I'm a recreational diver. I wouldn't use this as my _only_ computer, but I would say the same for the computers I currently use. I always dive with 2 computers just in case one fails, a battery dies, etc. As 'latchkey said, never rely on a single piece of equipment. With that being said, I would be willing to swap out my wrist computer for the Apple Watch Ultra. The superior display and UX would actually be a big quality of life improvement over my current wrist computer. And, I'd still have my backup computer in my SPG to compare against or fall back to.
Slight clarification: the Apple Watch Ultra has a water resistance rating of 100m. The Oceanic+ app has a 130ft/40m limit because that's the recreational diving limit.
Honestly, this is a good thing. No one should be buying mechanical watches as investments expecting them to be appreciating assets. This shouldn't hurt Rolex, Patek, AP, VC, etc, as there's plenty of demand for their products and they're not selling them on the secondary market anyway. If it does end up hurting them, it's only because they allowed their ADs to participate in all kinds of shady behavior that ultimately drove up the secondary market pricing.
This sounds pretty much ideal. Two people [vaguely] familiar with a problem working through it together. Both have the opportunity to evaluate each other. This is exceedingly rare in practice. Obviously you got (and accepted) an offer.
Some of the best interviews I've given and taken have gone roughly this way. It's nearly impossible to set this up intentionally, though.
This looks great, and I'd love to replace AWS SSM (at least for the purposes of instance access) with this! One question I have is have is around device limits.
With SSM, I can easily run an agent on every instance. Tailscale has pretty tight device limits on the Team and Business plans. I have no idea what the custom pricing looks like, but I'm guessing it would exceed my budget. What's the intended way to use this with a large number of servers? A small team can easily have more devices than 5x or 10x the number of users. Should we just set up some "gateway"/"bastion" instances to access via Tailscale SSH and then use regular ssh from there? Some sort of more limited device mode that doesn't count against the device limit (for ssh only, perhaps?) would be great.
In the interest of adding another data point, the situation in Seattle is pretty similar, albeit not quite as bad in my experience. It occurred to me last month while walking around SF that Seattle politicians would be wise to pay attention to the situation in SF and try to learn from it.
I don't think that's a fair characterization of what happened. First, they scaled a simple solution for a long time and migrated away from it before it exploded spectacularly. I don't recall them explicitly saying how much time they spent on it, so how is it possibly to say whether it was worth the time or not? I also don't remember if it was here or on Twitter, but one of the engineers listed the many features they built and shipped _instead_ messing with their database. I'd say that was a good business decision - they got more features to their customers sooner and dealt with a scaling issue before it impacted customers.
The TailScale folks caught a bunch of flak for their "do things that don't scale" approach to databases. But, honestly, most startups would be better off following that approach than what Fast did. Sounds like the engineers were just entertaining themselves with shiny toys rather than solving the problems they actually had.