mattknox

I've been a customer of theirs for at least 12 years, I think (I have an entry in my password manager from about that long ago, and I might have had an account before that). It's been fantastic, in general: I can get a phone consult anytime I've wanted one, and can get in to see a doc with pretty short notice. They are good at giving me the referrals I ask for, even if they are weird (eg., after listening to Chamath Palihapitiya talk about Coronarary Arterial Calcium scans, I got curious and wanted one, and 1med got me the referral I wanted/dealt with insurance, etc.). About the only downside is that it's a bit harder to keep a very consistent GP, in that 1med seems to have a fair amount of turnover. I don't know if it's hard to keep a consistent GP in other contexts, as I pretty much didn't go to doctors between the time I left high school and when I started using 1medical.

Native retweet on twitter, probably.

I've known at least a half-dozen superb bootcamp grads, but the quality is definitely uneven.

Yeah, a huge number of early twitter folks did exactly this.

I felt that way too, but I have mostly changed my mind. My wife, who has a FT job, a purse company, and 2 kids, plays a SHOCKING amount of Maple Story. She never pays money, but at a reasonable-for-her time value of money, I'm sure she'd be well into 10s of $K/year of cost. Is that malfeasance on the developer's part? I dunno. I'd generally prefer she play less, but she is an extremely functional adult, and she gets to make her own choices.

Thought experiment: if she spent 10X less time but $2K/year on the game, would that be more or less troubling? If she took that trade, she'd be an addict by your lights, but she'd be spending 10-30 min rather than 3-5h/day, and I'd be THRILLED. It's interesting to me that we are generally totally fine with something that sucks up (or alternatively, makes enjoyable) all or more-than-all of someone's free time, but we get upset when it takes even trivial amounts of their money.

These questions aren't useful for evaluating pg's work (or frankly that of most PL implementors) because it concerns things, like syntax, libraries, user culture, etc., that is outside of the rather narrow domain Atanassow cares about.

He believes languages are utterly defined by their type systems, saying in the LtU comment you linked: "Perl, Python, Ruby, PHP, Tcl and Lisp are all the same language". I'd assume that he would say the same about js, lua, etc.. AFAICT, he's quite knowledgeable about PLT, formal methods, static typing, category theory, etc., but he disregards everything else.

It's worth considering whether he is right to do so. A waspish answer is to observe that companies built on languages he deems to be "in the corner" (c, java, dynamic languages) constitute the entirety of companies with significant market capitalization, and ask (apologies to Aaron Sorkin) "If your type system is so smart, why do you lose so always". A better answer is to note that a bunch of stuff that he deems trivial (generally anything outside of the type system, but specifically libraries, syntax, bindings to existing systems, etc.) matters, so javascript is different than python despite being identical in his eyes. Specifically, js runs in the browser and has a pretty good runtime for building web services, while python has exceptional ecosystem support for data science and machine learning.

have you thought about publishing the full source from then? The HN source was dense but very educational, and it would be really interesting to see internal tools written in arc.

Wetherell was not involved with launching retweet, and didn't implement much (maybe any?) of the code in that Nov 2009 launch. He probably did write a version of the frontend for retweet at some point, and had done some backend code, but all of that was largely rewritten by launch day.

To be fair, he probably didn't claim that, but making his involvement out to be more than it was probably did well for the article.

I've actually been treated exceptionally well by the half-dozen or so CEOs I've worked for. This is pretty common in tech, at least in SF and NYC, in my experience.

Here, you should have 2 orders issued events, one order_succeded, and one order_failed (hopefully not with an actual NPE, that would be pretty bad). So much like an SSTable-based system, there are race conditions at the level of deciding what to write to the logs/event stream, but should not be race conditions in replaying the event stream (the same customer would get a failure every time).

It's fascinating to me that people don't point out that you can get many of the benefits of microservices with all your code in a monolith, indeed, all in a single runtime. Of the 4 benefits he lists (1: independent development, 2: independent deployment 3: independent scalability, 4: reusability) you can mostly get 2-4 by deploying your monolith to different server pools that are deployed and routed to independently.

Microservices get to be necessary for large dev teams, but probably a lot later than most teams think.