I once put together a blockchain-like solution that was actually running on top of a distributed database.
Because it was using db's native replication, it was much faster and more efficient to distribute the blockchain among the participating nodes.
There were some drawbacks too, for example the system required n/2+1 for quorum which is a bit more than than 51% for small clusters.
So back to basics: I would start with the use case, problem to solve and then see if something like blockchain is the correct solution for the problem (as opposed to searching for some magic blockchain-like tech that is magically better than others for all types of problems)
airplanes haven't changed much because safety is paramount and every crash is big PR fiasco so planes have not changed much because the industry is heavily regulated and there are duopoly players in the commercial space (Boeing/Airbus).
But I concur with some of your thesis...
This is definitely an area that is going to grow. I think most of the initial growth will be in the low-end, cheap, disposable projects - stuff for managing your home (IoT), for example where you want as much control over the whole stack as possible.
The current IoT hype has blown over a little, but the need to control various things around you in an intelligent and safe way is still an unsolved problem, worth exploring further.
Thanks. It's the same for me, actually - I built a lot of my career around XML and other W3C standards and the great thing about those, while complicated is that you can refer to a well defined spec to see what the behaviour SHOULD be.
But I'm hoping it's not either/or question - I can continue learning software architecture patterns and anti-pattern but perhaps there is some new, realtively untapped market or end-user experience where this can be leveraged.
I work with a 'nosql' database vendor and I take care of customers with PBs of data doing this.
A very common pattern is having a DR setup - i.e. two separate clusters, with the database replicated, then breaking that replication, upgrading DR and if it's successful promoting that to acting prod and upgrading production (cluster #1) and re-enabling replication.
Exactly. If you want to buy any NFT, you have to go to a centralised marketplace like opensea.io. On top of that you probably have to exchange fiat to ETH in a centralised exchange.
If any of those two stop existing your NFTs become worthless, at least when denominated to fiat.
And if you can't convert to fiat or buy real things, it's all imaginary.
I still find it enjoyable to at least try to predict trends. But I agree some things like technical analysis are 100% BS.
for my feed of economy related tidbits try Financial Time Alphaville, it's free if you register:
https://www.ft.com/alphaville
I also listen to Bloomberg Odd Lots podcast - great episodes on nuances of supply chains recently
I work with a company that contributes to some open source but most of the code is closed-source.
I feel that the reason many enterprises pay for the software is that when there's an exotic bug that only happens with LDAP with a certain cypher being used, they know it will get fixed (because it's funded by support/maintenance fees).
While there may be exceptions, I just don't see OSS contributors going out of their way to fix such edge cases.
So perhaps the solution for some open source project issues might be to not-opensource it.
No matter what the science about the microbiology of this, the social science says that people will not comply with this.
There's also the logistics of it. There must be a better way.
This doesn’t solve dependency management?
All it does is it separates your env and you can install what you need there.
But installing with pip is still subject to version incompatibility etc.
What OP is trying to say is that a disproportionate amount of effort is spent on a rather narrow attack vector and it’s still not 100% secure anyway. The people creating these procedures had goals but good UX was not one of them and definitely not the highest priority.
But does Monzo (or any other bank at this point) have a sustainable business model?
Finance is getting commoditised so there’s very little money to be made from saving accounts and Monzo has been loss making since the beginning.
It’s great that they have a slightly more modern software stack but it might not be enough to sustain a bank.
AMP made some technical sense to speed up page load but it’s proprietary nature and the available http3 and quic protocols mean that It’s high time to say goodbye to amp pages.
This. Most cyclist fatalities in London are caused by Heavy Good Vehicles illegally overtaking and then turning and therefore trapping the poor cyclist in the blind spot.
Nothing to do with the wheel hub design or bicycle braking system.
also proper fixie/messenger bikes. I used to use one when commuting in London, due to low price it was relatively unattractive to bike thieves and it was very simple to maintain - no brakes, no gears (you had to skid/backpedal to stop quickly)
It’s worth saying that it’s not to hard to train up to being able to do 100-200km rides with no electronic assist. At such distance, the weight saving is probably outweighing the battery and you can use the space in the frame can be used for luggage such as extra clothing.
At longer distances the ride limiting factor is comfort, not stamina / endurance - here the Ebike adds nothing
Yes, you can write some storage solution or yet another database without knowing ACID terms but you will still end up somewhere in the CAP triangle. Using common terms like these makes it easier to communicate with other engineers and makes it more obvious that a lot of things have already been solved and perhaps there’s a library that you can use.
In the same spirit you should not write your own cryptographic algorithm and for example you could develop an API that is not RESTful but it’s more interoperable when you are using standards and prior knowledge.
I personally would not hire a guy to work databases if he insists on not having to learn about ACID.
„ workers view being forced to be in the office full-time as equivalent to a 5% pay cut”
They clearly cant do the math. Commute alone costs more than 5%
so much this - you can make a service 100% secure - by shutting it down. But if you want to stay online and be secure at the same time, there's always some resource tradeoff between the two