Yes. And then we've created a pay-to-play system. Not good.
4,019 karma · joined April 20, 2012
Equity, however, creates a conflict of interest. If the non-profit Postgres organizations make money when Citus makes money, then they have an incentive to favor Citus over other companies.
Let's say there's a Citus competitor. The competitor implements a feature a bit differently than Citus. Does Postgres support both organizations equally? Or if there's a technical decision to be made, and it involves making one company's code incompatible with base Postgres, who do you think will win?
It's a free market, and the parties involved are perfectly free to make this arrangement, but it generates potential problems.
That having been said, I'd like to echo some of the other comments here. You need better docs.
As an app developer, I want to see some things right away:
1. What's the server written in? Can I see the code? It isn't clear which of your Github repos contain the server. If your server is proprietary or secret, make that clear.
2. I'm not going to install VirtualBox. Just give me a binary that I can install so I can see what's going on.
3. I want to see what a finished app looks like. Either do a video, or better yet, put up a demo site. Don't make me install the Hours app just to see it.
4. What is the Alan Connect app? I want to see it before I install it.
5. Give me a way to escape the system. I get that I don't need to write code, but for some things, I really do. In what language do I write custom functions? How do I customize the UI?
I understand that I could slog through the docs to find the answers for all these things, but your adoption rate will go way up if you make it easier. When I evaluate new software, if I can't find the answers to the big questions in 20 or 30 minutes, I move on.
Jekyll has a ton of stars, but that's probably because it's been around so long.
Please talk more about AGPL. MongoDB has a similar problem, and they solved it by making their product dual-licensed, AGPL + commercial. They then clarified the AGPL to say that in their opinion, it did in fact prevent cloud providers from building managed services around the modules.
https://www.mongodb.com/community/licensing/faq
The AGPL is lengthy and a bit convoluted, so it's possible they're wrong. Could you talk through your reasoning?
It's not a coincidence that that huge number of tickets is being written in a busy bar area.
The likely reason there are many tickets there is that there are many bars there, and great crowds of people who have had a bit too much to drink. There are also great crowds of cops there every weekend.
Without looking at the data, I'd expect that many of the tickets are getting written in the middle of the night, when people are too inebriated, or too distracted, to read signs carefully.
The costs of Google may be comparable or lower than other services, but they don't seem to get that risk is a cost. Risk can be your biggest cost. And they've amplified that risk unnecessarily and shifted it to the customer. Fatal, as I said.
I just read the opinion in Bennis. The core of it is that the state may take property if the use of the property constitutes a public nuisance. If a ship is used for piracy or drug running, for example, then it can be taken.
In Bennis, there was a car jointly owned by a husband and a wife. The husband used the car with a prostitute. The wife didn't know. The question before the court was if the state's taking of the car violated the wife's 5th amendment rights, because she owned half of it and had nothing to do with the crime. Almost the entirely of the opinion concerned whether an innocent owner could have property taken if the property had been used to commit a crime by someone else. The court held that yes, it could, and that wasn't a violation of the 5th amendment.
Most of these civil forfeiture cases can be distinguished because the property taken usually wasn't used in the commission of a crime. People have had large amounts of cash taken from them even though they did nothing more than run a red light or drive too fast. In that case, the money can hardly been seen as having been an instrument of the crime.
It's unfortunate that in this particular case, the druggie did use his car to transport and to buy and sell drugs. This isn't the best case to challenge civil asset forfeiture generally. Perhaps "excessive fines" is the best they'll be able to do. Although if the court is really enlightened, they'll distinguish between an asset which is primarily used for crime (a crack house or a pirate ship) and one which is used only in passing (like this car).
The problem with relying on the 8th alone is that the word "excessive" is imprecise, and there's good reason for the Supreme Court to defer to local legislatures to define what it means, except in extreme cases. Deciding criminal penalties are normally within the powers of the state.
I think the more important amendment is the 5th: ("nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."). This "takings" clause is what civil forfeiture is all about.
The 5th Amendment has been fully incorporated, and is binding on the states: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/incorporation_doctrine
In cases where there is no rational connection to a crime (and there are many such cases), the taking can in no way be construed as a fine.
If you look at the 5th and the 8th together to try to divine the intent of the founders, it's clear that they were trying to limit government overreach of exactly this kind. This case should be a slam dunk.
If a wealthy drug dealer has cars, boats, houses and whatnot that are used in the course of committing crimes, the government should be able to seize them to stop them from continuing to be used for this purpose. If a drug dealer has a large amount of cash earned from the sale of drugs, he should not be able to use his ill-gotten gains to pay for lawyers or escape or anything else. Also, the seizures help local law enforcement defray the cost of catching the criminal, a cost they would not have had to incur had he not been a criminal.
Again, I think these are terrible arguments, but there you are.
It's not helpful unless we know what it's doing under the covers.
Can you tell us what consensus algorithm you're using? Raft, or something else? Your own implementation or something off the shelf?
First, I won't say your product is a commodity, but there are many, many, many layout and design tools out there. I'm not going to pay $25 to evaluate each one. It's as much about the sign-up-and-hand-over-the-credit-card process as it is about the money.
Second, the fact that it's refundable doesn't matter. I'm never going to ask for a refund. The hassle and the back-and-forth isn't worth $25 to me.
Third, I'm willing to pay way more than $25 if your tool actually solves my problem. There are tons of UI tools out there, but I haven't found the one. It's totally worth it to me if you save me hours of work.
So don't add any friction to the process. Feel free to time-limit or cripple the tool so I have to pay to do any real work, but don't waste my time, and don't make me pay you for the privilege of sinking a bunch of my time into determining if your product works or not.
Find a way to do free trials, and do it in such a way that your costs are minimal. It's worth it.
I don't think it breaks the "strongest possible interpretation" rule, though. The specific quote I'm responding to isn't ambiguous. It's not taken out of context, either. The balance of article reinforces the argument made in the quote.
What utter drivel.
The moral face-off between good and evil is core to a great many religions, most notably Christianity. Concepts of right and wrong, and the clash between them, has formed the core of many strains of philosophical, religious, cultural and literary thought for 2,500 years, at least.
Such thought, particularly Christian thought, has influenced the literature of Western Europe for many centuries. It's hard to find a writer who was not at least aware of God-vs-the-devil story lines.
Sorry, professor, but western civilization has existed for much longer than you imagine. Not everything is political, ok?
7-Zip doesn't appear to contain an auto-updater or an "update me" button.
My gmail interface has neither of those problems.
I would consider going back to Thunderbird because it pulls together multiple email account better than gmail does. But they've got to get a better underlying storage engine.
It's clear why rivers and lakes that eventually empty into the ocean are fresh. Rainwater washes the salt downstream to its ultimate destination.
But many lakes do not have an outlet that leads to the sea. Water flows in and evaporates. Where does the salt go in that case?
Or is it possible that the article doesn't tell the full story, and that salty rocks are confined to a limited number of areas?
But no, I'm glad those days are long gone. I never want to see any of my old dBASE, Clipper, Pascal code again...
In this algorithm you have multiple leaders, where a leader can be in charge of a particular object temporarily by "stealing" it. This brings control to the datacenter that needs it, reducing latency.
It's an interesting idea, and I haven't fully absorbed the paper. But I'll comment on it anyway. It's always easier to criticize when you're ignorant of the details :)
In general, I don't like these algorithms that only guarantee a partial ordering. In other words, instead of having a single global total ordering of all transactions, you have an ordering of operations that apply to a single object or key or a related group of keys. This means you can't know if object A got updated before object B. You can't know the total state of the system as of a snapshot in time, or as of the moment a node membership change happens. (Maybe. There might be workarounds for these issues, at the cost of some complexity.)
This paper is a good contribution, but we ain't there yet.