b4lancesh33t

I don't think that's how it works. A model doesn't become a good model simply because it's hard to or nobody has bothered to make a better one.

This can be stated more generally:

If you didn't explicitly control for it, your results probably only reflect selection bias.

No, I mean that many motorist lives would be saved if they all literally wore helmets. They should be required to. Airbags and roll cages help, but they are (obviously) insufficient on their own to prevent the 20k car deaths every year.

Motorists should probably be required to wear a helmet too, by this standard.

Oh. I thought for some reason that their index included the top 25.

I'm not sure this is such good advice. It means you're guaranteed to miss out on high appreciation of anything but the largest coins. That's all well and good for a less volatile scenario like the stock market where the top20 is pretty well correlated with the top2000. But given the volatility of digital assets, i would worry that this strategy leaves more on the table.

This is a thing others have already done, although I don't have citations to hand.

> Given that stop-the-world pauses are never evenly distributed throughout time

That is not a given. And, even distribution is only part of the equation. If they are sufficiently short, then even being somewhat unevenly distributed should not have much of an impact on latency. For example, if the max length of a pause were 1ms, and 99p latency were 15ms, you'd have to be fairly unlucky to see a 33% increase in latency99 due to GC. That would entail 5 of 25 pauses happening during a 20ms period in a 1s window.

(This idea is not purely hypothetical. For example, Go's GC has very low STW periods.)

> It's pretty much accepted everywhere

Eh. Apparently everyone thinks C is the best language for cryptography and other secure but not particularly perf sensitive code. Go figure. Sometimes the wisdom of the masses is not wisdom. Best not to appeal to it during argumentation.

Overall latency is important. Where it comes from isn't very important. Transferring data a few light-nanos of distance into or out of a colocated Mongo DB instance simply isn't going to move the needle on any important metric. (Disk IO latency might, but that has little to do with the speed of light.)

Most people don't espouse the FSF's definition of evil.

Technically the tithe is to be given to the church. Charity giving is above and beyond that. And you are supposed to tithe out of your gross income -- your "first-fruits." It's an expensive habit! One of the many reasons I'm glad to no longer be religious.

Also I think that the evidence doesn't really support the idea that having too much money is bad for your happiness.

No. There is a holdback set of pages that are never displayed. At least according to the lawsuit.

It's just management, after all.

I don't mean to be too flippant, but isn't this whole article an instance of exactly what the author is complaining about? Let's have good managers rather than bad ones. Good managers trust their reports to tell them the constraints of the work and factor that into the team's strategy. Being conversant in the underlying task helps a lot with that, but there are plenty of managers who come from an engineering background who make the same mistakes the author laments.

One does wonder how much damage this memo does to that case. It will be interesting to see.

Sarcasm often doesn't come across on the internet. Is my surmise that you are joking correct?

I think what's concerning is that advertising that an app is in a sandbox suggests to those out of the know that they can use it safely. They expect that the integrity and privacy of their information will be preserved. That expectation does not exist with ordinary win32 or Linux programs.

Are windows store apps sandboxed? If so, is it trivially easy to do this with those? Or is it just win32?

I'm kinda surprised Netflix weren't already using THP.

Theorems are all well and good, but ultimately the thing that matters is the experience of using the system "IRL" as the kids say. If spanner is up 99.99% of the time, and is consistent at all times, it is probably not going to be the weak link in your software chain.

(Fwiw their slo for multi-regional instances is 99.999%, although I have no idea what their measured performance is against that objective.)

The first slide, which names the presenting company as "[redacted] data broker llc" already had my bullshit alarms firing. Does someone really name their company that? Who would trust such a company?

Does the average f2p shovelware author really have the resources to implement a system like the one contemplated in this presentation? I doubt it.

Microsoft would seem to be one counterexample.

Their medium article explains the reason apple rejected them. They use chromium on their servers to render pages. Apple wants them to use webkit.

Hah. I'm not sure it would matter that much to me if I were the only person who saw the flaws. Comp, work-life balance, interesting problems, and a minimum of local bullshit are what matter to me. My coworkers' attitude toward the company, be it positive or negative, or dysfunctions in another organization ten thousand people away from me, are much less influential on my well-being. That's just my take, obviously everyone else is entitled to their own priorities and I wouldn't look down on anyone for caring about the stance of the company as a whole. It's just not me.

If I thought that every single person who leaves a job leaves because of their manager, I would have said "ten out of ten times" or "always." But what I actually said was "seven out of ten times." :)

Agreed. And seven times out of ten (made up statistic, ymmv) that event is precipitated by one's management chain. Just yesterday someone reposted the article "People don't leave jobs, they leave managers."

Yeah I've been at Google a decade and I strongly don't agree with the notion that it's hyper evangelized as the best place to work. In official communications, yes, but I think most people here are aware of the drawbacks and problems. Maybe even a little too aware. Internal lists are rife with the discussions of even the slightest deviation from perfect execution on the part of management, product teams, the culture, etc. That's not to say there's no one here with rose tinted goggles, but I think most people have their eyes open.

I have a lot of trouble with hot takes like the quoted tweet. It's not funny. It's so dumb. It's pointlessly negative. Sometimes I feel like this kind of midbrow objection is sucking out all the headspace that should be reserved for thoughtful commentary.

It's hard to separate causality here. Maybe they can afford to pay people a lot because they make a lot of money, and maybe they make a lot of money because people like their menus and ingredients.

I don't understand what criticism you're trying to level here. Would you please expand?

TJ's in Manhattan on Friday evening can have a line that wraps all the way around the store, even with forty registers going.