zumachase

We don't but it helps with marketing and has synergies with other paid products

Most of the traffic is P2P. We operate a couple of geo distributed relays for NAT'd traffic. But everything is 100% e2e encrypted thanks to webrtc.

It's mostly a tool for us and something that helps sell our other products, but we decided to split it out as a separate app so that it could be used independently. All we collect is a name and email, and even those can be pseudonymous.

For anyone interested in push-to-talk/intercoms we built a free tool at the beginning of quarantine last year called Squawk - https://www.squawk.to

We have a free version called Squawk over at https://www.squawk.to

Wow...an S-1 with positive net income.

Also there's a large selection bias: people using less common or more esoteric/demanding languages tend to be better engineers who have invested the time in learning something off the beaten path. That absolutely does not mean it's the right decision since most employees will statistically be average and you want to have a stack that appeals to a large enough talent pool.

We've played around with that and it's on the roadmap. But it just adds another set of fixtures to herd.

This is what we do but it's too manual for my taste.

We've got a core product running on Django, and one thing the author doesn't mention is testing migrations. The migration system is wonderful, except for the difficulty in testing migrations. There's no sane/official way to do this. And it's such an important thing that I don't get why the Django crew haven't tackled it.

Hi Vlad - your anecdote about ship tracking is interesting (my other startup is an AIS based dry freight trader). You must know the Vortexa guys given your BP background.

How does QuestDB differ from other timeseries/OLAP offerings? I'm not entirely clear.

The prompt contained a few react examples with annotated English descriptions that were similar enough. You’re not seeing the entire prompt and as impressive as this is, it’s likely that you’d end up writing more code trying to get it to do what you want than if you just wrote it yourself. Future GPTs may of course be better, but there’s a bit of “magic” to these demos that the author isn’t super upfront about.

We're incredibly excited about GPT-3. I think there is a fair bit hype exhaustion, especially from the likes of OpenAI ("our AI is too dangerous to release"). So this is completely understandable.

However I think what's missing here is our benchmarks (a la Turing test) are about negation as opposed to affirmation. We tend to evaluate AI on whether or not we can discern the fact that it's AI. We seek to negate it as human, as opposed to affirming it as human (or close to). And this is not the right mindset when it comes to AGI because the gap between "obviously not human" and "human-like" is enormous. These are all definitely steps in the right direction, and the applications for even robotic process automation will be huge. But we're not even close to having nets that can reason about even the most basic things.

I’m not really sure what containers/k8s has to do with JVM? Containers are just name spacing, not virtualization. If you’re running in the cloud, either way you slice it you’ll have two virtual machines: hypervisor and JVM.

I’d argue that being able to herd your JVM procs like cattle makes them good candidates for k8s because you can always just set resource limits so they get purged when the heap becomes too large.

I think this is pretty myopic. As someone who straddles both sides of this, the world is not that simple.

If the "business side" as you say isn't viable, then nothing matters. This has nothing to do with late stage capitalism...this is capitalism 101. If you're not hitting critical mass, you're dead.

This take also continuously misses that most people, and thus must customers, are willing to trade privacy/performance for convenience. If that's not your cuppa, then hopefully there's an alternative.

> Why would any company include this SDK > Is implementing a user authentication system really so complicated

"Login with Facebook" isn't popular because it saves developer time. It's popular because it massively reduces signup friction which results in higher conversion rates. These things are super important. We offer Google login with our only consumer facing app[1] and we see a solid 40% of accounts use that method vs. email. I would venture a guess that a sizable minority, bordering on majority, of those accounts would simply never sign up in the first place without some sort of SSO.

I agree with your sentiments and frustrations, but whenever something seems to be too ridiculous to be true (as this might seem to some devs) there's often something else at play.

[1] Squawk - Walkie Talkie for Teams https://www.squawk.to

Surprised databases haven’t been mentioned. Anything stateful is still far easier to scale vertically. Otherwise you have to go multi master and start sharding across smaller instances. A massive chip like this can let you keep a pretty simple master/follower architecture for HA without having to share.

I wish Redis would focus a bit more on the standard clustering options. Cluster has some real drawbacks and Sentinel is about the most brittle service I’ve seen. We run all of our peer discovery for Squawk[1] on Redis but recently made the switch to KeyDB and have been thrilled with the resiliency. We’re definitely not Redis experts so I’m sure we’re doing some things wrong, but for anyone else looking for a rock solid HA solution, I highly recommend it.

[1] Squawk - Walkie Talkie for Teams https://www.squawk.to

Again, this is not what I said. Inflationary policy in a deflationary market is still inflationary.

I think this thread is full of people confusing absolute inflation with relative inflation (“inflationary”). A policy resulting in zero absolute inflation can be inflationary provided that absent such policy, deflation would have occurred.

I took this with OP stating (incorrectly imho) that a certain policy was not inflationary. I am not advocating that all inflation is bad.

Another commenter rightly noted that inflation is only partially driven by supply of money. The other factor is velocity of money, which is how quickly money is “recycled” within the economy. If that 40k is now going to investors who have a much lower propensity to spend it (likely) then velocity drops and so does inflation.

> It seems to me that others in the thread are describing a scenario where product is discarded because the price has already fallen so far that it is no longer profitable after accounting for various processing costs (ie things such as packaging and transportation).

I understand what people are saying. Unfortunately this just isn’t how things work. If there were a way for this to occur, prices would respond. Ultimately markets aggregate information and package it up in a single metric we call price. If all of a sudden there was a new future demand for some good, no matter how you frame it, prices will respond.

What? Nothing I said has anything to do with the demand curve. This is all supply side. We hold the demand curve constant for any such analysis.

But it’s irrelevant anyway: a basic tenet of economics is that people are, in aggregate, utility maximizers. So yes, we do have an idea of some fundamental properties of the demand curve and it cannot simply be any polynomial.

Yes, it would absolutely. Purchasing power is (roughly) the ratio of production divided by the money supply. If supply of money goes down, purchasing power goes up and vice versa.

In your example, these truckers have stopped producing goods (services in this case). That means that production has gone down. If the supply of money remains fixed, there is more money chasing fewer goods and services. This drives prices up.

Said another way: if those truckers had less money (or no money) then they wouldn’t be competing with other buyers for goods, and prices would fall (purchasing power increases).

This is an extremely simplistic analogy and ignores other forces such as velocity and trade balances, but illustrates the point.

We’re not talking about the Treasury. We’re talking about Central Banks who lack the power to tax (directly at least).

> People seem to prefer inflation to taxation.

That’s because they’re not the same thing, not at all.

You’re putting the cart before the horse: price came first, then the product was discarded.

The risk that these potatoes might be dumped into the market pushed prices down. If you magically take this risk away, it doesn’t matter by which mechanism, that threat goes away and price responds.

If I’m another potato farmer and all of a sudden all those extra potatoes are teleported somewhere else, I will in all likelihood raise my prices.

Even the most progressive theorists would not debate this. It’s basic aggregate supply and demand.

You’ve moved the goalposts. OP claims that it’s not inflationary. You’re claiming it’s inflationary but that it’s beneficial. I’m only taking issue with the former.

Yes the control plane is only in one of the data centers. The other only runs admin services like offsite backups, our development infra (gitlab, etc) and CI/CD.

We could definitely do two clusters and probably should, but the secondary data center has few services that it wasn’t really worth the extra work.

Yes this is all very true, but he makes the case explicitly for money velocity to increase. He’s not suggested printing money for savers or rent seekers, he’s suggested printing money for the express purpose of consumption: I have been automated and thus can not afford basic staples without basic income. This is inflationary not matter how you slice it.

I’m sorry, that’s just not how economics works. A market with excess supply necessarily has lower prices than one that is balanced, ceteris paribus.

Idaho potatoes were mentioned above. They are only being thrown away because the market does not want them. The mechanism by which this happens is price: prices drop low enough that it’s cheaper to throw away (we saw negative oil prices recently). One explanation is that other farmers saw this supply glut and raced to slash their prices. If we took all those excess potatoes and gave them away, then absent this excess supply, those other farmers would not have done this and prices would have remained steady or not gone down as much. Thus the artificial increase in quantity demanded is necessarily inflationary.

No, I’m not. You’re making a very simple argument of an extremely complex issue. That only holds up in a world of unlimited resource. As long as energy and raw materials are finite, the above does not hold.

More importantly, you’re conflating two things: we needn’t necessarily print money. Let’s presume your comment were correct. Nonetheless, in the absence of such monetary policy, consumption would plummet and deflation would reign. Thus, it is still inflationary.

These goods are scarce in the economic sense, even if you think they are “cheap”. They are not free to produce.

We do have enough food to feed the world, but that would mean your food gets more expensive as other people consume what would otherwise contribute to downward supply pressure.