marcinzm

As I see it, it is an option but there is a cost. You're making an absolute statement when it seems like it's that you view the practical cost of choosing the option as too high. Which is fair but you're refusing to explain the costs. Is it physical harm? Is it emotional harm? Is it future inconvenience? Is it fear of future physical harm? Etc. Etc.

>It's really astounding incompetence/dysfunction.

The word is probably "corruption."

This feels like a Helm replacement and not a Terraform replacement in any real way. Which is fine but confusing when the post begins with Terraform.

Terraform can create an K8S cluster. This requires an K8S cluster to work. Etc.

It's called the legal system. It's there to resolve these issues and it did.

edit: As for the rest of your question. You're perfectly "free" to commit fraud or any other crime but, again, we have a legal system that would jail or fine you for that if caught.

> 1) I have little time for internet drama

Yet create an account and join in you did.

> A government declaring a curfew (for any reason) is a bad thing, IMO,

As I see it, in a well running society there is enough trust to give everyone flexibility in the short term. If everyone assumes worst intentions and outcomes then your society is effectively no longer functioning. At which point a curfew is the least of your worries.

Sure but I was responding to the point that a diary can't be searched. It can be. The key difference is that doing this for analog conversations was expensive for the police as it required them to devote finite human time. Digital is not the case.

Comparing to analog is I think flawed because even if it mapped 1-to-1 it does allow for a level of search that is problematic given the low cost of digital surveillance.

> Invading the privacy of one's digital space is a violation that goes as deep as reading someone's diary when we look back and the time when life was more analog.

Which police with a warrant can very much do.

> You're taking a specific example and trying to make a general rule out of it.

I used a specific example to disprove a straw men about the impact of tech choices on latency. Then I brought up a second personal example (e-commerce sites) and data from a large e-commerce site (impact of latency) to illustrate that latency could drive a direct business loss (and be very hard to measure).

> I recall an internal project where a team discussed switching a Python service with Go.

Picking an initial choice and switching a choice are very different problems. The latter has an inherent large cost.

Amazon nowadays has a near monopoly powered by ad money due to the low margin on selling products versus ad spend. So unless you happen to be in the same position using them nowadays as an example isn't going to be very helpful. If they increased sales 20% at the cost of 1% less ad spend then they'd probably be at a net loss as a result.

In my experience, the people who make these arguments often don't even know their own tech stack of choice well enough to make it work halfway efficiently. They say 10ms but that assumes someone who knows the tech stack, the tradeoffs and can optimize it. In their hands its going to be 1+ seconds and becomes such a tangled mess it can't be optimized down the line.

> extra 10 milliseconds you saved

Strawmen arguments are no fun so let's look at an actual example:

https://www.rippling.com/blog/the-garbage-collector-fights-b...

P99 of 3 SECONDS. App stalls for 2-4 SECONDS. All due to Python.

Their improved p99 is 1.5 seconds. Tons of effort and still could only get 1.5 seconds.

https://www.gigaspaces.com/blog/amazon-found-every-100ms-of-...

> Amazon Found Every 100ms of Latency Cost them 1% in Sales

I've seen e-commerce companies with 1 second p50 latencies due to language choices. Not good for sales.

It's not hatred. It's self-interest. The very heart of capitalism. A rational response to incentive structures.

You're the one sacrificing your own self-interest for pride and are upset that others refuse to do so.

edit: And I get it, I don't optimize my own career like this, focusing more on what I enjoy to work on at the moment. But I don't begrudge people who do optimize nor do I claim to be better than them. If anything they are acting in a much more rational and organized way to their goals than I am.

The co-workers that matter the most for networking are the ones playing the same game. They will move to new companies more quickly and try to rise up the ranks more quickly. They will know how to write a good referral because they want to maximize their chances of referral bonuses. They will have the ear of the EMs and Directors because they know that maximizes their own career options.

> A lot of younger developers like to come into a new project and slap on the latest frameworks or coding practices that they've picked up recently, without acknowledging that breaking the standards of the project lead to higher mental load to maintain that code over the long term.

Using the latest framework improves their future job prospects. Whatever company they work for will lay them off in a split second and won't provide anywhere near the comp increases that a new job would. So why should they care about the long term of a project?

Companies have no loyalty to employees which means employees have no loyalty to companies.

The topic is if the federal government is ignoring free speech laws in this specific instance. I'm arguing it's not.

As for public good, you'd probably find it depressing what the majority of Americans view as good.

And employees signed contracts which allow the government to tell them how to do their jobs or fire them. Just like any other employer. Harvard did not.

That's an employer telling employees what to do? Google can tell the same thing to it's employees and does. I don't see the relevance to the government telling other entities what to do.

Advances that don't get wide adoption may as well not exist. Except for a few privileged people. Capitalism has been shown to drive wider adoption of advances more so than a lack of capitalism.

Until your datacenter and the one next to it and all your backups literally burn down. Don't make life decisions on edge cases. One way or the other.

Sure. My point is that cannot magically assume all of that will go away in the future when making forecasts on the impact of changes.

I wonder if the real limit is tunnels. Connectivity doesn't fix the issue of physical limits on tunnel capacity and the massive cost of new tunnels.

That's a separate issue versus trains going to/from NYC. They do.

You do realize that Manhattan is only 14 miles long? With a stop every 3 miles even a Shinkansen wouldn't reach 100mph before it had to start slowing down again.

The PATH train does exactly that.

Trains do go into New Jersey from NYC. Just not MTA trains.

I'm not convinced it'd pay for itself since maintenance still needs to be done so it's not really 6 minutes 24/7. The 7 train in theory runs on weekends and in theory runs fairly often. In practice it's down every other weekend for I think 5+ years now. The MTA does not have a good track record of timely maintenance and also seems to not care much about long term downtime (ie: like their original proposal for a 15 month closure of the L line).

Even if it was covered it will definitely fly under the radar for the next four years at least.

I never said people were better off in one or the other nor is this a discussion about that. This is a discussion of the societal differences driving startups and risky investments.

From what I can tell the millionaire discrepancy existed in 2010 as well when the per capita GDPs between Germany/France/UK and the US were fairly close. The gini index for the US is much higher so it's not surprising that there's more millionaires per capita. And a lot more poor people per capita as well (once you account for the US's weaker standard for what constitutes poverty).