It's bad on both sides. As a parent. If your child ends up in a class where other children are abusive there is almost no recourse for changes and you are treated poorly for trying. Ditto if the teacher is abusive, which also happens.
Most of the time the only recourse is to pull them out.
I think what’s clear is that this is an unprecedented type of use. I’m really interested in seeing how the courts rule on this one as it has wide implications for the AI era.
Because this use is unprecedented, as you say, it's clear that the law wasn't written with this use case in mind. The more interesting question in my mind is what we think the new law should be, rather than what the courts happen to make of the existing law. I.e., I think the answer should come from politicians not from judges.
Thanks, that of course makes intuitive sense. I suppose I'm simply noticing (like other people in this thread) that their low beams seem way bright (and that their fog lamps are on), and I never thought it through.
(In any case, a lot of people around me very clearly have their fog lamps on in non-foggy conditions, which I don't understand.)
Home cooking is generally going to be better than particularly fast food because you are not reheating the same oils over and over.
Coconut oil is generally held as better. Cold pressed oils otherwise. Prepare to pay more for them. Be aware that food packaging labels have been known to lie about oil origin. Basically, fewer steps between growing the food and your mouth the better.
Preparing food at home is going to reduce a lot of the processing and reprocessing that happens to commercial packaged foods. I think that's going to be a net win.
Maybe get a feel for exactly how much oil is required and keep it to a minimum.
When I was using pans with a non-sticking coating, I used very little oil.
Now switching to cast-iron or carbon-steel I noticed that the best point to cook the food is to add some oil to the pan, wait for the oil to be heated properly, and only then start adding the food. Of course, I still add very little oil (maybe 1-2 tablespoons) but compared with non-sticking pans it is yet a visible thin film.
I am currently using extra-virgin olive oil but I am not sure it is good. Now I understand that instead of focusing on "extra-virgin" label I should focus on the process used to produce the oil.
On the other hand, sharing here a bit of anxiety I am no sure what to eat:
- On one hand I could try to eat more non-processed, non-cooked food like salads, vegetables ... But the risk there is being contaminated with various pesticides. So I am a bit concerned to switch to a diet mostly based on this as it means to increase a lot the quantity of such food
- On the other hand, cooking using what people consider healthy cookware means (so far for me) using some oil which I now get should be limited
- There is also the idea of red meat being bad, but also fish having mercury or radioactive elements. Probably not all of them but after reading this kind of information, I am a bit more aware of buying fish as I don't know exactly which one can be contaminated and from what area.
- The chickens seem also be not be healthy (don't remember where I read this and I somehow suspect it is false).
So I am really a bit puzzled about what to eat.
I don't think there is an easy answer.
Probably the correct answer is to grow my own food. But that is another style of life.
If you rinse vegetables well most pesticide residue will be removed. Also, some vegetables that are peeled remove that exposure route as well.
There are studies showing some kinds of organic products are worth buying because of the reasons you mention, but others are not.
I think the more you can buy food that you trust the better. This doesn't mean growing your own, it means learning more about where your food is coming from and the chain of producing and selling it. It may mean going to smaller shops, more trips, farmers markets etc. It may just mean reading about brands etc.
I think many people are wrestling with similar questions as you; you're not alone.
Using saturated or monounsaturated fats or oils are your best bets for sauteing. You can also braise things, in some kind of liquid.
Not the use of oil to avoid sticking is the problem, but eating it after that.
Besides choosing a kind of fat that is less sensitive to temperature, as described in another answer, when possible you should try to clean the fried food of the frying oil and to throw away most of the used oil.
App store discoverability is very poor. Web discoverability is much easier to manage. It's something you have more control over and can buy easier through marketing via any channel you want. App store pages just don't convert well.
Jim Keller mentioned this problem in the hardware space. Basically when people breach the interface design and couple things and how that coupling limits your ability to grow the design.
When he helped set the tone for the Zen architecture he took AMDs existing people, set them on a more aggressive path and one of the cardinal tenants was you could not cheat on the interfaces. This is one of the nuggets you can pull from his interviews.
It's possible. It happens. And the end results can be industry changing.
> If done right microservices is a way to transform part of your organization challenge into a technical one, which for many organizations is the right move.
Famous last words, if done right... Or you just multiply your organizational issue with a technical one.
I haven't seen one that has done it well personally. Missing in this is so much of how it might be done right. There are so many dragons. Vendor lock in, logging, debugging, development (can I run the application on my laptop?), versioning. How far will out of the box tooling get me vs what I have to build. Etc etc etc.
When the "new shiny" effect wears off you usually find a turd that smells worse than what came before. Which is why we see this thread ever month or two and will until the tooling catches up and companies stop creating the distributed turds or the method falls out of grace because people finally realize you can scale simple systems pretty far vertically.
> Servers can only get so big. If your monolith needs more resources than a single server can provide, then you can chop it up into microservices
200 threads, 12TB of RAM, with a pipe upwards of 200GB/s. This isn't even as big as you can go, this is a reasonable off the shelf item. If your service doesn't need more than this, maybe don't break it up. :)
I believe that this level of service can no longer accurately be described as "micro".
This cannot be emphasized enough. The top of the line configuration you can get today is a dual EPYC 9654. That nets you 384 logical cores, up to 12 TB of RAM, and enough PCIe lanes to install ~40 NVMe drives, which yields 320 TB of storage if we assume 8 TB per drive. All for a price that is comparable to a FAANG engineer's salary.
And you're missing one little thing - if you get all of your processing on two of those, you save way more than 4 engineers salaries in development/maintenance costs.
Let alone - AWS Lets you get that machine for less than a junior engineer salary ($7.5 per hour, roughly equivalent to $32 of hourly wage = $67k)
How about 2 erlang OTP nodes (homogenous)? I don't have a real world use case of that load but I often imagine I would have 1:2 RAM ratio to be able to vertical scale each time. For example, start with 1TB(A):2TB(B), if that's not enough, scale A to 4TB. When load climbs start to exceeds, scale B to 8TB .. so on alternately.
Helps to have a language that natively uses more CPU cores and/or training for the devs.
Ruby, Python, PHP and Node.js startups have to figure out how to use the cores while C++, Rust, Erlang and Go have no issues running a single process that maxes out all 64 CPU cores.
This is exactly what I do. When it comes to your regular backend business server I write stateful multithreaded monolith in C++ sitting on the same computer as the database hosted on some multicore server with gobbles of RAM (those are cheap now). Performance is insane and is enough to serve any normal business for years or decades to come.
So it does not work for FAANG companies but what do I care. I have the rest of the world to play with ;)
Even for non-FAANG, less-than-a-million-user business applications, there are two problems:
1. Your feature/function scope is not all fully defined at the start and is not static till the end of life. Software has to evolve with business. In this case, it is easier to build a loosely coupled shared nothing architecture that can scale easily than to build a shared-everything-all-in-one-binary monolith architecture.
2. Your customer base isn't one size fits all. You usually different growing businesses that need solution at different scale points but still with very high unit economics. This means you need a incremental scaling solution – this is where old-school big-chassis systems build blade scalable server architectures. But because of custom/proprietary backplane design they become unmanageably complex and buggy.
Instead, if you build an architecture that can scale the number of corporate users by adding cheap $2k pizza box 1u servers as the company grows, that's much more attractive. Also, you can keep your systems design flexible enough to recompile and take advantage of advancements in hardware tech every 18 months – this gives you better operating margins as your own business starts to grow.
>So it does not work for FAANG companies but what do I care. I have the rest of the world to play with ;)
As long as hype chasers in middle management don't get in the way after convincing themselves they too must be like FAANG with a few orders of magnitude less of a consumer base.
the middle management especially half cooked engineers who drank the cool aid and became managers are hard to reason with.
They want to be both the architect and the manager and anything you say would be over ruled and since they are the boss its hard to ignore them.
This service is a monolith because it has 10K code and it needs to be broken up.The product is at MVP and its rock solid on Java Spring and it hardly crashes.
We are never going to lose data based on the design choices we made.
None of that matters.
We need zero down time upgrade, when we had zero customers.
> This will never be as nice to use as a native app, because you cannot replicate all of the small details of how native UI works on each platform.
Not sure how much of that is necessary. I mean, a button doesn't "look native", so what? It's a button.
Apps written to require network requests to resolve a navigation are much worse than JavaScript handling a user event.
> And say you manage to get close to emulating a native app on one platform — when the OS UI updates, you’ll be behind again.
Not really the goal. You have this backwards. Keeping up with OS churn is one of the reasons to use an abstraction like this. It doesn't break your app nearly as much. The browser is a much more stable target than native mobile APIs.
> I get that it’s inconvenient/expensive for you to build three UI layer. But that’s the only way to do this well.
Inconvenient is dramatically understating the case. 3x spend is flat out impossible for many places.
> Not sure how much of that is necessary. I mean, a button doesn't "look native", so what? It's a button.
Is it? Native buttons also come with things like affordances, accessibility, recognizability.
"So what" is what lead Google to spend money on user research involving hundreds of people to figure out that text boxes looking like text boxes is good, actually.
> Is it? Native buttons also come with things like affordances, accessibility, recognizability.
And web views come with things like scaling, accessibility, page/document search. The recognizability and discoverability is up to the designer. Between the two, I miss browser features a lot more than native look and feel.
Then let's not forget the privacy nightmare that mobile apps have been.
I can also often fix poorly built web with some css or other hacks that I cannot do on mobile for poorly built apps. I helped a user do just that the other day, if it had been native he would not have been able to work around the design issue.
The native bias here is crazy. Most users just don't care and can't tell if they are on something that's native vs a web view. What they care about is, does this provide me value? That's real UX. Not blowing out development budgets on duplicating the same features on 3 platforms. You can spend that potential budget on refining and improving the features.
Does it matter sometimes? Yes! The are limits to what you can reasonably do in a web view. But most of the time a web view works fine.
> The native bias here is crazy. Most users just don't care and can't tell if they are on something that's native vs a web view.
They can. You just don't know how to listen. "It's slow to open", "it's janky", "it stutters when it scrolls", "I tap/click and nothing happens" etc.
Does this happen with native apps? You betcha. It is significantly more prevalent with web because web has never been and never will be an app platform. It's core is to display text and images, and it can barely manage that.
I've worked on many mobile products. This has been true of none of them. Please provide some evidence of otherwise?
> Does this happen with native apps? You betcha.
Something I agree with. It is the indian and not the arrow. I've seen native, multiple cross platform apps of different flavors, and web views. All of the major problems were due to institutional shortcomings. If our app is bad, it isn't a tooling problem it's because we fail to execute.
> It is significantly more prevalent with web because web has never been and never will be an app platform.
Ummm... I sell web apps. Many major vendors have products that are, at heart, web apps. Progressive web apps, web apps, electron, phone gap, Cordova, capacitor, etc. I find this observation a demonstration of your ignorance of this market.
> Ummm... I sell web apps. Many major vendors have products that are, at heart, web apps. Progressive web apps, web apps, electron, phone gap, Cordova, capacitor, etc. I find this observation a demonstration of your ignorance of this market.
As a user I've seen and used this crap. My understanding of the market is much better than yours, it seems, because I approach it as a user. And yeah, you definitely don't listen to the users.
I've yet to see a single [1] web app that didn't have the shortcomings I partly listed. I've seen this crap in banking apps, ride sharing apps, hotel apps, calendar apps, travel apps, ride and car sharing apps... The list is endless. Every time there's web, there's deficiencies: long loading times, bad scrolling, elements out of bounds, bad touch and tap targets, abysmal animations, layout shifts, you name it.
[1] This is a slight exaggeration. I vaguely remember a couple when I went "hmmm... it's a webview, but nicely implemented"
> As a user I've seen and used this crap. My understanding of the market is much better than yours, it seems, because I approach it as a user. And yeah, you definitely don't listen to the users.
Declaring that you always know best. When you are asked for evidence your only cited evidence is yourself. That your personal experience is representative of the primary needs of entire markets of users. And that you know better than what transpired between myself and hundreds of users. You seem to be remarkably arrogant.
3x spend may well be impossible for some places—but maybe that means great UI is impossible for them, too. The fact that I can’t afford a Ferrari does not magically make “the best car I can afford” be as good as a Ferrari.
If my customers don't really need a Ferrari, then making them pay for one is expensive. Most cars work just fine for most people.
Software is expensive. People resent high rate subscriptions as it is. Including on here. They resent it a lot more than lack of native toolkit. Ironically, price resistance on mobile is at legendary levels.
But so many can't seem to escape the gravity pull of dev strategies that blow up budgets like multiple code bases, micro service backends, etc etc.
Very very few of my customers actually want a Ferrari with the accompanying price tag. They want stuff that is convenient and works, the car is less important than the destination I can take them to. They don't really care about the last 5% percentile UI flexibility that is a native toolkit.
Most of the time the only recourse is to pull them out.