papsosouid

>Systemic sexism is widely documented.

Oh?

>This ranges from pay gaps

Which are a deliberately misleading "problem" feminists like to complain about, but which don't actually exist.

>harsher views on overweight women vs men

Where? You mean personal preferences? Like how short men are viewed harsher than short women? That is not systemic.

>to sexual assault

Where the actual systemic problem is that the government deliberately misrepresents male rape victims by not counting "forced envelopment" as rape?

>Read the next sentence. Male rape is predominantly a the parent isn't saying that male rape victims "don't count".

You didn't make their point any clearer.

>I've had the opposite experience, where when people notice that I'm female, certain companies get excited for the chance to have a "token woman" on their team

My wife noticed that too. She has basically the exact opposite experience as the author. Her name is also gender neutral, but more commonly male. As soon as she added "Ms." she started getting interviews. Comments like "it will be so nice having another woman around here", and "we have too many men in the IT department and 99% of the applicants are just more men" are apparently normal, even from men.

>This is true, but it should be noted that gender discrimination is fundamentally related to patriarchy and misogyny.

Making faith based statements like that and acting as though they are evidence based is not productive. There is no evidence to support feminist mythology surrounding their redefinition of patriarchy.

>In the US lack of "father's rights" is a red herring.

No it is not. A system that was equal would begin with shared custody as the default, and a case would need to be made to remove either parent's custody based on their being unfit. A system where men are required to spend considerable time and money fighting to get less custody than women get by default is not equal. The reason men have high success in getting custody when they pursue it is because they almost exclusively pursue it in cases where there is substantial evidence that the mother is grossly unfit. Have a man talk to a custody lawyer while you listen in. They will universally tell you not to bother pursuing custody unless you have proof the mother is an addict or has allowed another man to assault the children frequently. Using selection bias to dismiss valid concerns makes it appear as though you have a vested interest in maintaining inequality.

>This because the rates of rape for men overwhelmingly come from prisons and being incarcerated.

And those don't count because of what?

That is because official statistics use penetration as the definition of rape. "Forced envelopment" (women raping men) is not counted as rape.

It has nothing to do with being dynamic, it is about names. The article insists that you need to be able to grep for the identifier, but you don't have the identifier. So you have to grep for the function you are in, find all the places it is called from, and then sort through all the functions passed into it as arguments. The function passed in as an argument is often an anonymous function, so it still won't have an identifier anyways. The entire concept is just plain nonsense.

But that's wrong. You don't need anything else, S3 is for serving, and they deliberately added support and documentation for exactly this use case: hosting static websites.

>Who's really clamoring for that?

Me. It is absolutely absurd that I have to carry around a separate phone and camera.

There is an open platform for phones?

>and the people who criticize AWS aren't dumb, either

I didn't say they were. I asked them to provide an alternative rather than pretending a single dedicated server is comparable to AWS.

>Most companies

I don't care what most companies need. I am not trying to argue, I am asking the people insisting that nobody should ever use amazon to provide a reasonable alternative or stop making sweeping generalizations.

>We could easily afford two 32-core database servers within our budget, and their performance translates to a whole bunch of Amazon's fastest instances.

Did you seriously not notice how you aren't addressing anything I said, but just repeating exactly what I pointed out wasn't relevant? I don't need more cores, I need reliable storage. What is my EBS? Until we're big enough to be running our own datacenters, there's not really a reasonable alternative that I can find. I am asking for advice, not "more cores!".

"Work smarter not harder" is a false dichotomy. Someone working hard and smart is going to accomplish more than someone just working smart. And equating "working hard" with "putting in empty meaningless long hours" is ridiculous. Working hard is about effort, not time. As someone who was praised for being smart and developed a habit of putting in very little effort as a result: working hard is great. Work hard. Just don't work hard and stupid.

Nothing you said contradicts the previous poster though. Germans do value hard work. You are inexplicably interpreting "hard work" to mean "long hours". Hard work is working hard, it is entirely orthogonal to how long you spend working.

This is a cool visualization, but the data it is working from is pretty poor. A lot of the "influenced"s and "influenced by"s are pretty sketchy, and some are just plain nonsense. Also categorizing the languages is pretty iffy. I can't imagine any possible definition of "functional programming language" that includes lua, python and ruby, but does not include perl.

So, I have to be cool with having terrible reliability, no durability, no services I rely on (SQS, S3, EBS), increased latency for my users (our userbase is 99% north american), and extended downtimes anytime anything goes wrong with hardware, networking, etc? Maybe there's a reason for the price difference?

Same here. These "amazon is so expensive and so slow" posts show up here constantly, and every time I try to get information on alternatives, and nobody has anything. A single dedicated server running in some warehouse is not a replacement for AWS. I need S3, or I need a bunch of storage devices in multiple datacenters automatically keeping the files I put on them synced. Which hosting provider is doing that again? Where is my EBS with a dedicated server warehouse? I need block device that is durable, and can be quickly and easily detached from one server and attached to another. Even the cheapest redundant iSCSI SAN setup is very expensive.

I am not paying for AWS because I am dumb, I am paying for AWS because they provide services that allow me to outsource the high durability to them. Someone show me an actual alternative please, rather than just repeating "zomghosting.biz gives you a million gigs for $20!!1".

You should definitely assume it is none then and blame sexism for her project being rejected. That makes perfect sense.

You are trolling right? There is no evidence to support the claims made about TDD (that it helps in any way). The claim that it helps has been falsified, by people doing TDD and non-TDD and there being no difference. These things are in no way contradictory, and I am no longer able to suspend disbelief and pretend you are actually trying to make a good-faith attempt at a real conversation here.

>That's equivalent to saying that a scientific claim doesn't have to be falsifiable

No it isn't. Simply stating the opposite of reality doesn't make it so.

>It wasn't proven, because there wasn't enough evidence for a statistically relevant result until March 2013.

That is up to interpretation. Many felt there was enough evidence. This is not a case like that, there is literally no evidence at all for TDD. None. And you are demanding that I prove it doesn't have benefits. Prove programming while wearing pink socks doesn't have benefits.

>I still haven't seen the evidence to support your conclusion.

That is your fault, not mine.

>TDD's claimed benefits are falsifiable

And have been falsified, like in the link I provided you. But TDD salesmen use that falsification as evidence supporting it.

>You originally said, "TDD has no benefits," which is a definitive claim and not supported by evidence

No, you don't have to prove a negative. If it has not been proven, then it does not exist. Until TDD has proven benefits, it is correct to state that it does not have benefits. Just as until unicorns are proven to exist, it is correct to state that unicorns do not exist.

>Because the research I've read doesn't support your conclusion that "TDD has no benefits."

Yes it does, you just want to pretend that proof needs to work in reverse. It doesn't.

>But that shouldn't inform your opinion of TDD (or any other subject), because there are others in the world whose business does require them to be scientifically honest. And they're the ones whose words you should read to form your opinion

My opinion is based on the evidence, that's the point.

Your reply contains nothing of substance, and very little that is even of relevance.

If you've read it, why do I need to re-show it to you? There is no evidence that TDD provides any benefit. There is evidence that testing provides benefits. TDD salesmen offer studies showing the benefits of testing as proof that TDD works: http://haacked.com/archive/2008/01/22/research-supports-the-...

TDD has no benefits, that is why the confusion is such an issue. People keep pretending the benefits of testing are benefits of TDD, when TDD is entirely unnecessary.

Your article confuses the two constantly. You can't use TDD without using unit tests, TDD is a way of using unit tests. You can use unit tests without TDD. Most of what you talked about had nothing to do with TDD and was just about unit tests.

But doesn't mean they have JS developers.

>PHP is easily and inexpensively deployed on commodity hosting.

So is everything else now that dirt cheap VMs are the norm.

>PHP has a large base of existing documentation that can be learned to get up to speed on it.

Much of which is wrong or even dangerous.

>PHP has a large base of existing developers whose knowledge

A large number of developers, but most of them possess a shockingly small amount of knowledge.

>but can someone explain to me why we would want to store functions in a database?

Because that is where they belong. A database is not a storage device, it is a application development environment. Everything about your data should be in your database, including the rules, restrictions, relationships, and ways of manipulating it. In this case, trying to do it in a layer above the database would mean either doing it horribly inefficiently by copying too much data to the app server and then grouping it, or embedding the SQL into your app which means you need to go and find it and copy+paste it when you want to do that manually at any time for testing/debugging/etc. Plus, when you end up with multiple applications using a database, do you really want to be keeping multiple copies of the same code in sync across multiple apps for no reason?

>Having more CPU [cores], RAM, and IO is not going to solve for the need to shard your Redis, which is bound by a single core

But they chose redis in the first place as part of their messy, crummy pile of barely working junkware solution. You wouldn't use redis in the first place if you were building a solution that scales up.

300k reads, which is approaching trivial. You can do that with an array of desktop SSDs. But in reality, it would be almost all in RAM anyways making those reads incredibly cheap.

We're not talking about cars. We're talking about computers. 8TB of RAM is 8TB of RAM, it doesn't get better by spreading it across a thousand servers. 4096 CPU cores are 4096 CPU cores, they don't get better by spreading them across 1000 servers. Those things get worse spreading them across servers, because you massively increase the latency to access them, and for them to access shared data.

The whole point is you can get equal performance from a single server instead of a ton of little ones. The ton of little ones forced them to totally re-architect to work around the massive latency between servers. A single server would have allowed them to stick with a sane architecture, and saved them millions in development time and maintenance nightmares.

No, you buy another 2 servers at the same price, because performance continues to increase incredibly quickly, and what you got $200,000 2 years ago is now half the speed of what $200,000 gets you.

>When they scale horizontally across thousands of commodity machines, then knowledge of their problem domain becomes encoded in the scaling decisions they make and stays internal to the company.

Or to put it another way: "they create a massive maintenance nightmare for themselves like the one described in the article".

>When they scale vertically by buying bigger hardware, then they are trading profits in exchange for having someone else worry about the difficulties of building really big, fast supercomputers.

You are overestimating the cost of high end servers, or underestimating the cost of low end ones. Again, their existing redis cluster is less RAM, CPU power, and IO throughput than a single, relatively cheap server right now.

>Instead of having a proprietary competitive advantage, they are now the commodity application provider

Twitter is a commodity application provider. People don't use twitter because of how twitter made a mess of their back end. People don't care at all about the back end, it doesn't matter at all how they architect things from the users perspective.

>while if their server vendor wants to raise prices, it has them by the balls since the whole business is built on their architecture.

What do you think servers are? They aren't some magical dungeon that traps people who buy them. If oracle wants to fuck you, go talk to IBM. If IBM wants to fuck you, go talk to fujitsu, etc, etc.