I said concurrent execution. When being pedantic it is important to read carefully.
Being super careful about 'parallel' and 'concurrent' is super, super pedantic and pointless. They are synonyms. If two things are running concurrently, they are running in parallel. If two things are running in parallel, they are running concurrently. These are terrible words to overload with very careful definitions.
When people talk about 'concurrency' using the super careful pedantic definition, they just mean that it's possible to execute code while at the same time blocking on system calls. This isn't some kind of great feat and any language that can't do it is a toy. There is absolutely no reason to act like 'concurrency' using this definition is in any way special or worth even mentioning.
But that's not the point, is it? People get defensive about their favorite languages, so when faced with valid criticisms like "the GIL prevents you from running Python code in parallel" (which is a completely valid and actually pretty huge defect when modern computers have many cores on average) instead of just admitting the deficiency a person can be defensive and respond with stupid lectures about 'concurrency' and 'parallelism'.
I think most CPython folks are quite annoyed by the lack of concurrent execution! The GIL sucks.
If you ever ask Racket-lang folks about threads they will lecture you about concurrency vs parallelism endlessly, it's like a mantra they repeat to avoid realizing there is a problem.
You have been in the industry for around 40 years and you have no personal network you can call on for referrals? You are obviously leaving out critical parts of your story.
What is the negative consequence of breaking the site for an hour? Is it "some people are a little annoyed", "nobody notices", or "customers start calling and are very upset" or even "customers file lawsuits"?
The amount of friction you add to the development velocity has to be proportioned to the potential downsides. A system that shows doctors xray images in the ER cant go down or people might die. A site like twitter can go down and slightly improve the life of its users. It sounds like you are recommending big company super risk averse solutions at a startup, which is just silly. Besides, staging environments never work, for a long list of reasons. You should be recommending continuous integration and a focus on proper unit tests.
I guess it depends on your base, but if their revenue is about $100MM/yr (which I highly doubt, companies love to outright lie, but lets be optimistic) then it's still only about $200k/employee, and their employee costs are likely $300k-$400k/employee/year, if not more in their Redwood City headquarters.
So Evernote spent that much and they didn't even make any furniture, so their wood costs were very very low. Zero even. They still spent that much money?
> This is something that can't realistically happen for a furniture plant. You can't pile up furniture up to the sky without paying your wood suppliers.
Have you ever seen $300MM worth of wood? I specifically said the owner had pumped a huge amount of money in the company.
I don't think it is a problem with the VC model at all. Evernote has taken more than $300MM in funding. Nobody put a gun to their head and made them take that money. The people who run Evernote decided to go in and tell investors that they had a plan to turn Evernote into a multi billion dollar company, and that plan said they needed a huge pile of money, and the investors made the mistake of writing a check.
Evernote could have skipped those VC meetings, skipped renting the huge, insanely expensive office just off Rt. 1 by SF, skipped putting huge, expensive light up Evernote signs on that office, and skipped hiring hundreds of engineers in the most expensive place in the world to hire engineers. They could have rented a small office in a commercial park in San Jose and only hired 10 people and now they would be quite profitable. They could have done this by only taking a few million dollars in funding, and now they wouldn't need an insane valuation to exit.
What is reported is decided based entirely on what will hold the most attention for the advertisements. If media outlet attempts to act according to any other rule they are displaced by one which will maximize eyes on advertisements. (This is much like politicians who base every decision on getting more votes against politicians doing anything else.) The exception to this rule is when the media is directly used to further other interests of the large corporations which own it.
"Entry Level" is a euphemism. It doesn't mean "No experience" it means "Not very good so has to work cheap, but can do basic tasks with lots of supervision."
>>GG Flip is a Golang library which generates the Javascript sign flip library. I preferred Go because lack of generics seemed like a good design choice.
I certainly never said either of those things, but this is a great example of why I removed the comments. If some wondering about a hypothetical future dystopia offend you this much it tells me that the thought police might come after me, so is it worth it to participate in a discussion with people like you?
I'm removing my comments since apparently engaging in a thought experiment makes me an inhuman monster.
I don't have a CS degree and I'm fairly well versed in philosophy. I suggest you take a closer look at your assumptions, it may be that you can't get to the truth entirely by quoting Gould.
Frankly it astonishes me that you don't accept that income is more correlated to intelligence today than it was when a large percentage of the population were slaves, or when people were legally bound to the land they lived on? Are you just disagreeing with everything I say out of reflex?
EDIT: over the course of one generation, higher intelligence leads to a dramatically higher income. In the long run, if this effect continues, this will be compounded as higher intelligence parents are also higher income parents (by hypothesis).
Being super careful about 'parallel' and 'concurrent' is super, super pedantic and pointless. They are synonyms. If two things are running concurrently, they are running in parallel. If two things are running in parallel, they are running concurrently. These are terrible words to overload with very careful definitions.
When people talk about 'concurrency' using the super careful pedantic definition, they just mean that it's possible to execute code while at the same time blocking on system calls. This isn't some kind of great feat and any language that can't do it is a toy. There is absolutely no reason to act like 'concurrency' using this definition is in any way special or worth even mentioning.
But that's not the point, is it? People get defensive about their favorite languages, so when faced with valid criticisms like "the GIL prevents you from running Python code in parallel" (which is a completely valid and actually pretty huge defect when modern computers have many cores on average) instead of just admitting the deficiency a person can be defensive and respond with stupid lectures about 'concurrency' and 'parallelism'.