Not sure who's to "blame", but I was super surprised a few days ago when I installed Kubuntu 24.04 (minimal), and Python was missing. Was fine though as I strictly use via pipx and miniconda only, but still surprising.
Agree with logfmt. I wrote the logfmter python library: https://github.com/jteppinette/python-logfmter. You can quickly have all of your logs (including 3rd party) converted to this style.
I thought I was being informative. I can't give hard&fast rules because (drumroll)... it depends. So I have tradeoffs to consider, and indexes got mentioned.
How else could I have posted better? Honest question.
Because you didn’t actually refute anything the GP said, and gave bad advice, all while being incredibly negative and arrogant.
> this mostly clueless advice
> strong opinions put forth by someone who doesn't have the necessary experience, or understanding of what's going on under the hood
> I'm tired of suchlike n00b advice strongly (and incorrectly and arrogantly) expressed on HN
You continue to just say it depends without giving any actual scenarios. You make it sound like magic, but it’s not: “under x and y, do z except when u” is better than “it depends, I’m sick of all these noobs”.
Also, your main points are against denormalization and avoiding large table joins which are 100% rational arguments under certain workloads.
I refuted what he said by pointing out that 1E9 x 1E6 = 1E15. A billion row table denormalised with a million row table = 1000 trillion row table. How big's your disk array? How are you going to ensure correctness on update?
His was stupid advice and had it should not have been given.
> You continue to just say it depends without giving any actual scenarios
it depends. Use your common sense and then use a stopwatch, is a good start. There are entire shelves of books on this, I won't repeat them.
> You make it sound like magic, but it’s not:
absolutely true!
> “under x and y, do z except when u” is better than
it's a multidimensional problems inc. memory size, disk size, the optimiser, sizes of particular tables joined, where the hotspot is, cost of updates of non-normalised tables, etc. I can't give general advice from here.
> Also, your main points are against denormalization and avoiding large table joins which are 100% rational arguments under certain workloads.
I said "Denormalising is a useful tool that IME rarely gains you more than it loses you,"
True, you normalise/denormalise data not tables as such; tables pop out of a normalisation process and denormalisation collapses them together. Perhaps if I'm still wrong you could put me right. And don't just point at the wiki article on it, please be specific.
To your question, probably longer than you but I've always more to learn.
Copyright, Trademark, and Patent Law should not exist. Contract law and trade secrets cover all necessary use cases. Checkout Stephan Kinsela @NSKinsella for more info.
This is what is worrying me about moving over to Fly. I am surprised that it has been so heavily pushed here on HN. Perhaps this is just a relatively isolated event, we will see how it is handled moving forward.
Fly deployments have been "down" (partially / fully) for a couple days per their status page.
After all of the recent talk about moving from Heroku to Fly, I was surprised to have all of these operational issues when doing my initial sniff test.
Can anyone testify to the production worthiness of Fly, or should I look somewhere else?
Edit: Before anyone says "editorialized title", when I posted this, the title of the linked page literally said "Deployments are broken".
We've had an issue with our Consul/Nomad since last night. This was preventing new deploys, and also preventing rescheduling peoples' VMs when they crashed. Not good!
This did not affect running apps (unless they crashed and needed rescheduling).
This kind of event is super rare. I think this is the second outage of this scale we've had in the last three years.
The Consul/Nomad deploy infrastructure is the most brittle part of our stack. We are working to replace this. New Postgres DBs don't use it at all, but it'll be a few months before all apps are off.
While we're still relying on Consul/Nomad, there's a chance this will happen again. But the way these tend to work is things break when we cross some capacity threshold. We get that fixed and it buys us time to discover the next capacity threshold.
Also, we _aggressively_ update our status page. It's not really an indication of our reliability relative to other providers. You need to read each individual incident to get an idea of what the effect was. Earlier this week we had an issue where new apps couldn't get new IPv4 addresses that lasted about 45 minutes. That's not awesome, but it's not the same scale of problem as we dealt with last night either.
Other status page entries are "a host in a particular region failed". This is entirely normal, and something we're going to deal with forever.
> it is extremely clear to me that some kind of control of the money supply is necessary, otherwise you get depressions
I disagree, and I will attempt to explain myself clearly.
Artificially modifying the money supply or interest rates (cost of money) breaks the market’s ability to self-regulate. Artificially low interest rates and money creation leads to an artificial boom period. This pushes investment into areas where it would otherwise not be directed (consumer goods vs producer goods / generally bad investments i.e. subprime mortgages, risky tech, etc..). This eventually results in a bust period as the system realizes its mistakes.
The real problem is the creation of an artificial boom, the bust is just a natural reaction to that boom.
The market is artificial. For an example it it operates (largely) within constraints that are external - laws.
Modifying the money supply is a lever that can be used to achieve goals - such as a desired inflation rate.
Whether its a good idea or when and how is the appropriate way to use it is another question. Implying it is bad because it is "artificial" begs the question of what's "natural". The market is clearly not natural.
The business cycle is a natural phenomenon that predates central banks controlling the money supply, and would still occur if there was a fixed monetary base.
As banks loaned more and less, and people spent faster and slower through the business cycle, the total amount of bank money and the velocity it was spent at would grow and contract. Prices would therefore be unstable, because prices follow changes in the money supply and the velocity of money. Money would become scarce, and thus interest rates high, right when central banks would be cutting rates. The business cycle is self-reinforcing, there's no natural equilibrium to it at all, and if not smoothed by a government or central bank, can result in tragedies like the great depression.
And in a world where economies are still growing, without growth in the monetary base we would in the long run have deflation, which most economists think is worse than small positive inflation.
First, the money supply and price of money has been manipulated since before central banks existed.
I don’t exactly understand your thesis, because, of course the federal reserve existing more than a decade before the Great Depression and is a primary driver for the credit expansion that caused the Great Depression to be so large and long lasting. Artificial manipulation, as I described above, is what causes the natural movements of an economy to be so extreme.
While I don't think I want to delve too into the matter, arguably, the Federal Reserve NOT holding more control over the amount of money flooding into the system through repeated rehypothecation of securities as the roaring 20s saw banks and brokerages happy to loan out more and more money had a lot to do with its occurrence in the first place. Prior to the Securities Act of 1933, and later Regulations T, U, and X (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_T), brokerages and banks had a lot more leeway in determining their own reserves. Which ultimately, particularly in a booming securities market, means that they were largely unregulated when it came to raising the total amount of money in circulation at least in nominal terms. The aforementioned regulations took great strides in curtailing this excessive power and brought margin rates and reserve requirements under the domain of the Federal Reserve as tools for manipulating the cost and flow of money toward serving their dual mandate.
If there is a particular institution that is exacerbating the peaks and troughs of the business cycle, it is credit itself. Going back a few centuries, in Europe anyway, the usury laws used to forbid (Christians anyway) from lending money at interest, being seen as effectively a form of theft (think of laws limiting loan sharks now). The business cycle is tied right back to the credit cycle (to the extent that the words are used almost interchangeably), and if you remove the existence of credit, you remove much of the boom and bust cycle that goes with it. This said, it's worth determining if this is REALLY what you want, as prior to the availability of credit, the ability to start businesses and innovate was significantly reduced, and generally, only available to the particularly wealthy.
Central banking was just a means of trying to bring some order to the chaos that all of this credit flowing around was having. Sometimes it seems to work well; other times, it feels like the cure may be worse than the disease. Either way, it's worth knowing about the beast its there to attempt to cage.
