Uncle Steve is the same number of hours ahead that he has always been, and that's a thing that could be looked up just as easily as finding his time zone. I think the author is greatly exaggerating the degree to which time zones solve any of the problems mentioned. Uncle Steve might be on a different sleep schedule from me, regardless of whether or not he's in a different time zone.
Days of the week definitely become interesting in a global UTC system, but noon used to literally mean "the sun is at it's highest point". I suspect that people would grumble for a year or two and then forget that another system ever existed.
There's certainly a bit of dramatization/exaggeration here, but the main point is that it doesn't really fix the stated problem while also being a huge change for everyone to adapt to.
I feel like days are a non-issue; they would just start at different times (UTC) in different territories. This wouldn't make things any more complicated than they already are (currently, if I want to talk to someone in Australia, I have to look up what time it is in Australia and infer the day of the week from that, if necessary. If everything is under UTC, I know what "time" it is, but I still have to look up what day it is).
Most of the issues time zones cause are not "day of the week" related anyways (at least in my experience), so I think having to figure out what day of the week it is somewhere else wouldn't be a common problem anyways.
If everywhere runs on UTC, they will still have different times when people are working/not working/sleeping so you still have to look something up and figure it out.
With time zones, you look up "What time is it?", realize it's 4:30AM and since most people around the world follow similar schedule, you quickly realize he's fast asleep.
Well, I'm not one of those people. I like waking up with the sun and driving to work in the daylight. The idea that DST solves anything absolutely blows my mind. If you want the ability to start your work day earlier and end it earlier, that seems like a worker protection bill that needs to be passed. DST is the kludgiest kludge that ever kludged.
Where I live June sunrise (with DST) is 5:11am and sunset is 8:21pm (a city on the American east coast). I just can’t imagine a majority of people would want 4:11 rising and 7:21 setting.
In June, they wouldn't. That's why we currently change the clocks. But changing the clocks sucks, so you have to optimize for either the winter or the summer.
In the summer, we already have lots of sunlight regardless, so it doesn't make sense to optimize for that.
Winter sucks anyways when you live in the north. I grew up at 56 degrees north and you are cooked no matter what is done. Better to optimize April-October.
There's a noticeable increase in sleep disorders and related conditions in the far west of the single time zone [0]. I think when it's on the order of a single hour's shift for daylight savings the effects are pretty negligible but they are measurable.
The thing about DST is it makes every scheduled event move, all at the same time.
It shifts my contracted start time at work, my first meeting, when places start serving lunch, when my kid needs to get to ballet class, when my sportsball club meets, and when the supermarket closes. All at once.
Lawmakers changing the time shown on clocks is, I think, a lot easier than society changing the social contract.
Not sure how well that works in China, but I like that when I travel I can have a similar schedule compared to home.
I wouldn't want to have to learn a different schedule such as getting up at midnight, having lunch at 04:00 then going to bed at 15:00. That would also make jet lag much worse because you wouldn't be able to rely on your watch to know what activity you're supposed to be doing at the time.
It's always annoyed me a bit how everyone talks about sunrise in winter and sunset year round, but sunrise in summer is almost never mentioned. This is the sole reason if we settle on one or the other I want sunrise later.
> If you want the ability to start your work day earlier and end it earlier, that seems like a worker protection bill that needs to be passed.
I don't think that's very realistic though is it? School times are fixed and that anchors a lot of families to those specific times, and businesses tend to have set hours.
Changing the time to give people more light in the evening frees up a bunch of people to enjoy some sunlight without making it a whole fight to have different hours at work.
School and the workday already awkwardly don't work together. Schools often end an hour or two after the traditional work day. It wouldn't be crazy to have an effective 'DST' via just adjusting the school start/end times -- start at 10am for part of the year dammit.
It's the obvious real solution that sidesteps all the personal-preference-driven claims on what option is "objectively" better/healthier/whatever, but corporate society isn't ready for it I guess
I'm proposing that DST is an awkward solution to the problem. You're suggesting that we should use the awkward solution and then also stack another solution on top. Why not cut out the extra step?
I'm not building a queue, but a lot of things on s3 end up being queue-shaped (more like 'log shaped') because it's very easy to compose many powerful systems out of CAS + "buffer, then push". Basically, you start with "build an immutable log" with those operations and the rest of your system becomes a matter of what you do with that log. A queue needs to support a "pop", but I am supporting other operations. Still, the architecture overlap all begins with CAS + buffer.
That said, I suspect that you can probably beat SQS for a number of use cases, and definitely if you want to hold onto the data long term or search over it then S3 has huge options there.
Performance will be extremely solid unless you need your worst case latency for "push -> pop" to be very tight in your p90.
This is fascinating. It sounds like you're building "cloud datastructures" based on S3+CAS. What are the benefits, in your view, of doing using S3 instead of, say, dynamo or postgres? Or reaching for NATS/rabbitmq/sqs/kafka. I'd love to hear a bit more about what you're building.
It's just trade-offs. If you have a lot of data, s3 is just the only option for storing it. You don't want to pay for petabytes of storage in Dynamo or Postgres. I also don't want to manage postgres, even RDS - dealing with write loads that S3 handles easily is very annoying, dealing with availability, etc, all is painful. S3 "just works" but you need to build some of the protocol yourself.
If you want consistently really low latency/ can't tolerate a 50ms spike, don't retain tons of data, have <10K/s writes, and need complex indexing that might change over time, Postgres is probably what you want (or some other thing). If you know how your data should be indexed ahead of time, you need to store a massive amount, you care more about throughput than a latency spike here or there, or really a bunch of other use cases probably, S3 is just an insanely powerful primitive.
Insane storage also unlocks new capabilities. Immutable logs unlock "time travel" where you can ask questions like "what did the system look like at this point?" since no information is lost (unless you want to lose it, up to you).
Everything about a system like this comes down to reducing the cost of a GET. Bloom filters are your best friend, metadata is your best friend, prefetching is a reluctant friend, etc.
I'm not sure what I'm building. I had this idea years ago before S3 CAS was a thing and I was building a graph database on S3 with the fundamental primitive being an immutable event log (at the time using CRDTs for merge semantics, but I've abandoned that for now) and then maintaining an external index in Scylla with S3 Select for projections. Years later, I have fun poking at it sometimes and redesigning it. S3 CAS unlocked a lot of ways to completely move the system to S3.
Everyone acts like the electoral college was a blunder. The founding fathers studied the democracies of ancient Greece, and they made a very intentional choice to guard against unfettered democracy. You were supposed to be involved in local politics, where you could actually know and evaluate your representatives. Those representatives were supposed to make national decisions on your behalf, including choosing the president.
I'm not qualified to know who will make a good president. You probably aren't either. Pushing the process further into American Idol territory would make it worse, not better.
> Those representatives were supposed to make national decisions on your behalf, including choosing the president.
This is, incidentally, how we massively screwed up the federal government. In the original design US Senators were elected by the state legislatures, the premise being that they would prevent federal overreach into the regulatory domain of the states because they would be directly accountable to the state governments.
Then populists who wanted to do everything at the federal level pushed for the 17th Amendment which eliminated the state governments' representation in the federal government and people stopped caring about local politics because it started feeling like an exercise in futility when federal law could preempt anything you wanted to do and the thing meant to keep that in check was deleted.
And the federal government was supposed to have enumerated (i.e. narrow, limited) powers. It doesn't have the scaffolding for people to hold it accountable. You can elect the local dogcatcher but the only elected office in the entire federal executive branch is the President of the United States. Which is fine when the main thing they're doing is negotiating treaties and running the Post Office but not fine if you're trying to do thousands of pages of federal regulations on everything from healthcare to banking to labor to energy.
That's somewhat ahistorical, the 17th amendment happened because state legislatures were frequently deadlocked and could not appoint senators, meaning states went without senate representation entirely.
In a fifteen year period 46 senate elections were deadlocked in 20 states, at one point Delaware had an open senate seat for four years due to this.
That said the proper reform to this would've been the abolition of the senate, as it has always been and will always be an anti-democratic force, not moving for senators to be elected by the people.
> That's somewhat ahistorical, the 17th amendment happened because state legislatures were frequently deadlocked and could not appoint senators, meaning states went without senate representation entirely.
That seems more like an excuse than a legitimate reason. If that was actually the problem you could solve it by adopting a mechanism to break ties, putting the vote to the public only in the event of a tie, having the state legislatures use score voting which makes two candidates getting exactly the same score far less likely, etc.
But if they want to do a power grab then they get further by saying "we have to do something about these deadlocks" than by saying "we want to do a power grab".
> That said the proper reform to this would've been the abolition of the senate, as it has always been and will always be an anti-democratic force
It's supposed to be an anti-democratic force, like the Supreme Court, the existence of Constitutional rights and the entire concept of even having a federal government instead of allowing local voters to have full plenary power over local laws. Unconstrained direct democracy is a populist whirlwind of impulsive reactionary forces.
> Unconstrained direct democracy is a populist whirlwind of impulsive reactionary forces.
This is a great point as is the point that the existence of a federal government itself is anti-democratic.
The Senate was initially created as a body that was incentivized to promote federalism itself (especially through their power to approve federal judges) & a federalist republic seems to be the most democratic system because it incentivizes a balance between individual liberty & the ability to restrict someone else's liberty through law.
Right now, the balance of power is too centralized which makes for radical changes every time a different political party takes control of government.
> I'm not qualified to know who will make a good president. You probably aren't either. Pushing the process further into American Idol territory would make it worse, not better.
Randomly-selected citizens would have outperformed what we’ve gotten in the last few elections at minimum.
>I'm not qualified to know who will make a good president. You probably aren't either. Pushing the process further into American Idol territory would make it worse, not better.
I reject this premise. I'm not omniscient but I have a pretty good idea.
That doesn't really fit the math. At the time of the founding the largest colony was Virginia and of the original 13 colonies, 9 were in the North and only 4 were states that ended up in the Confederacy, i.e. it was the slave states that were underrepresented in the electoral college and the Senate.
That's independent of the EC. They could have given the slave owners 3/5ths of a vote for each slave without the EC. And obviously that part of the system is no longer in operation, whereas the part Democrats complain about is that each state gets +2 electoral votes regardless of its population.
Which nominally gives slightly more weight to the lower population rural states, but that isn't even the primary consequence of the EC. The primary consequence is that it gives significantly more weight to swing states, which by definition don't favor any given party.
> They could have given the slave owners 3/5ths of a vote for each slave without the EC
Yes, I suppose if you could accept the idea of a ludicrous hypothetical alternative that would have zero chance in reality of being implemented you can contort yourself enough to ignore that the EC is part of the compromise on slavery that forms the Constitution.
It's ludicrous by modern standards because the premise of owning other people is ludicrous by modern standards. Giving states more votes based on them having people there who can't actually vote is exactly the same amount of ludicrous, but that's also the part that isn't there anymore.
The primary thing the electoral college does in modern day is allow -- not even require -- states to allocate all of their state's voting power to the candidate that wins the majority of the state. With the result that they mostly do that and then states like New York and Texas get ignored in Presidential elections because nobody expects them to flip and getting 10% more of the vote is worthless when it doesn't flip the state.
Ironically it's the partisans who are effectively disenfranchising the people in their own state. If the states that go disproportionately for one party didn't want to be ignored then all they'd have to do is allocate their electoral votes proportionally according to what percent of the vote the candidate got in that state. Then getting 10% more of the vote in a big state would be as many electoral votes as some entire states. But the non-swing states are by definition controlled by one party and then they're willing to screw over their own population to prevent the other party from getting any of that state's electoral votes.
Virginia was a slave state at that time (I think it was 8 slave states to 5 non). The states that eventually joined the confederacy are different from those that had legalized slavery when the Constitution was signed.
Indeed Virginia was a slave state at the time, and was later part of the Confederacy, and it was the most underrepresented state in the Senate and electoral college at the founding, since those bodies cause higher population states to be underrepresented relative to their population.
> The states that eventually joined the confederacy are different from those that had legalized slavery when the Constitution was signed.
All of the states had legalized slavery when the Constitution was signed. But it was already gathering detractors even then. The states that wanted to keep it the most were the ones that ended up in the Confederacy and they were both a minority of the original colonies and a minority of the states at the time of the civil war.
> Pushing the process further into American Idol territory would make it worse, not better.
Not for nothing, but the party that bangs on hardest about the sanctity and infallibility of the Electoral College is the one that is far and away the worst for "American Idol-type politicians". In recent times:
Then we must repeal the state laws criminalizing electors not voting in line with the states popular vote allocation, and directly elect electors to ensure they are people of sound morals and judgement rather than partisan hacks. Because at the moment the electoral college serves no function besides distorting the popular vote. Any other possible function has been removed by law.
Is "founder" the right word for living off of savings for 8 years while trying various things? I haven't done anything more impressive, but I also don't describe myself as a founder. If someone killed me tomorrow, I'd be "murdered", not "assassinated".
Preventing the traffic from being distinguished is the whole premise. Port 23 gets blocked because everyone uses it for telnet, and everyone expects bad actors to know that. If everything moves to 433, we'll end up with a variety of routing systems and no focal point for attack. The only alternative is to disallow port filtering in core internet infrastructure.
We can either have a standard and accept that bad actors will use it against us, or we can accept the chaos that results from abandoning it.
> The only alternative is to disallow port filtering in core internet infrastructure
I think this is an acceptable alternative. In the same way that your mail service is legally required to deliver your mail as part of their universal service obligation (without reading it).
I've only ever built something that worked by first building a couple of things that didn't. No amount of theory or specification can replace what you learn by actually building and interacting with a system. Accept that there will be a version 2.
It's also the most valuable part of the entire article, and is true whether you're using waterfall, scrum, Extreme Programming, Kanban, or whatever. It's also the only thing that reliably works - the better you are at breaking down your work the better your estimates will be. As you said though, breaking down the work is oftentimes the largest part of the work because it requires _starting_ the work in the first place.
Uncle Steve is the same number of hours ahead that he has always been, and that's a thing that could be looked up just as easily as finding his time zone. I think the author is greatly exaggerating the degree to which time zones solve any of the problems mentioned. Uncle Steve might be on a different sleep schedule from me, regardless of whether or not he's in a different time zone.
Days of the week definitely become interesting in a global UTC system, but noon used to literally mean "the sun is at it's highest point". I suspect that people would grumble for a year or two and then forget that another system ever existed.