brodouevencode

> The notion of "carrying one's cross" was more about finding virtue in suffering

Different denominations and even different churches within a denomination will have different views on this[1]. That being said it's obvious your opinion is based on that experience but please know that this isn't the only viewpoint.

So much of church is based in communal relationships. In Acts, Paul makes it very clear that members and even church leaders should live "life together". To not may not necessarily be considered sinful, but it certainly leaves a gap in one's soul - Paul saw this early and gave the warning.

> "bearing one's cross"...it attaches the idea that it's your lot in life to suffer these specific things

> if I do something that I later regret deeply, the church says "you fucked up, and now you must feel bad about it"

> A more reasonable mindset is to use the regret as a signal that change is needed.

Again, I think these are distinctions in opinion based on individual denominations and churches. In the SBC it's often taught the way you desire - acknowledge the mistake by admitting it to yourself and God, and fix it. Even mistakes for which there may be no real victim (other than you) - wipe the slate clean and try again (which is the whole point of Baptism).

[1] Christianity is often seen as one thing but few understand the wide range in opinions, doctrine, canonical interpretations that exists. There are churches that openly support gay marriage and even abortion while others consider it a sin, to pick two hot topics. Scoping things just to Christianity should come with the understanding that even that may not be crystal clear, so I do apologize for not being clear earlier.

Looks like DHH is getting his way

I can speak about Christianity, because I'm a Christian.

> they’re offloaded onto some entity who is supposed to carry the load for you

This isn't supposed to happen, and in fact can be considered sinful. Christians are supposed to pick up their cross and carry it.

Faith and religion also work well.

A country rich in natural resources and surrounded by tropical waters full of fish has problems feeding it's people. Blows my mind.

Importing code paths that are never executed in a service is a security risk at best, a development/management nightmare on average, or an application crippling architectural decision at worst, especially when working with large monoliths. That is not a smart trade off - I would not recommend this pattern unless the cost to break off is so exorbitant that this would be your only choice.

Symmetrical warfare is still the preferred method of response. I think this qualifies as such.

you are correct

Is there a large enterprise that exists in 2024 that isn't currently building new software?

> Scaling a monolith is almost always cheaper than migrating to microservices and scaling that.

No - it depends on capacity needs and current architecture.

> When you split it into microservices you are adding a bunch of infrastructure that did not need to exist.

Unless you need to scale in an economical manner.

> Your app performance will likely go way down since things that used to be function calls are now slow network API calls.

Not necessarily. Caching and shared storage are real strategies.

> Add to that container orchestration and all sorts of CNCF-approved things and the whole thing balloons.

k8s is __not__ required for microservice architectures.

> If you deploy this thing in a cloud, just networking costs alone will eat far more than your $20

Again, not necessarily. All major cloud providers have tools to mitigate this.

To clarify: I'm not a microservice fanboy, but so many here like to throw around blanket statements with baked in assumptions that are simply not true. Sometimes monos are the right way to go. Sometimes micros are the right way to go. As always, the real answer is "it depends".

What? You don't think large enterprises also have to make these decisions?

You're basing your entire argument on the org in question being a startup, and missing the rest of the 98% of the market.

To what end? To support that 1:10000 transaction that takes the most time and needs the most scaling? Just burn a wad of $20s, that will be easier.

There's the ideal path, then the actual. Most monoliths, unchecked and with enough age, turn into spaghetti due to turn over, changing priorities, entropy, etc.

This is a gross oversimplification.

This is a good point, and lines up with the real yagni argument.

However, I do not like the readiness that people have with throwing around the yagni argument for things they don't want to support, build, or disagree with, often contorting or oversimplifying it to get their way.

The yagni argument itself is reasonable, but is often misused/abused.

the problem with the yagni argument is is you aint gonna need it until you do

The rhetoric is just as bad on the other side.

There is a chance that 1) he actually believes it and removed it because someone pointed out how bad the optics are for it or 2) it was a joke and was removed for the same reason.

Here's my point: at least with characters like Musk and Trump you know where you stand. Zuck recently only admitted to the shady actions during the last election cycle, Jack was proven to have been shadow-banning when Elon took over.

IMO none of them are exemplars of character and righteousness, one group is just much more covert about it than the other.

Okay so you're measuring success in terms of revenue and revenue only?

Look at the most valuable (in terms of market cap) companies that are publicly traded as of 9/16/2024: 1. Apple 2. Microsoft 3. NVidia 4. Alphabet 5. Amazon. They all fundamentally changed their respective markets (and in some ways each others' markets) in mostly good ways.

If this is not what you're talking about please clarify.

No.

This is a fairly nihilist take. There are plenty of markets where you can deliver goods and services that aren't detrimental to anyone.

one day we'll get smart about this and attach tiny nuclear reactors to data centers.

This reads more like tin foil hat than a joke.

> but "myself a few months from now" too

Yes!

I look at code I wrote last week and wonder what I was thinking.

Over-commenting. Provides very important context to the next person, even to the point of including links to docs/SO answers/Jira cards. Modern IDEs can hide/shorten comments so it's not a UX issue.

Underrated video. Underrated song.

If it becomes a real problem, then people will ask for help.

You'll be able to pull this off in some places. Many places (the sun belt, the rust belt, etc.) it won't happen. Neighbors don't narc on each other there.

Sure, for selling, maybe.

Do you know how much un-permitted construction goes on? More than you probably think. My point is that it's a non-starter: people just aren't going to do it and they'll get away with it unless there's some sort of third party involvement like a sale or maintenance.

Yes, that's how the DD->CW integration works.

Side note: even if you shut down every service in the account, if something outside of AWS is connected to it, like Datadog, you will still incur charges. I'd recommend deleting the account if you can.