exnuber

The top-40 is killing me, so it only seems fair.

So, if I follow this correctly... You sign up for a service, choose an account type that has restrictions, you exceed those, they have a soft limit with known and communicated consequences, they reach out how to avoid the consequence, you do nothing, and now you are angry?

What else should the company have done? Remove your additional accounts that exceeded the limits? Or, just allow over-usage without consequence? It's totally unclear what you think should have happened. I think the CEO actually responded very adequately. The owner of postapathy went over limits, they notified, and when no action was taken, their account are suspended, how is that not fair?

They say they draw inspiration from DDD and CQRS, yet seem to miss one crucial factor. And no, I'm not talking about bounded contexts. They still focus in re-use of commodity rather than addressing why their microservice approach didn't work. Their strategy for defining how functionality moves down the stack is not bad, but it's not anchored towards the right thing. It's the consistency boundary (or aggregate root if you will). It's the circle you draw around your business rules and say "this group needs to remain consistently enforced". This defines your unit of scale, not re-use. So while they are headed in the right direction, I fear that they are still missing a fundamental piece of information to steer on.

I was employed by Uber (I quit after a couple months), and the idea's that they now hint towards were largely rejected by the engineers, and that was less than a year ago. Uber is just in the position to throw a large sum of money at making wrong decisions and getting away with it, because it's not their money. It's VC funny money.

DISCLAIMER: Yes, I did indeed create this account to be able to reply anonymously.