> a new capability supporting automated horizontal scaling to process millions of write transactions per second and manage petabytes of data in a single Aurora database.
Limitless horizontal scaling is really cool and all, but does anyone not running a Fortune-500 Tech company actually need this kind of firepower?
At Notion we run ~100 Postgres instances and we’re pretty far off from being Fortune 500, although we have many Fortune 500 clients. We could have used this Aurora thing instead of doing sharding in the application ourselves: https://www.notion.so/blog/sharding-postgres-at-notion
Separation of compute and storage, and storage having tables being sharded is now in many modern databases (cockroachdb, clickhouse and singlestore come to mind).
This being part of native aws fully postgres compatible is exciting though.
I wish AWS brings columnstore or custom storage engine features.
But I can see why AWS wouldn’t want to bring columnstore tables - it would directly compete with redshift.
AWS does a lot of enterprise business but I’d also think about it as setting the upper bounds: you probably don’t need millions of transactions per second but if you’re a startup needing, say, thousands it’s nice knowing that you don’t need to fundamentally rearchitect for a while even if you become popular. The pain of hitting the limits of a single database write node can be high because you need to make substantial changes to what is by definition a busy system, but you have an incentive not to make the big changes until you need them since they make everything else more work. This gives you the option of effectively never needing to do that, which is going to be popular with anyone anticipating lots of growth if it delivers as advertised.
I love Go, yet I've never thought of it as a language with usable game engines. I'm extremely happy to find I was very wrong about that!
I'm woefully behind the curve on compiling to WASM, though, and I've yet to experiment much with tinygo so I have no idea how far I would get in creating a game people could enjoy in a browser without having to download a big bundle of assets. It's reassuring to see WASM mentioned explicitly as a compilation target [1] by Ebitengine though.
This type of behavior will only serve to cheapen content across the board. At this point, even the word "content" betrays the emptiness of it all - people don't pay for bags and boxes of "content" do they?
AI "content" is a nothing-burger. It is inherently devoid of "value" and seems like a last-ditch effort to squeegee the remaining drops of attention off of everyone's eyeballs without actually investing in genuine creativity.
As more and more of this dross floods the Internet, the very purpose of the web may be called into question. How can we share information with each other if the world's library/archive becomes the world's bot-poop landfill?
The Internet has evolved from a shared information system to so much more, so I hope this unfortunate phase will soon pass and ML tech can be put to more appropriate use than just crapping out low-effort "content" all over the place.
> At this point, even the word "content" betrays the emptiness of it all
In all fairness, "content" telegraphed that from the first time it was used in the online sense. I still don't understand why people are willing to use it to refer to their own work.
I'd be very, very curious to hear viable alternatives to ad supported models, that aren't based on how major companies have been doing it for the past 20 years (or longer?), where they make it free, then sneak in subscriptions, then over time, start increasing subscription costs.
I feel like it's not just the companies, but consumers/ audiences don't want to pay for most internet services unless it's something like infrastructure services where it somehow viscerally seems "sensible" and "right" to do so.
All those online services, even the AI ones, need servers and bandwidth and paid people to maintain them. They need sources of income and the only reliable one known to man (today) is ads. If you have a different idea, please do explain, but before you say "monthly contributions" think twice about the reality of it and maybe also count for how many services you personally pay. Of course one could say "why do I need online services at all" but that's not a future I care about.
Limitless horizontal scaling is really cool and all, but does anyone not running a Fortune-500 Tech company actually need this kind of firepower?