I suspect that you have never actually used a phone-dispatch car service in NYC. You have no visibility into their ETA. Call back and ask... the answer is always the same "5 minutes".
Classes do not imply inheritance. Classes are a means of defining an interface, albeit a heavy one.
The statement that it is better to separate data and behavior is far from self-evident IMO, and I would be very interested to understand why this is such a deeply held belief. Seriously, why?
If you are running this from your own AWS account doesn't it have the problem of not anonymizing the traffic - since it can all be tied to your identity?
Seems like mostly FUD. No mention of specific issues in any clients. And please have a look at other high throughput systems (like Cassandra or VoltDB) before claiming that a load balancer is the proper way to connect clients to a distributed system.
Why no to Cassandra? I don't have the reference on hand, but I believe the issues identified by aphyr have since been addressed. It is important to do your own due diligence, especially when referencing work that is more than a year or two old.
It seems to me that one of the core differences between MySQL/Postgres and distributed stores like Cassandra / Hbase is that with the former your data and your write workload have to fit onto a single host. If either one cannot fit then you have to partition at the application level or use a real distributed data store. Partitioning at the app level is an operational burden and complexity that would be best avoided, but there are always exceptions.
While I agree that the author and others in the same role clearly do not feel apart of the culture, could you really expect them to? They don't have any equity, they don't make very much, they are monitored and evaluated like telemarketers, yet the management expects them to buy into the "change the world" mantra. I think you have to admit that it's demeaning. Why would they feel anything besides anger or jealousy?
Lots of hate here so far. I agree more explanation of their premise would go a long way towards convincing skeptics. However, I think this is an interesting perspective and deserves better conversation. Fiscal policy is progressive and has a dramatic impact on individual finances. Contrary to popular belief not everyone in the 1% pays the capital gains rate.
The entirety of the US system of government is predicated on lack of trust. Hence checks and balances through branches and the limits placed on the government by the constitution. The founders saw this coming. They didn't trust the government. Why should we?!
The difference is not about who is more powerful. The difference is that I can choose to use DuckDuckGo instead of Google. I cannot (barring extreme measures) choose to disobey the government.
He very often applies this tactic of trying to make the other side seem unreasonable.
This is the most important issue of our generation. You cannot have it both ways Mr. President. There is no middle ground. You either support the right to privacy or you do not. There are only two options and you have to pick one.
I don't like this line of reasoning because it allows for a pro-surveillance outcome if you change the statistics. At what threshold do you switch sides? Ben Franklin is pretty clear and so is the constitution. We don't need to argue on the government agency's terms because we win this argument hands down on principal alone. Please don't weaken the argument.