I just would like to point out the irony that you want to break up companies to improve our global competitiveness. I seem to recall hearing in the late 90s and early 2000s a theme that the US really needed to let these companies combine so we could have large national players who would have the scale to compete globally with other nations' mega-corps. (Not so much in terms of FAANG tech perhaps, but certainly in banking and many other sectors.)
I'm not sure if there is some definitive research on what corporate size truly helps global competitiveness (but I'd expect that, as you say, smaller competitors in larger numbers tend to be more competitive.) But even in China car industry as transitioning today, the natural evolution of such a system is towards a fewer larger competitors. Kind of related to the iron law of oligarchy perhaps, this phenomena? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_law_of_oligarchy
Agreed. I have worked at a Fortune 100 firm where its business ran (still runs) off of an ERP sharded into 100 instances, each representing one key facility since the mid-90s. It took extra work in the early days to centralize analytics and manage deployments and data, but it has been very resilient (low blast radius in today's terminology) and natural for low risk deployments, rolling out of upgrades to one site, then the rest in batches.
There was a good provocative keynote on a similar but slight different theme from an O'Reilly big data conference a number of years back by Maciej Ceglowski, "Haunted by Data" which I remember as the "Data is nuclear waste" talk: https://idlewords.com/talks/haunted_by_data.htm
Whenever I rewatch one of many of Maciej's talks (including “Haunted by Data”, “The Website Obesity Crisis”, “What Happens Next Will Amaze You”, “Superintelligence”, etc.), he always strikes me a bit as a digitally-relevant, modern reincarnation of Cassandra...
I co-built a similar screen sharing app (with a web server seeing traffic in the middle though) many years ago. MPEG isn't a good fit. We tried JPEG but it didn't look great. Version 1 decomposed the screen into regions, looked at which regions changed, and transmitted PNGs.
The second version tried to use the VNC approach developed years ago by AT&T and open sourced. The open source implementation glitched just a bit much for my liking. Various companies white labelled VNC in those days; not sure they fed back all their fixes. But the raw VNC protocol has a lot of good compression ideas specific to the screen sharing domain and documented in papers. People also tunneled VNC over SSH. I jerryrigged an HTTPS tunnel of sorts.
After a while I started to suspect if I wanted to get higher frame rates I should use a more modern screen sharing oriented Microsoft-based/specific codec. But it wasn't my skillet so I never actually went down that route. But I'd recommend researching using others screen-optimized lossless codecs, open or closed, so you don't reinvent the wheel on that side of things if you're serious about reducing bandwidth.
I use many screen sharing apps and none of them have this issue. They do the lossy compression by reducing the number of colors (gradients become bands) not by JPEG-style discrete cosines.
I think a wise secularist may see greater good in less gambling. Not every secularist is a libertarian in their tradeoffs of "what is good" for people. There is usually some reason vices are squashed that is not religious in nature; take the China society's approach to various vices for example.
Tell your friend not to worry, it was a proverb and not a prayer and he didn't start after the earnings call, he's done it weekly for a while and nobody cared till it made a juicy headline to irritate you and make you curious and click.
Too late to edit, but I think the main point stands, the founders and early employees were all from giants with feet of clay who collapsed because they ignored the consumer market.
I agree they effectively ignored the consumer market and died. But it wasn't because they didn't see it coming. It just is, in practice, hard for a billion dollar b2b company to embrace the consumer market even when they recognize it as an existential threat. For more what I mean by that, I wrote an SGI retrospective at:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39960660
(Sun or SGI might have escaped if they'd merged with then-weak Apple/NeXT, but it's not clear if that would have helped Apple be more successful in hindsight.)
Great question! I'm expecting it to support parent/child tables too as the way we implemented partitioned table support is querying the pg_inherits metadata table - https://github.com/PeerDB-io/peerdb/blob/2d30e5fae887552f93c... However, inheritance (old way of partitioning) isn't a common thing with Postgres. Out of 100s of workloads I've seen in the past decade, it came up a couple of times...
I just would like to point out the irony that you want to break up companies to improve our global competitiveness. I seem to recall hearing in the late 90s and early 2000s a theme that the US really needed to let these companies combine so we could have large national players who would have the scale to compete globally with other nations' mega-corps. (Not so much in terms of FAANG tech perhaps, but certainly in banking and many other sectors.)
I'm not sure if there is some definitive research on what corporate size truly helps global competitiveness (but I'd expect that, as you say, smaller competitors in larger numbers tend to be more competitive.) But even in China car industry as transitioning today, the natural evolution of such a system is towards a fewer larger competitors. Kind of related to the iron law of oligarchy perhaps, this phenomena? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_law_of_oligarchy