nickstefan12

This describes a lot of people with young kids pretty accurately

Seriously laughed out loud when the ending brings it back to the junior engineer and the engineering processes. Well done!

AOE2 (Age of Empires 2) is _still_ going strong some twenty years later. Active reddit, youtube, and twitch communities. Still releasing new civ expansions on Steam. I think it's success is due to just how balanced the game is. It's like a really fast moving chess game.

I like factorio as well, but honestly it started to feel like work after I got the hang of it (needing to refactor etc).

Same! Another industry they could play monopoly with

GPS spoofing is a big part of the Bond movie “Tomorrow Never Dies”. Funny that in a movie it seemed totally fake, something invented for the plot, and yet here I see it’s a real thing.

Interesting how truth can be too much for fiction sometimes.

Nothing is particularly “bad”. I’ve used them in python a number of times.

I’m more just commenting that it’s a strange / interesting code based worth sight seeing. It was written in a style that seemed like from another language.

I will never forget what I found when hacking the internals of Handsontable many years ago...

JavaScript For loops with

- :label (eg go to)

- continue

- break

It was definitely an interesting sperlunk!

My cynical answer is that engineers often work with “yes”/“no” about feasibility.

Leaders usually keep the conversation above that level and think in terms of which problem needs solving rather than yes/no’ing specific implementations.

> What full stack means in the market is front end with a little back end

So much this. I believe in full stack development skills, that someone can have them, but I don’t believe in the job role of full stack developer.

At small medium scale, there’s just so much more front end work on a lot of apps. Let’s say 70%. My experience with full stack as a job role is that it turns into “what backend change can I quickly make in order to get back to the front end work which is most of the work.” Which then means no ones manning the ship / design / scope creep / perf risks etc of the backend. I think separate roles lead to more even evaluation of best feature implementations.

> alternative computing reality

This such the perfect description. I was working on a Django feature last year that had to work on all DBs and testing the oracle stuff was like entering a new reality lol.

This is important. I agree that taxing / mandating one house per person / family is probably the only way to reign in rent seeking.

You may argue that the solution either way is to build more, but I think its important to take problems on at their source. The debate about supply and demand just seems to be the wrong level of abstraction when there's a more sociological root cause for pulling up the ladder.

> "Or rather, the fewer poor people around tends to mean rich people find it even more desirable."

If we don't address this, it will be impossible to convince people to build more, no matter how blue in the face people get about supply and demand charts.

Your analogy is logically sound, but it doesnt match what I've seen in reality. I think the extra factor is that rich people seem to attract more rich people. That is the number that I think can't be out built. The rise in prices attracts more of them. Or rather, the fewer poor people around tends to mean rich people find it even more desirable. In practice, no government or real estate boom can out build this network effect of rich people attracting more rich people who eventually decide they like things the way they are. Not just real estate, but everything about the place. And they now own it, so its not that crazy to imagine they get to decide this. Im not morally in support of it, just stating history.

Rich people are especially into "knowing the best", whether its vacations, cars, and yes, places to live. Thats what I meant about them wanting to come buy stuff in your town even if they don't currently live there. And the data kind of shows this. California has an outflow of poor and and inflow of richer.

Basically, desirability is inelastic. California has better weather than a lot of places. The only people who can pay up the vertical inelastic curve are rich people. There are a bunch of them who want to move to your town from elsewhere.

Not the OP, but I would think he's describing: You can't out build rich people. There may be a supply of ten houses and a demand of ten people who need houses. However, that doesn't take into account that one of those ten people might be rich enough to want to buy all of the houses and then rent them back to the other nine. In dieting: you can't out run the fork. In housing: you can't out build the rich people.

In anywhere nice to live, there will always be rich people lining up to buy up everything. Even if they don't live there. Even if they can only live in one house at a time.

My argument would be that the demand is created by where the jobs are. What has changed "recently" is that jobs are being more concentrated post invention of the internet. The internet has removed the need for regional companies and so what we have now are super max companies located in "one place".

People are going to accuse me of "got mine", but I have none! What I'm saying is to consider that wanting cheaper housing today is throwing away a lot of natural beauty, vistas, and life, forever, just for a short term easement of housing pressure.

The problem with "just build more" is that eventually you run out of space the same as now, only you get to do it with a worse quality of light / space / light / traffic / noise / etc. I wish more cities fought to maintain true pristine open space.

There is no housing crises. There is a concentration of jobs problem and a wealth inequality problem. The internet's winner-take-all nature has created a world where one office in one city can do what used to require more sprinkled out offices of different businesses. Couple that with too many rich people, who will always have more money to park in desirable places than we have time to out build, and you get people priced out of the "one place" they can get a job.

It's not housing. It's the structure of our economy. If you don't believe me, notice how every city in America right now talks about its "housing crisis". It's wealth inequality and job monopolies.

"How I won The Lottery" (joke tech talk) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_F9jxsfGCw

I've learned that the housing crisis is really just a wealth inequality crisis. Basically every city in America now thinks it has a housing crisis. Big. Small. Cheap. Expensive. Seriously, talk to people in every city and state and they all think their city has its own special housing crisis.

I think as long as there are people with deep pockets, anywhere desirable will be expensive regardless of supply. Like when dieting, "you can't out exercise the fork", you can't out build the wealthy and multi property investors.

The housing crisis is a wealth inequality problem. Trying to build out of it destroys the character of cities and their access to nature and for what? To appease the always too deep pockets of people buying up multiple houses...

> Everywhere else, the best policy is to increase supply. As long as homes are scarce, only those with deep pockets will be able to afford them.

I've changed my mind on this: I think as long as there are people with deep pockets, anywhere desirable will be expensive regardless of supply. Like when dieting, "you can't out exercise the fork", you can't out build the wealthy.

The housing crisis is a wealth inequality problem. Trying to build out of it destroys the character of cities and their access to nature and for what? To appease the always too deep pockets of people buying up multiple houses...

> Our society isn’t designed for average to poor people to be healthy.

The truth. Capitalism isn't about needs and wants but miseries you can tolerate. Unfortunately a bunch of people raced to the bottom on lack of sleep and now that's the level of misery required to compete...

Our app models directed graphs in Postgres with a closure table (the transitive edges between nodes).

The advantages are that it's just sql, has good performance, and we can query the graph using relational logic rather than n+1 traversal. The trade off is space (the closure table has the potential to be huge).

So it depends on the size of the data set. Part of me wishes we'd built something that's easier to partition, but for now that's a future concern.

If you're looking for a website builder that doesn't load megabytes of JavaScript, lock you in to the platform forever, or feel like a Fischer price toy, check out:

https://www.brandcast.com

You don't like that models.CASCADE fakes it with extra requests to the Db? Or you don't like that the default is models.CASCADE instead of something like models.DO_NOTHING? There's talk of making the on_delete kwarg required. In that world there would be no default :).

If anyone wants to see "Database level -- on delete cascade", here's my PR to Django that's been open since July/August: https://github.com/django/django/pull/8661

I love the idea of citus. An abstraction on top of sharding sounds amazing. The docs are clear. Their learning material is solid and actually gave me plenty of ideas.

I was really excited about citus... until I saw the price! Hosted citus is expensive. The estimator estimated thousands of dollars per month, splitting to just two small Db machines with limited ram and CPU.

For now, just spending all that money on a huge vertically scaled rds box with lots of ram and CPU made way more sense. Hopefully native Postgres eventually ties more parallel ability to take advantage of bigger and bigger rds boxes.

If we scaled past 1 big box, I'm guessing we would just do classical sharding instead.

Definitely could be this as well. The answer to "can the product do _____" may entirely depend on who's asking. If its a big enough customer at a high enough price, they may want the ability to say "yes".

Probably when actual "departments" become a thing (e.g. sales, marketing and engineering as separate tribes with separate incentives)

>  the more expensive the service a B2B company provides, the more incomprehensible its website

> I think the big companies do it to get you on the phone — so they can upsell.

I was thinking these things, and then BOOM, he says what I'm thinking haha.

These are sales oriented companies. By contrast, B2C is quantity oriented. They need more customers buying their mostly undifferentiated price tiers. Selling expensive pants vs regular pants isn't worth high touch sales. However, in B2B, selling "really really expensive enterprise plan" vs "regular enterprise plan" is definitely worth high touch sales. They want to do everything they can to get you "interested, but confused" and pick up the phone.

Also not OP, but we've been using dapulse. Terrible name, but it's been working great. It has similar concepts to asana and trello. It loads fast and easy to use.