174 karma · joined January 4, 2018
This is equivalent to using K8s to deploy a static site and complaining infra is the hardest of all. React isn’t the skeleton key for front end apps. Sometimes using simpler tools is the way to go and adding complexity when it becomes necessary
I say this as someone who loves using Temporal and see a big future for them.
Temporal is a managed state-machine. If you're familiar with K8s, you can think of it as a dedicated reconciler. Plain and simple.
Do you want a resource to go from one state to another (i.e. user orders food -> food is delivered) regardless of transient errors and other hiccups? Temporal handles the plumbing of driving your resource to it's desired end state.
Do you have a workflow that has multiples steps? Can anyone of those steps fail for whatever reason and you'll need to figure out how to do retrying/cleaning up? Temporal handles that.
Essentially you can write your business logic without the worry of including the (often) boilerplate retry, cleanup, scheduling, etc logic. If you're familiar with K8s reconciliation and how it retries failed operations again and again until it reaches the goal, it's much like that.
Temporal can do much more than that, but that's its bread and butter and I'm trying to describe it simply so that people can understand. It is a bit of a paradigm shift and has a bit of a learning curve when you first start using it.
But like others have said, it's very powerful.
Seems to be the case for AWS[1] and GCP[2]. Not sure if they have a workaround when it comes to `pg_restore` but my understanding was that if you wanted super user access to your database, you would need to manage it yourself.
1: https://serverfault.com/a/661685 2: https://cloud.google.com/sql/docs/postgres/users#superuser_r...
https://technology.riotgames.com/news/chat-service-architect...
Redis uses CRDTs for active-active architectures [1] and for some of their native data structures [2].
Riak also uses them in their data store [3].
And looks like PayPal might use them for consensus purposes (I found this while looking up the Riak talk so I haven't actually watched it) [4]
1: https://redis.com/blog/diving-into-crdts/
2: https://redis.com/videos/active-active-geo-distribution-redi...
3: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f20882ZSdkU&ab_channel=Erlan...
Joking aside though, CRDTs are still a pretty esoteric space and all the various blog posts came in handy when I was researching how to build my own CRDT.
Most of the resources I've seen on CRDTs are from whitepapers and those can be difficult to read if you don't have a math background. I gave a talk at a Papers We Love [1] explicitly because I found the academic papers a big turn off from many people interested in the space.
[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Bs3Fj9rvks&t=2169s&ab_chann...
In terms of CS, I'm sure most of them are going for a job. But the fact that those who aren't isn't 0%, it makes it difficult to compare.
Also, the reasons for people not graduating college and not graduating from a 3-6 month bootcamp will likely differ as well. 4 years is a long time. There are many reasons why someone might drop out. So again, comparing graduation rates and job placement rates between uni and bootcamp won't really tell you much useful data, especially if you're trying to compare which one prepares students better.
And just to be clear, I'm not saying Uni is better or defending it. I have my own with college [1]. But I see too many people trying to deflect criticism from bootcamps when those criticisms are very well justified.
[1] Is a Computer Science Degree Worth It?: https://betterprogramming.pub/is-a-computer-science-degree-w...
But that in itself doesn’t mean what Lambda did was any better. If anything, they both need serious reforms.
But “job benefit” isn’t exactly the same as “job placement”. I went back to school for improve my own CS fundamentals but not to immediately get a job. And many people do the same (go back to school for a promotion or for a raise).
And since those people exist, comparing job placement rates won’t tell you much since the data isn’t comparable.
I’m criticizing both the false claims and the VC model of hyper scaling and hyper growth being applied to education.
"Move fast and break things" isn't the motto of the medical industry, but it is for tech. So how is this even related?
If you want to talk about medicine, that’s a completely different discussion.
The sole purpose of a bootcamp is to get a job afterwards. That’s why they market their job placement rates so much.
Uni, video courses, and MOOCs are for education. Not everyone uses them to get a job, so job placement for a video course or uni compared to bootcamp doesn’t give you much info.
Anecdote: I did a self-paced online school to get my first software job. I did research on it in regards to job placement.
After getting my first software job, I have since taking many video courses and even went back to uni to get a degree in Computer Science. All of that was purely for further education, not getting a job.
I wouldn’t go to a bootcamp in my position because I don’t need it. They aren’t focused on education or academics but job training.
"They said we were experimenting on the backs of children," Danner said.
"But when SpaceX launched their first five rockets and they blew up, was that OK?" he continued. "We're in a more high-stakes world of human development. Still, you can't say that you don't like the way things are but don't want people to try new things."
This is one of the problems of mixing VCs in the education space. “Move fast and break things” doesn’t work when the “things” are humans, not code and technology.
Also, last time I checked, SpaceX wasn’t promising 80% of its rockets would work back in its early days.
Good ol’ fashion false equivalency.
There are some unique approaches to this idea of casual viewing. I know Coil (https://coil.com/) is doing this with the whole idea of Web 3.0.
The idea, if I understand correctly, is you pay $5 a month for a membership, and any time you consume content from someone who has set up a coil wallet, part of your subscription goes to them. Like Medium subscriptions, but for the entire web.
The problem right now is no isn’t really an incentive to use it. It’s all volunteer based. So the payouts from it are pennies.
Websites would need to have Coil-only content that only members would get to see to incentivize adoption, similar to Patreon. But since it’s decentralized, it’s up to each site to implement it.
Do you use it? And if so, how do you like it?
If your views are coming from mainly external sources, Medium won't pay you for that.
Also, Medium pays more for more recent stories. Probably as an incentive to keep posting more articles. 1 hour of readership for a brand new story could get you $2-5. For an older story, it'll probably only earn you less than a dollar.
I didn't want people to think I was just writing this to get attention which is why I didn't originally post it.
Here's proof to the claims I made: https://medium.com/@SunnyB/proof-of-medium-stats-700c2b0b638...
For readers who aren't subscribed to Medium, it can be annoying. You go to read an article, and if that article is monetized, you see a banner to sign up. Plenty of people leave immediately.
Now let me tell why, as a writer, I still use Medium and will continue for the time being.
I only post 2-4 articles on there per month. But even then, I'm seeing ~50K views per month and this month I'm on track to earn $1000.
To see those same results on my own blog, I would need to learn a lot about SEO, affiliate marketing, and have a large Twitter following to direct traffic to my blog. I would also need to maintain it myself.
Sure, I might have a higher chance of going viral on HN, but how likely is that even anyway?
As a full-time developer with a newborn who's just looking to earn some fun money, Medium is perfect. I write, submit to a publication, and they take care of the rest.
People may say, "I'm not going to read your posts on Medium." My answer is: okay? Can't make everyone happy. But I'm still getting 50K views from people who do want to read them, and I'm okay with that.
The other point to make is that Medium only pays for views/reads from other Medium members, so I don't necessarily care if I go viral on HN or not. If I really cared about going viral, I would just post my article to something like dev.to and then submit it to HN.
If you're just looking to write and get views/go viral and don't care about money, then it might not make sense to post to Medium. But if you want to earn some money with relatively little effort, Medium is hard to beat.
Edit: Here's proof of my claims for people questioning them (https://medium.com/@SunnyB/proof-of-medium-stats-700c2b0b638...). Note: it is a Medium link to an unlisted post. Didn't know where else to put it.
I've edited that section.
"And that source will vary depending on what kind of random number generator you want to use.
I’m sure that last sentence caused some confused looks. What do you mean by “kind of random number generator”? Aren’t they all the same?"
Sorry if I came off snippy. I definitely appreciate the feedback.
I used artistic license in certain instances. But I agree some things could've been worded better and I'll edit those.
With that said, it definitely was a breakdown of communication, which is something we highlighted in our post mortem. We do have efficient ways of communicating, but due to the time of day, etc. the communication was very lack luster. They did tell us about removing the API token, but it was after they had already done it and we noticed the errors.
In terms of monitoring/user complaints. Some of this was poetic license. We were engaged with users during the partial outage and they alerted us when they noticed all their requests were failing and it had moved to a global outage. I just described it in a way that was better for story telling and removed some context so the article wasn't 15 mins long.