The savings can be a lot more than 20% - last month I had a roundtrip ticket of $2000 brought down to $1300 (and got there faster!) via the switching airlines approach. It did come with some additional stress - needed additional visas and was worried about missing flights.
If things go wrong with Kiwi, they're likely to go very wrong, yes...but on the other hand, if I can keep saving $700 per trip, I can afford for them to go very wrong sometimes and still come out ahead.
Used to do this job once upon a time - can't overstate the importance of just being knee-deep in the data all day long.
If you outsource that to somebody else, you'll miss out on all the pattern-matching eureka moments, and will never know the answers to questions you never think to ask.
The controversy around this one was always wild to me.
Mods editing comments was the most standard behavior on every phpbb/vb board I grew up on.
His edits were clearly edited, clearly jokes, and TBH I found them pretty funny. And people were *outraged* that he had the capacity and the temerity to edit their sacrosanct posts...
It’s an abuse of power, that’s why. It doesn’t matter if it is or isn’t funny or if anybody was harmed, the act itself was improper for any engineer dealing with other peoples data and egregious lack of judgement by a CEO.
The thing is, when the mods would troll the hell out of users on the old BB's, they were doing it all the time, it was part of the culture. It happening on reddit, where a user's posts were thought to be immutable caused very understandable outrage.
Yes, exactly. With a margin of <0, either someone is working for free or the company is running off of some kind of VC/angel investment, neither of which is sustainable.
You're working under an inaccurate mental model of the web...or at least how the web used to be.
The OG model here is one of decentralization. In this model, the registrar (Google) isn't the owner of the domain. They're just a business that deals with the annoying details around registering a domain on your behalf, and you pay them a small fee to do so. Once again, the registrar can't sell or rent you anything, because they don't own anything to sell you. The registrar only sells the service of acting on your behalf.
Premium domains were originally seen as a shitty thing to do, because it put the domain registrars in the business of acting against their customers. Instead of registering a domain on behalf of their customers, they instead would buy the domains for themself, so they could then sell them at huge markup to their customers. Some registrars then took things further and pre-register domains their customers searched for, even if they never had any interest in buying the domain originally. Extra shitty.
The current .dev (or similar) situation once again feels really dirty to people thinking of the web under this traditional mental model. Domains aren't supposed to be just GIVEN to a single company to then charge whatever price they want. The web is supposed to be decentralized, and instead...we're here.
> They're just a business that deals with the annoying details around registering a domain on your behalf, and you pay them a small fee to do so.
I mean, yes, sure. That's technically how it works, but in practice I'm not sure that really matter. What happens to your domain if your Google account gets banned? Does your domain disappear? Does Google let you transfer it out?
That's the point. In a distributed world, the domain registrar doesn't get to determine who gets a domain and who doesn't. If one registrar doesn't want to work with you, you can work with another.
This isn't some hypothetical, unrealistic utopia - this is *how the web worked*. We gave that away by giving registrars sole control over tlds.
It's easy to say 'well nobody really cares about .dev domains anyway' - but why will it just be .dev moving forward? Is it so hard to imagine a world where .com is no longer the default, and companies/individuals have to pay exorbitant monopoly prices to some gatekeeper?
I've never been an activist in this regard. It just feels really shitty to see something that used to belong to us all, everyone, equally, get divvied up and sold off.
> Is it so hard to imagine a world where .com is no longer the default, and companies/individuals have to pay exorbitant monopoly prices to some gatekeeper?
.com is not a requirement. Companies use non-standard TLDs everywhere. .com is still the default, but you would do just fine with other TLDs, and if some gatekeeper arrived this would only strengthen the argument as businesses would flock to lesser known TLDs.
Of all of the things I worry about regarding computing, the internet, etc., domains does not make the list.
Imagine your whole company losing your domain because one of your employees offended Google ML model at some point and the AI bot declared you guilty by association.
ICANN decides how the internet addresses and TLDs work at a base level. As far as I understand, TLDs have always been a monopoly for their owning registry. Verisign, the various country codes by their country's governments (or whoever they delegate to), PIR, and many many others.
That's why it was such a big deal when .net and .org were looking to change hands.
The WebSub spec recommends this approach, and I've implemented it, and I really would recommend against doing this.
It adds a tremendous amount of complexity to all of your services, where now all of your services will need to maintain the ability to answer the question 'what was your state at this point in time.'
It makes it extremely difficult to support new webhooks, and honestly in my experience nobody actually ever queries for the historical data anyway. My opinion is that webhooks just aren't the correct approach to take for anything absolutely critical. They're a great addition for stuff outside the critical path where delivery is not essential, and as long as you stick to that paradigm you can dodge these issues entirely.
Re 'thin webhooks' which require hydration:
- subject to either complexity to support historical state (e.g. what was the state at the point in time when the webhook was issued) or race conditions (two things happened, but your API only gets current state)
- honestly none of your consumers want this - they're gonna be like 'why do i have to also query an API why can't you just hydrate the payload in the webhook body'. Guaranteed.
- still probably the correct solution if the data is super private and you want to be extremely cautious about issuing webhooks for it
source: worked exclusively on webhooks and similar eventing stuffs at place you've heard of for a few years
> It adds a tremendous amount of complexity to all of your services
But it makes my life so much easier as a user of your service. I admit that it's not worth it for every type of service, but for financial ones it's 100% worth it. I'm trying to keep my ledger balances in sync with yours. I hate having to make a manual adjustment because something got missed.
Having my system heal itself even in the case when we really fucked up, pushed that bad update where we crashed and didn't persist what you said, or cloudflare fucked us and blocked you, or something... there's always something... I really really appreciate that.
I mean, if you don't because it's too complex for you.. okay, I'll have have to add the complexity on my side to compensate. I'm really thankful when I don't have to, and when I'm the event/truth source for others I try my best to do that courtesy for the event consumers.
> My opinion is that webhooks just aren't the correct approach to take for anything absolutely critical.
What is your recommendation for situations that are absolutely critical? Is the recommendation to just have an /events endpoint?
I'm honestly curious because I have also implemented several wehbook-based systems over the past few years, and definitely seen the downsides, and so I'm trying to figure out the best way to manage asynchronous processing in distributed systems.
IMO webhooks are best used when your SLA for delivery is "best effort." Anytime you need to guarantee delivery (including guaranteeing the delivered data was correctly processed by the receiver), or guarantee anything about ordering or replayability, they just aren't that great.
The policy may make Twitch look stupid, but it's for a pretty good reason - people would get banned, and then just play multiplayer (with voice or even video chat) with their friends who were also streaming. This effectively allowed them to continue to stream and interact with their audience despite their 'ban.'
Agreed that people often get banned on purpose as a way of keeping their name in the news.
Wouldn't they not get paid still though? Or does the friend just send all donations their way? I can't imagine subbing to someone because they have a person in the lobby who I liked
Oversimplifying, but an unsubscribe link is a legal requirement under many different laws (CAN-SPAM, GDPR, CASL) for this sort of email. It's 2022, unsubscribe links are a solved problem, I'm not going to assume good intentions for somebody who is purposefully breaking the law in order to spam me.
If things go wrong with Kiwi, they're likely to go very wrong, yes...but on the other hand, if I can keep saving $700 per trip, I can afford for them to go very wrong sometimes and still come out ahead.