xmlblog

This. Maybe there's a market opportunity for people who want to be treated like cattle, but even Spirit couldn't find it.

The comments are pretty convincing evidence that most people see only everyone else's complexity while slowly boiling in their own.

Rent-seeking, anyone?

> "small-ish backoffice systems that never has to be web scale". Doesn't production use of Datomic by Nubank and Netflix (to mention just two examples) belie this assertion?

> If you have 10s or 100s of app servers that has the exact same working set in memory, it's probably not worth it.

The introduction of intelligent application-level partitioning [1] and routing schemes can help one balance cost and performance.

[1] https://blog.datomic.com/2023/04/implicit-partitions.html

Having the working set present on app servers means they don't put load on a precious centralized resource which becomes a bottleneck for reads. The peer model allows app servers to service reads directly, avoiding the cost of contention and an additional network hop, allowing for massive read scale.

Newer releases have improved significantly in this area. It's now possible to understand perf implications with the addition of io-stats[1] and query-stats[2].

[1] https://docs.datomic.com/pro/api/io-stats.html [2] https://docs.datomic.com/pro/api/query-stats.html

Free beer binaries are not mutually exclusive of Enterprise support agreements featuring all those things you mentioned above _for people that need that_.

Netflix, Facebook (Meta), Nubank, and many others.

Attending https://2023.clojure-conj.org/schedule/

A company that wastes its own money and its candidates' time by failing to screen out any of its red flags as soon as they are known is a red flag.

I mean... 1. https://clojure.org/news/news 2. https://ask.clojure.org/ 3. https://groups.google.com/g/clojure 4. http://planet.clojure.in/ 5. https://twitter.com/i/communities/1494013093059432451 ...make it seem as though reports of its death have been greatly exaggerated.

Only teenagers?

> Who is really going to be interested in building on top of tech owned by a (new, unknown, regional) bank?

As opposed to building on top of tech "owned" by a small software consultancy? Perhaps I simply lack imagination, but how is this worse?

Reify Health | Software Engineer in Test | Full-time, 100% Remote | https://www.reifyhealth.com/

At Reify Health, we are building a more creative healthcare system. We envision a world where every potential therapy, if safe and effective, is available to the patients who can benefit. We are well-funded and backed by Tier-1 venture capital firms. Our healthcare system relies on clinical trials to develop new (potentially life-saving) treatments for patients, but clinical trials continue to be slow, unpredictable, and expensive. Reify Health’s products help both the companies driving new clinical trials and the doctors, nurses, and researchers who care for patient participants.

https://jobs.lever.co/reifyhealth/1a973a22-8beb-4237-876f-0f...

No recruiters, please.

s/corrections/connections/

> then I remembered that historically hackers have been phenomenally bad people to give any kind of real power to.

As opposed to the paragons of virtue who wield power now.

Would be nice to find the microbe that converts plastic to plants.

Confirmation of the old Spanish proverb: "es mejor estar solo que mal acompañado." https://www.spanishdict.com/translate/es%20mejor%20estar%20s...

Whether you're affiliated with Gitlab or not, it's kind of shitty to use someone's platform to push a competitor. Nothing in the terms of service forbids it of course and you're absolutely free to do so, but it just feels more ethical and grown up to extoll Gitlab's virtues by using Gitlab to host the content and link to it from HN. Putting it on Github is at least a tacit implication of its superiority along some axis, which—to my eye anyway—undermines your message.

Getting the word out is what the HN post is for. That's orthogonal to where the content is hosted. In addition to the confidence comment, I think it's kind of shitty.

Because artists have been depicting the political system for centuries.

Which is why Cuba, Venezuela, and North Korea are doing so well. I'm astounded people still think the idea of central production control has any juice left in it after such a thorough debunking in the 20th century.

But why are they so UGLY?

Would you want to be legally liable for content someone else may or may not produce when the best of intentions inevitably rub up against real-world time constraints?

Incidentally, the source is here: https://github.com/clojure/clojure/blob/master/src/clj/cloju...

If you have a function that accepts a map of a certain shape and want to write a specification for that map, you should only be specifying the required/optional keys in that spec. You should not be forced to also specify the values for those keys. When you are (as in Schema) then you wind up with redundancies when you have a slightly different map structure that also includes one or more (but not all) of the same keys with the same semantic meaning.

"It may be that this finding and the present research in general has an impact on some conservatives in that they might evaluate statements more critically. We invite individuals to start with the present contribution."

(emphasis mine)

> Isn't intolerance of intolerance an intolerant act in and of itself, though?

You're confusing yourself. Let me use reductio ad absurdum to point out how your logic is self-defeating. Please understand, I'm not ridiculing you, just pointing out the logical fallacy. Try this formulation...

Isn't hating "hate", in itself, hateful? Why, then, it follows that we should love "hate" in order to be loving! Hate people: it's what loving people would do!

There is a moral equivalence here that's wrong. Despising things that are evil isn't in itself evil, merely because you're employing a word or sentiment normally associated with evil. It's the loaded meaning of the words "despise" and "intolerant" that's tripping you up. Try the word "embrace" instead and things become much clearer.

Example: Isn't failing to embrace intolerance intolerant? No, it's the very opposite.

The pro-Empire articles referenced in the piece above require the reader to turn on their irony detectors. First-rate trolling.