Kingdom to that list! The AWS UK region will be our third in the European Union (EU), and we're shooting to have it ready by the end of 2016 (or early 2017). This region will provide even lower latency and strong data sovereignty to local users.
Currently it is an incredibly inefficient design of a service management trying to do everything yet many are dependent for using it.
The BBC didn't even mention its name! From searching around it appears to be Personal Zen (iOS only): http://www.personalzen.com/
Don't know what kind of twisted priorities in the newsroom would focus a story like this on using anxiety to make a political point, versus putting the focus on a way people can treat their anxiety, but hey, that's probably just my anxiety speaking.
I'm an independent that leans conservative especially on fiscal but also somewhat on social issues, and I know that my worry plays a part in it.
I've voted for independents, Libertarians, Republicans, and Democrats in past presidential elections, and plan to vote Democrat this year, and I will do so because of my worry about the Republican candidate. This candidate is unpredictable, and is focused on the wrong side of issues that I care about. I'm a compassionate person, and the candidate is not. I'm also a Christian, and the candidate is the antithesis of the behavior and goals I would hope to have in my country's leader. And of course, I think that a woman should have a chance at leading our country, even if she's not the one that I'd chose typically. So, my anxiety will play a part in the election, but not in the way this article would suggest.
Not quite the 'company' I had in mind when thinking about anxiety. If the article started out with 'medical residents' or other jobs that are stressful and anxiety-inducing because your ability to do your job correctly and quickly might mean someone else dies, or the success of the company rests on your performance, perhaps I'd take the article seriously. But actors and musicians? Sure, messing up means failure, and failure might mean lost contracts, disappointed fans, and having to let go of the great team of people that got you to success. But anxiety driven by success is not the 'company' that most people can relate to. It's having to perform duties that are put upon you by your job, society, and family that are hardest to deal with. If you're good at these things, you will be successful. But the long road to success is the hard part which causes most people anxiety. Not already achieving it like musicians and actors have. That's a different type of anxiety that most people can't relate to.
No kidding - let me just quote Kofi Annan's excellent essay on the subject (published a couple of months before the UN failed to course correct at UNGASS 2016):
"Nowhere is this divorce between rhetoric and reality more evident than in the formulation of global drug policies, where too often emotions and ideology rather than evidence have prevailed."
If you're going to argue that we as a country of laws should deport them all back, then I hope you and your family never smoked pot because you broke a law. And since we are a nation of laws - including minimum sentencing laws which the prison industrial complex loves - how would you like it if they looked for you and put you in jail for a victimless crime? Drop your double standard. The Mexican immigrant is better than the potsmoker because they fled violence, wanted to make a better life for their family AND helped do the jobs no one else would. The potsmoker chose to smoke and helped no one except the drug dealers.
Plus we did that already, and it was a disaster: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_Repatriation -- an estimated 1.2 million US citizens were deported. Plus until 1965, immigration was unrestricted from Mexico and Canada so many of the 11 million broke a law by staying, but not by coming.
You have heard all these myths. The fact is, immigrants have higher labor participation, lower crime rate than the native born population. Especially the illegal immigrants who are afraid of being caught by police and deported. Illegal immigrants do NOT get money from the federal government - if your city pays them take it up with your city. But they pay taxes like everyone else, including sales tax and property taxes. So they pay into the system and get nothing back. You want to deport them all and break up their families so you will end up picking crops, and think this is the way to bring jobs to USA?
"Until 1913 marijuana was legal throughout the United States under both state and federal law. Beginning with California in 1913 and Utah in 1914, however, states began outlawing marijuana, and by 1930, 30 states had adopted marijuana prohibition. Those state-level prohibitions stemmed largely from anti-immigrant sentiment and in particular racial prejudice against Mexican migrant workers, who were often associated with use of the drug. Prohibition advocates attributed terrible crimes to marijuana and the Mexicans who smoked it, creating a stigma around marijuana and its purported vices."
One century later, the prejudices haven't changed.
There's a small scale experiment here http://health.spectator.co.uk/the-case-for-prescription-hero...
>Inspector Michael Lofts studied 142 heroin and cocaine addicts in the area, and he found there was a 93 per cent drop in theft and burglary. You could see them transform in front of your own eyes, Lofts told a newspaper, amazed. They came in in outrageous condition, stealing daily to pay for illegal drugs; and became, most of them, very amiable, reasonable law-abiding people. He said elsewhere: Since the clinics opened, the street heroin dealer has slowly but surely abandoned the streets of Warrington and Widnes.
There are indeed significant changes in some marijuana-related statistics. The Cato institute report has selected indicators that are relatively stable and do not show these effects. It does not discuss the limitations of the data, discuss data sources that were considered but not used, or include illustrative anecdotes. It can be summarized as "we carefully picked these graphs that didn't show anything, and we still can't rule out any effects of legalization".
California doctors lobbying group formally backs marijuana legalization
After backing Gavin Newsom, California nurses group gets behind pot legalization
They pointed out crime didn't go down. Fine. All that could mean is that the police etc focused on other crimes instead of the mostly victim-less marijuana crimes from when it used to be illegal.
Even if expenditures on crime don't change the fact that whatever money that was being spent catching, processing, and incarcerating marijuana users and dealers can now be spent on something else seems like a huge win
One major argument about crime I didn't see addressed was the revenues going to organised criminal gangs before and after.
I'm also not sure about the paper's claim that advocates claim a fall in crime, in general, from Cannabis legalisation. I can see the argument that decriminalising and medicalising heroin addiction may decrease various forms of crime, particulary acquisitive crime. But with cannabis?
for me the biggest reason to have gange legal is it frees policing resources up from processing fairly ridiculous prosecutions of people dealing in what is basically just plant material.
so while it is nice to see there is no real impact on "other crime" the fact they missed the impact of freeing up resources directly related to weed is a major ommission.
god damn you americans pay a lot for it. $250 an ounce. that's ridiculous. like more than three times the price I used to pay as a teenager for prime amsterdam skunk.
I don't mean that in a partisan way; you might love them, hate them, or not care one way or the other, but it's always useful to know who is talking.
I'm still surprised how marijuana posts are so frequently pushed in HN. My take is that the effect is negative, I've seen just a ton more brazen usage out in public once this thing hit with a bunch of phony Dr prescriptions given to perfectly healthy people. It's all a ruse in my book, you're either growing in virtue or backsliding. At best drug use is suboptimal for a thriving philo-generative culture to borrow Daniel Hannan's phrase.
Tests showed they had tens of thousands of human immunodeficiency viruses in every millilitre of their blood.
Prof Philip Goulder, one of the researchers from the University of Oxford, told the BBC: 'Essentially, their immune system is ignoring the virus as far as possible.'
'Waging war against the virus is in most cases the wrong thing to do.'"
McLaren needs a 20-year-old Compaq laptop to maintain its F1 supercar
(I'd consider it myself but I'm about 2400 miles away.)
"If it works, why muck with it?"
The funny thing is, the companies are ALWAYS going to put a positive spin on this. Not very different from the WhatsApp "we won't show ads, ever" messaging. Now I am in the camp which says "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me". Almost none of these companies can be trusted at this point.  Their refusal to ask OpenAI to be at the table really does not reflect well on them . And the less said about the tenured professors who are now becoming company mouthpieces saying things like "we create products which cannot make profit but which is meant purely for data collection" the better . And lastly, if these companies had such a sincere desire to "improve AI for the sake of humanity", how about they start by letting OpenAI (or a similar company) do a data audit of all the information they share so that we can actually be certain it is not just a data brokerage masquerading as a public service?
I wanted to say that I wish the AI community will boycott this effort completely. I find it a bit worrying that this community now resides almost entirely within the walls of corporate America.
 Interestingly, the only company which is even making noises about user privacy is Apple. Is it possible they saw something in this partnership that they didn't like?
2. Why do I feel certain people's information has been looked at, scrutinized, cross checked, collated, etc. by certain savvy insiders. Warren buffet, George Sorrows, any of the financial movers and shakers, information is sitting on a server somewhere, unless you're a Clinton. If I had access, I could help but look at it.
Before you made an investment, bought a stock, bought realeste, took over a company; wouldn't you be tempted to peak at some of that information?.
3. I feel certain individual information has been used as research for financial gain.
3. I belive it's basically insider trading without the other guy knowing he/she gave away any information.
4. I believe it will be exposed, and will be the next huge Financial scandal.
5. I believe this move might be a smoke screen. "We know some of us have already abused private information for personal/financial gain. Let's combine the data. It might put some reigns on what we all know some of our insiders have been doing. Let the people think we are doing this to better society.
6. I don't have any evidence, I just have a hard time believing no one is looking at juicy date pouring in from some high profile people.
7. I believe it will be on the front page of Forbes in less than a year.
It seems Apple's lack of engagement in the community  is really starting to hurt it. Did anyone else take away from this that the other big players are not including them at the table/considering them real competition?
> But everyone has only a sliver of it [information about you]. Google sees your searches, Amazon your online purchases, AT&T your phone calls, Apple your music downloads, Safeway your groceries, Capital One your credit-card transactions. Companies like Acxiom collate and sell infor- mation about you, but if you inspect it (which in Acxioms case you can, at aboutthedata.com), its not much, and some of it is wrong. No one has anything even approaching a complete picture of you. Thats both good and bad. Good because if someone did, theyd have far too much power. Bad because as long as thats the case there can be no 360-degree model of you. What you really want is a digital you that youre the sole owner of and that others can access only on your terms.
Does this mean that effectively all of Facebook, Amazon, Google, IBM and Microsoft will have the whole picture? That makes me worried.
"We believe that by taking a multi-party stakeholder approach to identifying and addressing challenges and opportunities in an open and inclusive manner, we can have the greatest benefit and positive impact for the users of AI technologies. While the Partnership on AI was founded by five major IT companies, the organization will be overseen and directed by a diverse board that balances members from the founding companies with leaders in academia, policy, law, and representatives from the non-profit sector. By bringing together these different groups, we will also seek to bring open dialogue internationally, bringing parties from around the world to discuss these topics."
This sounds like it was written by some PR person. Google and Facebook are "IT companies"?
What could possibly go wrong ?
Who believes that this is to favor users, believes in everything.
Anybody know more details? As non-corporate entity the opportunity is very interesting due to the potential of having access to their infrastructure. The cost of running AI projects on the cloud is currently prohibitive and am forced to run on performance limited machines.
"Facebook, Amazon, Google, IBM and Microsoft Create Partnership on marketing"
>> "Though Apple is said to be enthusiastic about the project, their absence is still notable because the company has fallen behind in artificial intelligence when compared to its rivals many of whom are part of this new group."
How exactly is it that TC knows that Apple has indeed fallen behind? Are they privy to the Apple ML roadmap? Are they using lack of open source activity as a metric to make this claim? Is there an unidentified source who can objectively measure the ML progress across these organizations, and using this objective metric, conclude that Apple is behind?
It's a claim without much substance, and paints Apple in a negative light. You could say that this is a marketing failure on the part of Apple, and you might be correct. For example, see the article floating a few weeks ago on Medium (I think) on how Apple was embedding ML in everything.
In the days of price performance wars in CPUs (and GPUs), there were more or less objective (err, almost objective) benchmarks that people could point to. This is not the case with ML/DL. It would be great if we could say: "Across image classification, the precision / recall is X, vs. Facebook's Y. Clearly, Apple has more work todo in image classification. But in Machine Translation, Apple is ahead, with metrics A vs. B from Facebook..
What is happening with ML/DL/AI/whatever is that all companies are using the same bag of words to describe what they do, but the popular press is not discerning enough to make heads or tales out of what they report on, and they end up mis-educating the public.
Apple, however successful it may continue to be financially, needs to focus on a wider penetration of its devices and services if there is to be any meaningful dent on the privacy front around the world. Being a market leader in one country (or a few) doesn't help much when billions of people around the world use Android phones where the default is "ask for any permission and it shall be given." For this to change, I believe Apple must go lower on the price front, even if that means lower margins. It also needs to push forward quicker on things that other companies don't consider, like differential privacy, and look for markedly different ways of doing things compared to the personal data hungry parasites like the ones in the title.
Ok, it might be better than Apache's mongrel mix of not-quite and SGML/XML dialect -- but I'd much rather see something like YAML than having to write JSON by hand. I suppose I should just write a compiler (or use one, I'm sure simple YAML maps pretty well 1:1 to simple JSON).
Inside is also a link to the whitepaper on how to program the DWave, which has a lot more detail on "ok, but what does that mean I can do with it, and how?". More or less, you need to map your problem space to the functioning of the DWave (a series of weights), and then you need to map the answer space of the DWave (out-state of each qubit) back to your problem space. The DWave doesn't actually return a canonical answer, but rather a bundle of statistics for each qubit, from which you then determine your answer (say, by taking the average).
Some things to remember, aside from the debate about whether it's actually a QC and actually uses entanglement to produce answers:
1) All 2k qubits are NOT entangled with each otherThe qubits are grouped into cells, and the cells have a coupling between them, but each qubit does not (directly) interact with all other qubits. This is a large part of why it's not a "general" quantum computer; it's more like an ASIC.
2) You program in "similarity" and "dissimilarity" to neighboring qubits, and an initial weighting.Each qubit in the dwave has some programmed possibility of being 1 or 0, and of being the same or different from each neighbor. "Running" the calculation more or less applies all these weights, and then you look at the resulting state.
3) The "answer" is actually the statistics on multiple measurements.After programming the weights, you run the machine, and get out an answer. You do this 50, 100, whatever, times, and now you have statistics on the state of each qubit. From this you determine your answer; AFAIK, usually you just take the average.
From my understanding, these things do beat classical computers, but no one cares because the problems they are solving is not useful for anything.
> D-Waves quantum system runs a quantum annealing algorithm to find the lowest points in a virtual energy landscape representing a computational problem to be solved.
In statistics and machine learning, this is great for finding optima in cost functions.
The ideas in this paper are related: https://arxiv.org/abs/1412.3489v2
Edit: What's the beef?
To avoid public disclosure that P=NP (and losing out on any way to monetize their discovery) they are hiding their work behind a "quantum computer" which is a vague and sophisticated enough cover (nobody really understands quantum physics) to dupe some customers while the P equations run in ring-zero of a normal CPU. What would be interesting is to read the sales contracts for these machines. My guess is they are written in such a way that D-Wave makes no promises or guarantee that they are actually using qubits to solve customer's problems, just that they promise to solve customer's NP problems with D-Wave computers, regardless of the method. Moreover, I'd bet that the language states that the machines sold are "equivalent" to a 2000 qubit computer and not necessarily a 2KQbit processors. In this way D-wave is off the legal hook if/when the NP=P solution is revealed by D-Wave or others. My second guess is that these sales contracts are protected by NDA's.
Some things I'd like to see:1. I've generally seen heat islands referring to not so much getting hotter on a hot day, but staying warmer on a cold day, or at night -- this is one reason why cities get rain when the suburbs get snow, especially in the mid-Atlantic. Would like to test whether trees impact that.
2. I'm concerned from a statistical perspective that trees vs. no trees could be strongly correlated with other variables that might be more causative, like building type and density. Would like to see a paired comparison of areas in the city that are otherwise very similar, with the only difference being more vs. less trees.
Not complaining at all; the author is laying out the tools. Time for me or someone else to pick them up and investigate further ...
A little later, he says the black warehouses were located under the really hot spots. But weren't the really hot spots determined by finding all the black spots in the image?
Umm, is that a misprint?
You've discontinued testing services, but I think there is a big market out there. We've been looking for a platform where we can list our website & its high level use cases, and then 1 or more testers can test it out thoroughly. We've tried sites like MyCrowd in the past, but didn't get a great result from them. Most testers just submitted cosmetic bugs and weren't as detail oriented as we'd like.
I'm sure there would be other startups who have similar needs for getting their sites/apps tested and can easily pay for such a service.
Are you (or anyone else here on HN) aware of any good testing services out there or a place where we can find good freelance testers?
Ministry of Sound logo:
The logo this company (Ministry of Testing) is using:
It's incredible looking at the revenue breakdown just how much 'training courses and events' were bringing in compared to the actual 'testing services'.
I'm launching 2 free and open-source toolkits for Web designers/developers next month and your revenue breakdown has convinced me that my initial plan of monetizing on training is probably the way to go.
Do you have any specific tips on how you built up that initial community (besides setting up the forum)? What were some of the specific tactics you used to draw those initial users in?
Update: For the down votes are you serious?
Mistakes, rewrites, late nights, firefights, and deadlines. Core dumps, memory leaks, hardware faults, and plain bad luck. Big O, data flow, always learning -- or out you go. Manager metrics, schedules hectic, methodology hegelian dialectic. Taking the heat, feature creep, open office, uncomfortable seat. Holy wars, revolving doors, carpal tunnel, all you can take? There's always more. Fucking suits, random reboots, and the ever present "thousand language stare". Oh yeah, pressure -- lots of pressure. And time, time, time. Metric shitloads of time. Time, man. You gotta do your fucking time.
Senior developer is about wisdom as opposed to knowledge. Juniors may learn things quickly, but what distinguishes senior is that you can trust them to do the right thing which is not always technical problem.
I like to compare this to asking children a question that they don't know the answer to. Some children will feel they have to come up with some answer and some will say that they don't know.
Junior developers too frequently feel pressured to produce a result and they don't see how saying that they don't know something is making them closer to producing anything. Senior developers know from their experience that this is just as important to know when you don't know something as it is important to know things. They will not feel too bad about not knowing something because they know the alternative is even worse.
More seriously, except for very big and very hierarchical orgs where tenure is overly important, people will tend to give you the senior title when your work is indispensable. To be indispensable you don't need to know by heart this technology or the other - you need to identify what are the things that bring the most value and work hard at delivering them.
It can happen even with two years of experience.
From https://rkoutnik.com/2016/04/21/implementers-solvers-and-fin..., which is a really great read.
No, I'm not being snarky, so hear me out...
I've met and worked with many developers over the years and lots of them have become very good with technology and user domains, but still have struggled to "crack the digital ceiling". These are brilliant people who have achieved serious things, but are still not recognized by the big decision makers as "senior", whatever that means.
Then there are a select few who always get the big gigs, big money, and big reputations. Why? Because they best satisfy their customers. There are lots of non-technical skills that help them, but I think the biggest is their ability to separate the signal from the noise and zero in of the most important things to work on and to get them done. It's almost like they have "satisfiability radar". And this rarely requires any special technical or people skills. All they really have to learn is a good grasp of the technology, a deep understanding of the customer's domain and business, and the ability to get things done through others. And how did they develop them? By good old fashioned grunt work, whether digging into the bowels of the system or getting up off their butts and relentlessly going around finding out whatever they needed to know.
Once you've figured out the best thing(s) to work on to best satisfy your customers, got them onto the decision makers' radar, and found a way to get them done one way or the other, you are no longer a dev or even a senior dev. You're now a digital rainmaker, the most senior dev of all.
1. Technical Skills a. Great programmers: are able to write modular, well-tested, and maintainable code b. Know a domain really well and radiate that knowledge
2. Leadership a. Begins to show architectural perspective b. Leads the design for medium to large projects with feedback from other engineers
3. Code quality a. Leaves code in substantially beter shape than before b. Fixes bugs/regressions quickly c. Monitors overall code quality/build failures d. Creates test plans
4. Communication a. Provides thorough and timely code feedback for peers b. Able to communicate clearly on technical topics c. Keeps issues up-to-date with progress d. Helps guide other merge requests to completion e. Helps with recruiting
Our industry is way too obsessed with fashion... sooner or later you realise that most of the "new" stuff is largely existing ideas re-hashed in a slightly different form. Senior programmers realise this and can pattern match to understand the role of various new technologies, and learn the details if and when necessary.
How do you get there? You already are, you just don't realise it yet.
Junior: Can do it with guidance and/or clear and non-transitional specs
Developer: Takes the ball and runs with it. Can walk a customer through requirements gathering and make recommendations. Will help guide junior developers.
Senior Developer: Can architect a system well. Can communicate equally well between executives, salespeople, management, and end users. Can and will mentor lower level developers. Can explain concepts on the fly to lower level developers and walk them through the development process in terms they understand. Takes initiative at learning new technologies.
They were forced to offer me position of senior developer and no other company after that dared to offer me lower position.
They have to have the basics we all need as engineers simply to pass the interview process. The data structures and algorithms, Big O and be able to walk through systems they have worked on in the past and the trade offs they made and why.
Then on top of the basics I look for a few more things. Usually the understanding of multi threading, multi process, asynchronous programming is very different between junior and senior folks. I dive into distributed systems and see if they have any exposure. I dive into multi paradigms and how deep their knowledge is in their respective toolset they have listed on their resume.
I don't necessarily think you need to know multi threading in and out, or distributed systems in and out, or your tool set in and out. You certainly need to know one or two of those though. You need to have some body of work you can speak very well to, this is a huge indicator of seniority. Mentorship and all the other things that go with that help differentiate as well between junior and senior.
I don't think there is a hard rule anywhere. Different folks will look for different things and at least where I work those things I listed are very important differentiators.
Senior people have made the right mistakes, wasted weeks of time, and know what to avoid, what to embrace, and what to ignore. A senior dev can understand the requirements and figure out what is important and deliver something without a lot of external input.
My main problem with thinking about developer roles in this way is that there's obviously no standard for what constitutes seniority. It varies between and sometimes within organisations. Advertising it, glorifying it, striving to achieve it, all take the focus away from far more interesting things that you can say about yourself and aim for.
Are you working on interesting projects? Are you learning new stuff? Are you being challenged technically? Are the other people on your team good developers? Do you enjoy what you do?
Seniority as an end in itself seems like a hollow objective to me. And making a big deal about it in a recruitment context takes the focus away from more meaningful topics.
As others have mentioned as a senior you can be left to implement changes without guidance, you will clean up issues as you come across them instead of leaving it to others, you suggest improvements, you make time to mentor and guide more junior members of the team, you know how to relate to muggles and you act like a team captain.
Knowing lots of different hosting environments and languages comes with experience. The approach you take to your role show's your all rounded skill set.
Our senior developer is always thinking about the business value when estimates are made vs quality. He even does not do alot of softwae development, but is always asked to help out other developers, system engineers and even management to give advice.
To be able to do that in a professional way, your vision plus skillset makes you a senior imo. Not just the years of experience and amount of skills you have.
- you are technically competent
- can handle design aspects of full stack (backend, persistence, frontend)
- have enough credibility and confidence to say NO to business people
- you can lead a small team of developers (2 to 5 people)
To sum it up I will use .NET as an example, in my eyes when someone says I am a senior .NET developer I assume that she/he has: - used UMLs, - knows how to write proper OOP and understands SOLID, - can use MS SQL and some kind of ORM, - uses some of the testing frameworks (e.g. NUnit), - knows how to deploy application whether on IIS, or install it with ClickOnce for example. - know how to handle source versioning (TFS or whatever is your poison)
I probably missed a few things, but that's about it for me. If a senor doesn't have these skills I assume first that she/he has great knowledge of company business which would make her/him a valuable asset, or that she/he got lucky, or it's a crappy company :)
Seriously, I worked for a place where thay was the rule.
Titles are somewhat meaningless. Apparently I'm a consultant these days...
Some times it's given to people instead of money.
Don't worry about the title. Worry about getting good at what you do, and an asset to your team and organization.
A solid general code understanding is also needed in my opinion. This includes things like using documentation over googling everything. If I pair with a senior and he types "golang how to do x" on every problem, I probably wouldn't consider him senior. (Not saying googling is bad. Just don't be a copy-paste-from-stackoverflow engineer)
With that, I also hate the term "senior engineer". I got friends with 3 years of work experience that are now "senior" because a company hired them under a senior position (basically more salary) and the companies after that just did the same because "well he already is a senior, right"? This also generates a strong in-balance inside the team with a hierarchy that shouldn't be there. I am usually advocating for getting rid of job titles and calling everyone just "Software Engineer"
I am now 6-7 years into my career and don't consider myself senior. When people in interviews ask me what my career goal is, I usually mention I want to be able to consider myself senior as the next step.
Since I started programming my work-behaviour changed from asking people all the time when I don't know what's happening to reading their code.
I think developers are considered senior if they can work on their own.
Like, if you get all the engineering practices of designing, implementing and maintenance done without much help.
I consider senior someone who:- knows how to mentor juniors- knows his way around tech, even if he never used a particular product- most important, can communicate effectively with stakeholders and devs.
The best "senior" is the one who nags everyone to get stuff moving forward. Doesnt mind getting his hands dirty and going by people's desks to make sure the team delivers.
You may need to brush up your marketing skills in order to promote yourself as senior. Don't get impressed by people that know stuff.
Another aspect that seperates seniors is their ability to talk and present to senior or top management.
Above that, it depends what you want to do. If you fancy managing people, you can be a team/tech lead, or if you don't, then there is the title of "expert"(only a handful of programmers who worked here 10+ years have those).
In my understanding, a senior engineer is an engineer that can contribute without the need for technical supervision.
Now, not requiring supervision is different to leadership. A senior engineer is often an individual contributor, not necessarily a team technical leader.
docker exec -it $container bash
I think I expected rkt to be fully OCI compatible in the future but it looks like Kubernetes itself needs to be able to interface with OCI runtimes and there's work to be done in that area? The Docker integration cuts too deep currently?
I think the article fails to cover a lot of areas where Amazon will have a competitive advantage over UPS and Fedex. First of all, Amazon will be vertically integrated. They can control the packaging. They can control which warehouses are used to store items. This could lead to better packing efficiency in delivery vehicles, and could make automated loading of vehicles easier. If you have a particular route that is usually 110% full or 40% full, you could either move more items to that warehouse or take some away. Plus, Amazon can incentivize cheaper shipping options dynamically. Will the marginal cost of this order be incredibly high because you'll need a second truck for a particular route? Discount one day shipping, or offer two day shipping to their work instead.
On top of all that, Amazon doesn't have unionized employees. That's a huge advantage when you are trying to reduce costs. Not only are their employees wages probably less, but they also don't have contracts that reduce planning ability, like fixed routes, etc.
(The above is my comment on this post yesterday, though the post failed to get traction. I think it's probably still relevant 24 hours later)
Agents should be able to see a complete overview of delivery that day, in order of route, and consistent metrics taken to better the service over time. Staffing could get weekly info of inbound parcels for each route and determine staff levels needed as compared to now which is just fly by seat of your pants. Of course CanPost who I work for don't do any of this, don't talk to any employees and make all these decisions far away from the people who have to implement them. The routes they design are ridiculous and nobody follows the official version. It seems trivial to solve since it's just a plaintext database and updates, plus talking to the agents to average time values and build efficient routes but for whatever reasons they don't even try. The DbaaS startup I work for remotely is constantly asking me ways they can improve, nobody at CPC has ever done so.
I was surprised when Amazon delivery appeared on the streets and they were run just as poorly as us, assumed they would 'disrupt' delivery instead of carbon copying an already bad service with UPS/Post/DHL ect.
but [Amazon] may cancel the CMI deal with just 180 days notice merely for the sake of convenience, which can be implemented from January 1, 2018.
CMI is (air)crew, maintenance and insurance and they then combine that with a dry-lease of the airframes from an Atlas subsidiary.
So it looks as if 2017 will be the proving-year for Amazon to determine whether they want to take the plunge into self-managed logistics, and they have an escape clause if not.
I'm currently waiting for a package "guaranteed" before midday. I've had a couple of emails since then, the last pushing it back to "before 9pm". It's 9.25 now.
They've delivered stuff to the wrong place. They've said they knocked and nobody answered (I work from home, wife is on maternity).
And their vans are rentals.
All in all it feels unprofessional. It makes me questions not only the value of Prime but Amazon as a whole. I've started shopping around a lot more.
But ultimately this is a loss for the everyday worker. The loss of the unions means the standard of living will fall for those that work in the delivery business. Walmart has always been seen as the enemy because of their never ending fight to lower prices which means lower salaries for their workers. I think Amazon is done a good job in not only lowering workers pay but destroying jobs. Why has Amazon escaped the same criticism? Not only that, but they are admired by many as the future of doing business and in effect employee treatment. What gives?
I'd suggest that this would remove the profit-producing deliveries for UPS/FedEx and leave them with those that they do at a loss.
It also explains the code name: "Consume the City"
1) Say this is not news but PR. Congrats to Carney.
2) Expect actual technology to lag behind the vision communicated by 3+ years while the dev teams try to find remotely suitable heuristics for the NP-SweetMotherOfGod problems that the executives think are just a matter of throwing enough servers at. Several entire orgs will be eliminated or repurposed while this happens.
3) Expect costs to be an order of magnitude higher than the competition for a good 3-5 years due to really stupid and trivially fixable mistakes/inanities that are obvious to anybody on the ground floor. These inanities will eventually be addressed by some level 4 or level 5 analyst that will eventually (but not today) get fired for pointing out the wrong person's mistakes...or worse, endlessly moved around orgs with no advancement potential.
4) Expect it to be rolled out to countless cities mindlessly by some executive that thinks they can predict results for Kansas City based on actuals from New York City. These program rollouts will eventually extremely costly and will be neutered to mean nothing, delicately handling the PR hits as they come in, while the program will still exist on the record. The programs will never be shut down.
5) Expect it will eventually (5-10 years out) become cost-neutral, but never profitable. Right as this happens, some other crazy idea will be announced, pushing everybody back in the red.
Rinse and repeat.
I had a roommate in college from London who pointed out that Americans tend to add "-ation" onto words where it isn't necessary or doesn't further elaborate the meaning (e.g. transportation where transport is sufficient). I haven't been able to un-notice our rather pointless addition of letters to nouns. What is wrong with Sort Center or Sorting Center?
I did, before writing this post, find "sortation" in some unabridged dictionaries referring to a mechanized or automated sorting process, but the word still just sounds off to me...
If large companies like Amazon would threaten or effectively start to handle their own logistics, it just might force the market to open up a bit more.
E.g 'just left your parcel on the side of the porch, behind the tree, no one was home'. Or requesting them to do that if you're not home. With the other issues of wrong deliveries and the like Amazon is just as likely to get it wrong.
Plus anything is better than the rag tag set of local shippers they use for same/next day orders (or 2-day orders that were late getting out). I'm not going to name and shame, but I've had bad experiences with all of the non-majors (i.e. not UPS, FedEX, USPS) they use from coast to coast.
If they can't do it better/cheaper then the reason to do it is because UPS or Fedex are rent-seeking, and doing it themselves would bring Amazon's cost close to the actual cost of delivering
They could choose to offer parcel shipping services to any retailer as part of the Amazon Marketplace Web Services API, just as they currently offer the Multi-Channel Fulfillment API, which allows a retailer to fulfill orders from any sales channel using the Fulfillment by Amazon network.
I have had problems with Fedex delivering for Amazon and with Same Day Service in Manhattan twice.
Amazon also has these pickup boxes in the local drug store -- they do think of things.
A lot of the stores seem to run out of items in NYC and I'm hoping Amazon would run the warehouses/logistics for these stores chains (e.g., CVS, Duane Reed).
RE: USPS. I don't like it when they delivery last mile.
By contrast I've never had an issue with FedEx or UPS (USPS is bad, and so is onTrac).
Why would FedEx ups change when it makes a pile now. I recall hearing how letters would never be sorted automatically.
It will take an outsider like Zon to get to the future.
The real lesson here is that Amazon's SLA should have given them the positioning data it takes to catch ups in a lie like this. I should not have had to pursue it. Amazon should have been penalizing then by an amount that stings AND having the driver out late.
It's not necessary to replace UPS or FedEx, just the parts that cost Amazon the most money and are easily replaceable.
That said, it's always useful to have a good scientific library in every language.
I asked recently about go wrappers for the Cuda Runtime or Driver API's and didn't get much response, I don't see a lot happening with openCL either, is there anything like that in the prospects?
Nobody's making you participate in this venture. If you don't like it, then you're free to go do whatever it is you do like.
You might think Musk could better direct his efforts and resources elsewhere, but most other billionaires don't do anything all that interesting, they just invest their money in mundane stuff, outsource jobs, build hotels, run for President, etc. So why are you upset with this one and not all those others?
One of my earliest strong memories was the last moon landing. This was followed by years of "Tomorrow's World" and "Horizon" telling us about the Moon bases, Mars bases and orbital platforms that would soon follow. We got Skylab and some very interesting probes. I'm a tiny bit disappointed in that. We were meant to be en route to Starfleet Command and global cooperation (which always seemed a big ask as we were at the height of the cold war).
However, I can't help thinking if we do become a multiplanetary species before resolving the issues of this one a few things are just a matter of time. That some politician claims we don't need to care about emissions as we now have a spare, so he's going to build loads of new coal. That Esso wants to know if there's oil. That we have an interplanetary falling out (OK that's probably a while away). That we start littering and buggering up the rest of the solar system.
There is no strife, no prejudice, no national conflict in outer space as yet. Its hazards are hostile to us all. Its conquest deserves the best of all mankind, and its opportunity for peaceful cooperation may never come again. But why, some say, the Moon? Why choose this as our goal? And they may well ask, why climb the highest mountain? Why, 35 years ago, fly the Atlantic? Why does Rice play Texas?
We choose to go to the Moon! ...We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard; because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one we intend to win.
Where the hell did they get this audience from? Is this hosted on a frat house with some academic invites?
There's a dude jokingly saying that burning man felt like mars with a lot of shit and no water, there's a guy plugging his comic book, there's a guy making a joke on how we should send Michael Cera to Mars, a girl complaining about Space X not hiring people from other countries, a girl asking to go on stage and give him a kiss, a guy that identified himself as a local idiot that I'm pretty sure is completely drunk, ....
There are some good questions too, but I just can't understand it.
Elon just went on stage and delivered a plan so ambitious you couldn't even imagine. I have thousands of questions, and astonished these people couldn't think of anything else.
Please note that this isn't an argument against going to Mars now. There's a lot we can learn by building an outpost on Mars that is supported heavily by Earth, including how to build a self-supporting Mars colony. I'm just asking what the current state-of-the-art opinion is on the challenges of building a self-supporting Mars colony.
The Q&A was the worst Q&A I have ever seen. Truly awful. I usually am a pretty calm person but watching that made my blood boil. This venture could well be one of the most important things to happen to humanity, and those were the questions that people asked. The questions were awful at all levels. Featured self promotion, ignorance and plain stupidity.
I just needed to get this out there. Seriously, what the actual f.
There's a ton of cool problems lurking around the corner. I hope humanity backs the public part of this public-private partnership.
1. Cargo CapacityScaling is Hard.
2. Proper MaintenanceAccessibility is Important
3. MTBF Expectations are too high.
4. Jet Fuel is Corrosive and Methalox engines are a tough design proposition.
5. Cosmic RadiationImpedes human interoperability.
6. Solar Panels Mars Dust Storms impede sunlight.
7. Living Module7 month duration for a living module.
8. Microbial RealitiesWe rely on microbes to live.
9. Parachute DesignSize vs. Thrust vs. Jettisoning Fuel
10. Electronic ProtectionShielding is Resource/Weight Intensive.
11. Eye SightYour ability to see diminishes in space and we dont quite know how this works fully. (This one is huge)
12. Muscle Loss- you lose muscle mass as you stay longer in space.
To give some context around how difficult it is to build mega engineering projects in the hey day of innovation, just think about Steel. There's over 3K different types of steel and 70%+ were invented in the last 20 years.
Timing, sequence, funding, and focus are going to be such a huge part of this.
5,8,11,12 are really tough. I think the other ones are solvable in some way right now, but will take some configuration/tinkering/experimentation for sure. Plenty of engineers are motivated to work on this kind of thing though, so that's a good signal.
Imagine being colonists on Mars without the ability to be totally self-sustaining without technology and supplies from Earth and nuclear war breaks out. It's going to be a long time before any Mars colony can survive on its own.
There are scattered in somewhat normal questions... but not by anyone I would consider qualified to even be asking questions.
The amount of talent and power this guy has while being so humble is just very rare. As soon as I can afford a Tesla I will definitely buy one, not only because it's a great car, but even more to support these kind of people.
(1 hour 31 minutes)
But I'm unsure about the morality of it. I think the drive to expand and discover new things is perhaps a direct cause of the deeper problems we have on Earth. Would humanity be better off just becoming a sustainable population of monks? Or are we morally equivalent to a virus, reduced to survival of the fittest and always seeking out the next host to reap?
The lower the pressure, the safer the structure, so one imagines you could have a colony where many of the workers from these three population groups, nature taking its course and we end up with legitimate Martians. People who could live in cheap structures or deep canyons with no suits for generations before the rest of us.
To be honest I think it's a really bad fit to have these kind of questions during such an event; but hey, because of them I'm pretty sure this is all really honest and not at all orchestrated... Which is good, I suppose.
NINA_5_ FINAL_draft_MarsTalkRevised_v4_17_nm_112716 copy 12
and in a totalitarian sort of way, which would be better for the human race, getting off this rock or having the world upgrade from an iphone 11 to an iphone 12?
I want to join Musk's society! Let's keep humankind going!
It seems like in the longer term, it would be more efficient to take a shuttle to orbit, and then dock with at a space station to get on the interplanetary ship. Cruise ships and military ships use this method in places where docking is infeasible. It would be a much higher initial cost, however.
Six months on ship isn't so bad. Six months is the length of a WESTPAC, though you get to leave the ship periodically. I think the longest we went without docking was a month, and the guys in the submarines often go for even longer stretches.
I would actually like to hear more about what happens on Mars: the steps to generate oxygen, food, energy, water, and the fuel for the return trip. What are the various ways that Mars could be terraformed, and what are the ethical and practical considerations?
I know that this comes on the heels of an unfortunate accident, but I'm in the camp that accidents and mistakes can lead to better process with less risk, and sometimes simpler solutions.
And, I'd like to invest in SpaceX. Whether it's in stocks or bonds, I just want to help.
1. It means you have somewhere to live and even if you set up habitats it acts as a fallback habitat.
2. You'll need a return to Earth option if things go potato shaped.
3. It can manufacture fuel in advance for future visiting ships so acts as a backup to their Sabatier reactor and other important systems.
4. Once you have several, you can afford to risk using one to travel to other parts of Mars and back to get science from other biome... er.. I mean prospect for resources.
I wonder if these will be capable of operating automatically. It would be nice to be able to prove out the system by sending an automated cargo only mission there and back, or maybe with a skeleton crew. It's fascinating that they're aiming to go directly to this without any less ambitious manned vehicles and missions first.
Kind of like a space elevator for fuel! :)
Will it be a personal dictatorship of Elon?
Unlike Earth, once you're there, there's nowhere to go without his blessing.
You can't just "move next door".
And knowing how "locked down" his Tesla cars are, it'll be interesting to see how he'll deal with a rebellious colony.
In short, King Elon for World Emperor 2016.
I think it would be better to just launch many small and cheap ships, then just leave them in space or let them crash into mars after dropping cargo by parachute with some air cushions. They could be carried into low orbit by a jet airplane, then use "dumb" rockets like water under high pressure in cheap lightweight tanks. And heat it up to vapor temperature using then sun.
PLEASE. FUND. THIS.
Loan the money to SpaceX, or partner with private investors, or increase NASA's budget and have NASA pay for it. Just make it happen.
Even if this project fails, the benefits from having a lot of smart people trying to get to and establish a colony on Mars will pay dividends for a long time.
Please make it happen!
1) Funding: Current SpaceX resources are tied up in creating the basic infrastructure that will lead to interplanetary travel. SpaceX is still private leading to Musk prioritizing these awesome ventures but still tied to revenue from contracts and limited funding. Going public will destroy the vision but give him the cash reserves to pull in the timeline.
2) Competition: NASA, other government space organization, and the private sector have or will have plans for interplanetary travel. Healthy competition often leads to more innovation and constant motivation. At the same time, it leads to competition for shared resources such as...
3) Talent: Musk mentioned in the Q&A that he can only hire green cards and up. The international talent pool is and will remain untapped unless something drastic changes. Assuming this talent goes to the competition and capitalizes into the positive effects, then it will be worth it. Unfortunately, we have yet to see another private sector company like SpaceX push the envelope as much so I'm not as hopeful that someone has the ability to utilize talent like Musk has. At the same time, SpaceX is known to drive employees into the ground. 7 days a week, tough hours, and impossible timelines is not sustainable for employees. The allure of SpaceX, similar to gaming, keeps talented individuals in line to get a shot at working for SpaceX. As mentioned due to the limited talent due to immigration issues, SpaceX may run into the talent shortage sooner than later.
4) Non-Transport Issues: Transportation is necessary but not sufficient for interplanetary travel & habitation. We don't have a SpaceX/Musk for the other non-transportation related issues. The political/cultural/international issues will be big and then there's terraforming and everything involved with that. Musk may get ahead of schedule but these other issues may push the timeline further and further out.
5) Public Interest: Space travel is not as sexy as it used to be for the public as compared to the Moon landing with the backdrop of the Cold War and arms race. Yes, this is not using direct public funding (if/until NASA decides to pitch in) but the public needs to make this objective be top of mind for it to become a reality. Musk and the science enthusiasts will not be enough. We need to develop a few "X Prize" equivalents for the non-science community to progress on the non-transport issues and show why it matters for the rest of the world.
How has this announcement and Elon's dream in general excited or inspired you?
Any ideas for how the plan could be developed, improved, augmented?
Gravity in Mars is 3.7 m/s, compared to 9.8 m/s. In a way, it's convenient since it would take less effort to reach Martian escape velocity.
Mars does not have a magnetosphere, and therefore little protection from radiation. The technology to induce a planetary magnetosphere does not exist. If Mars does form an atmosphere, it can be lost to space during increased solar activity.
What I think is that our best chance is to send robots to prepare an habitat for the first manned visits.
Mars will be nothing more then a research station for 500 years. Ceries and the space stations at L1-5 will be economic powerhouses before 2100.
I really wish him to succeed and if he asked me to donate money I would.
I think I would prefer more presentation from him than any QA.
Next time I'm giving a talk: one question per person (want to ask more, go to end of line), and ask your damn question.
The Q&A, however, seemed to be straight from a second-rate Comic-Con panel.
Clearly, we've already identified some of the folks who should be left on Earth.
A) the most revolutionary venture of this century
B) the largest Ponzi scheme ever
How many industry leaders see planets as merely resources to be exploited like they do people?
To achieve multi-planetary status, we need to make ourselves less fragile than we currently tend to be. What I mean by that is that if we devoted half as much time, money and resources as we do to wage endless wars and collectively shifted our focus to medical advancements such as the technology we need to keep ourselves alive in the hostile environments we'll encounter in space, our astronauts very likely could be traveling in self contained, iron man-like suits by now.
Aside from that, we may have to upgrade our own physiology so;
We NEED nanotech that can repair us, keep us healthy and help us adapt OURSELVES to new environments that have enough of the proper elements. Can you imagine being able to Evolve On Demand so that you can breathe a different atmosphere and derive whatever your body needed from it? I can.
If relativity holds then planets that are either bigger or moving faster might have a very different local space-time from what we're used to, so imagine if jet lag was so severe it hospitalized you.
We need artificial intelligence capable of both supervised and unsupervised learning to run and monitor our environments, our medical conditions - both physical and mental. The 'quantified self movement' actually has a very, very useful purpose here.
We need to be able to repair a ship while it's in space. We need to be able to repair an environmental suit while standing or perhaps trapped in a volcano that ejects molten Dihydrogen Monoxide on Titan.
We need real, functioning, scanning, recording, data-analyzing Tricorders. Yes, if if weren't obvious by now, I AM a total Star Trek nerd and if we want to explore space, we need those mobile forensic labs that will allow us to truly see the universe and ALL of its wonderful colors. I could go on, but then someones' R&D department is gonna have to pay me.
Let's focus all the money and effort we would spend on getting to Mars and living on its wasteland, and use it to understand the human mind and digitize it into a realm not individually constrained by physics? I actually think that may be a more realistic and practical goal, and our quality of lives could be much better. I mean, what do we really get from living somewhere like Mars? A storage compartment for excess humans? To what end? What will happen to it when we cure aging?
The idea of terraforming Mars cracks me up. Maybe when Musk completes his hyperloop will also be when I start taking him more seriously.
I can post a URL to the output once it's finished running, if it'd be of any use to anyone. Oh, and be warned, there's a strong chance that it's buggy. It's certainly not optimised (no threads).
EDIT: The script has now run. I've scraped ~10,000,000 Video IDs, but only ~5.5m of these IDs are unique, so there's probably a bug in my script somewhere (but I need sleep now). Files containing IDs for various categories are listed here: https://redfern.me/public/yt8m/, some notes are here: https://redfern.me/public/yt8m/README.md, and .tar.gz'd archive is available here: https://redfern.me/public/yt8m/yt8m-ids-probably-incomplete.....
Would I be violating any law, copyright if I formatted it and put it on my server for that kind of consumption or via JSON?
I am searching (thrashing) around for my next "big" project. i have been thinking of drones measuring roof / building quality and the CV/ML requirements are fairly high - getting my teeth stuck into these would really give me a better feel for training my own system.
The problem is, how do I feed my family while taking the six months to do it all?
That much slowness may be disk I/O bound, which would show up in the USE method, or even just my Linux performance checklist. It'd also show up by tracing blocking events, even an off-CPU flame graph, but that's overkill.
> Furthermore, as each request needs to be stored in a database, it was not a matter that can easily be solved using caching. I needed a backend that could deal with 100+ requests per second without breaking a sweat.
I thought this was why we had databases in the first place. They've been able to deliver this performance without any issues for decades now.
What's the issue?
> Im a bit surprised that a bit of logging has such a severe impact on performance on Heroku and even more surprised that they recommend you to enable logging in their Express tutorial.
While I agree that was certainly a surprise to me too, I'm not surprised by the advice. Not all apps need to scale massively, and how else are you going to debug your app deployed in Heroku when strange things start to happen?
- etc.... then, you are better off doing it on a lower level language. express logger counts as a form of serialization, and therefore it is slow.
If you absolutely have to do CPU intensive work... then: limit per-tick execution time and break it down into multiple ticks, otherwise you will block the node event loop and your system will degrade until it stops processing requests.
Now, you can find this faster by profiling. Just use a profiler, like nodegrind or flame graphs or whatever, you will find those bottlenecks very quickly.
When did we loose our heads and think such an architecture is sane? The UNIX philosophy is do one thing and do it well, but that doesn't mean be foolish about the size of one said thing. Doing one thing means solving a problem, and limited the scope of said problem so as to have a cap on cognitive overhead, not having a notch in your "I have a service belt".
We don't see the LS command divided into 50 separate commands and git repo's.....
If it is 1000 microservices as in different apps, then they must have at least 2000 running apps (at least 2 instances per app for HA).
Maybe uber only have 200 "active" microservice app running at the same time where each microservices have N running instances.
I just cant imagine running 1000 different microservices (e.g different docker images, not docker instances) at the same time.
Microservices address that gap.
And in the process the field is transformed from one of software developers to software operators. This generation is witnessing the transfer of the IT crew from the "back office" to the "boiler room".
I used to work in startups, and overall was impressed with velocity. Then I joined a big valley tech company, and now I understand.
It's because they hire smart and ambitious people, but give them a tiny vertical to work on. On a personal level, you WANT to build something, so you force it.
I think you solve this by designing your stack and then hiring meticulously with rules (like templates for each micro service), instead of HIRE ALL THE ENGINEERS and then figure it out (which is quite obviously uber's problem)
Any speculation as to why Uber doesn't just want to use something like Netflix Eureka / Hystrix instead?
That's also why that makes it an interesting place to work at and helped them achieve this growth.
Personnaly I think this should be made into a global app with no geo-fencing (e.g. Available everywhere basically).
Good talk, will likely watch again.
Know your data. Are you serving ~1000 requests per second peak and have room to grow? You're not going to gain much efficiency by introducing engineering complexity, latency, and failure modes.
Best case scenario and your business performs better than expected... does that mean you have a theoretical upper bound in 100k rps? Still not going to gain much.
There are so many well-known strategies for coping with scale that I think the main take-away here for non-Uber companies is to start up-front with some performance characteristics to design for. Set the upper bound on your response times to X ms, over-fill data in order to keep the bound on API queries to 1-2 requests, etc.
Know your data and the program will reveal itself is the rule of thumb I use.
It's actually been longer than that. The site at Monte Verde  in Chile seems to have been widely accepted as a pre-Clovis site nearly 20 years ago (1997 according to Wikipedia ). Awareness of the site, at least among the archaeological community predates that (1989 ). The first radiocarbon dates indicating a pre-Clovis origin for the site go back to 1982.
The idea that Clovis was not the earliest culture in the Americas, and the commensurate theory that the earliest colonists must have been traveling by boat  goes back decades. I know I've been reading about it (in the popular press no less) since the 1990s. It seems like every article I read about it makes it seem like some new and revolutionary idea. The only conclusion I can draw is that archaeological science operates on time scales only slightly shorter than those the archaeologists study.
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monte_Verde#Discovery (third paragraph)
 I'd like to give you a citation for this, but this theory, as far as I can tell has no official name.
The original research paper is worth a read (open access FTW).
Emphasis added. One badly chosen word in an otherwise decent article. What we know of pre-Clovis people clearly supports the idea of them also being 'early ancestors to today's Native Americans.'
> We updated a cartridge authentication procedure in select models of HP office inkjet printers to ensure the best consumer experience and protect them from counterfeit and third-party ink cartridges [...]
That's insincere as hell. It all paraphrases to "We did this for your own good and we're sorry you got upset".
I know there's security risks in the printer and in any other thing plugged into a network, but what's the security risk in a cartridge? A cartridge can be hacked and then...? Can a cartridge really be owned? What can possibly be done then?
as well as many like it, that explain how the printer will only accept original, overpriced Dymo labels.
I bought a Brother QL-700 instead, with ordinary labels that cost 1/5 of the price of the Dymo ones, and couldn't be happier.
Let's hope those practices hurt the businesses instead of helping their bottom line, that's the only way we will get rid of them.
But then I just arrive at the conclusion that if you didn't add DRM and try to make cartridges "smart" there wouldn't even be a security vector...
Since it cost $50+ for new color and black cartridges I figured I'd just buy a new printer every time the old one ran out.
Sadly new printers come with super small cartridges.
It is sad that I'm now in a position where I won't buy another HP printer while the cloud of them restricting my ink choices lingers.
That we are part of the enigma we are hoping to master makes things the more cloudy - is total abstraction possible?
The article is a huge open question too. Nice reading, very startling too. I did get inspired to try an idea or two... perhaps to add to an already increasing plethora of tweaks to our cloudy reality. It's in our nature too.
Back before Silicon Valley was Silicon Valley and had extensive agriculture, Santa Clara County had a weather control program. When water-laden cloud formations were about to pass over without rain, silver iodide generators would be fired up across the Valley. This would generate a little extra rain.