You don't see how adding functionality that requires writing to the database rather than just reading from a cache could "drastically increase database load"?

Even if it's writing to the DB, I doubt basic queries like adding an item to a cart is going to need DB sharding.

I think one piece that someone else mentioned could require DB sharding and that is all the live data needed for tracking deliveries.

The actual website/app should not need more than one beefy Postgres instance.

Edit: I was incorrect / non-American, I was thinking of your FAA.

If you couldn't be bothered to write it yourself, why should I read it? The same goes for the overly-complex components that express the same idea over and over again, but somehow without adding any clarity.

The wheel you have to spin to have a chance of seeing a new paragraph is so uniquely aggravating it almost feels satirical, like those overcomplicated volume slider UI concepts people were making a while ago. [0]

[0] https://qht.co/item?id=27819384

AI;DR Vercel pricing is intentionally opaque and you are likely experience a massive bill, your site being taken offline, or both.

First time I’m seeing AI;DR. I think I’m going to be using that a lot.

I think we can agree that when they're executing innocent citizens in the street, the agency is no longer effective.

I agree with you. What would an effective immigration enforcement agency look like?

Nobody cares about the DMCA guardrails and they are never meaningfully enforced. Case in point, Anthropic DMCAing thousands of repositories that simply mentioned the word "claude".

Can you explain how your example supports your conclusion? I don't follow.

Orbital data centres are a stupid concept.

What are you talking about? X is exclusively the domain of terminally-online people.

No that's reddit, Facebook, insta and TikTok.

How is that worse? Leaving it open signals to anyone searching about it that's it's still an issue of concern. It will show up in filters for active bugs, etc. Closing it without fixing it just obfuscates the situation. It costs nothing (except pride?) to leave "Issues (1)" if there is indeed an Issue.

To some people "open" means "not fixed" whereas to others it means "more work planned". I've worked on projects with both interpretations and it's fine as long as everyone is on the same page.

> It costs nothing (except pride?) to leave "Issues (1)" if there is indeed an Issue.

In our case we omit bugs we couldn't reproduce from the issues list due to practicality, not pride -- our software has tens of thousands of unreproducible bugs and having them show up in reports would drown out planned work.

And it's not like anyone deleted or locked the unreproducible bugs, they are either tracked as "open but unreproducible" or "closed because unreproducible". Either way they're still in the database in case more information comes along, but still filtered out of the vast majority of dashboards.

Recent Wikipedia articles are kind of an oxymoron; Wikipedia by design is meant to be a tertiary source, downstream of both news media but also mainstream scholarship. The problem is that it's "an encyclopaedia anyone can edit" — and that inherently means a rush to create or update articles when news outlets publish something novel.

While news media is an acceptable source, proper peer-reviewed journals and other scientific publications are preferred. People would do well to remember Wikipedia is NOTNEWS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_no...).

I find the source collating of Wikipedia helpful for recent events. That's when you're going to get most editor interest to improve the page and readers to consume it.

Yeah basing articles on scholarly books is good, but not every topic will be covered and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AThe_deadline_is_no...

Not every topic will be covered yet. While *The deadline is now* is an essay, *WP:NOTNEWS* is policy — and inherent in an encyclopedia.

Yeah WP:NOTNEWS is policy, and it starts with

> In principle, all Wikipedia articles should contain up-to-date information. Editors are also encouraged to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events.

There clearly is editor and reader interest in making decent quality articles on major current events. Yes they may contain errors that the history book on topic won't contain, but I still think it's worth having. Just mind the things to avoid listed in WP:NOTNEWS and I think we will be fine

And I don't think everything will ever be covered in a book. There is not an infinite amount of scholars studying every random significant event. And those will probably use the same news articles as one of their sources anyway.

Unfortunately to survive the next few hundred years, we may need another dictator of human behaviour than what the market wants.