simo7

Slavery. For instance the technology for windmills already existed at the time, it just wasn't that big of a deal in world with an abundance of slaves. Fast forward to the Middle Ages and you find it everywhere.

Interesting, I’m starting to think undocumented thresholds are quite common in GCP.

I experienced something similar with Clod Run: inexplicable scaling events based on CPU utilization and concurrent requests (the two metrics that regulate scaling according to their docs).

After a lot of back and forth with their (premium) support it turns out there are additional criteria, smthg related to request duration, but of course nobody was able to explain in details.

I have a different approach: I'm ok to throw away significant chunks of code as long as I have important new ideas that allow me to do more with less.

Often the problem with refactors is that don't come with enough of these new ideas , there's no real progress, it's mostly moving things around.

Fewer than 10k wouldn't be surprising at all, yes.

The 65k figure is what ancient historians reported, in reality it’s almost certainly order of magnitudes lower. Exaggerated figures are usually the case with ancient reports (especially about battles).

Isn’t a monolith with split workloads just a monorepo?

The main flaw of the article is not controlling for product category.

I suspect most data warehouses have similar NDRs.

In many companies a data warehouse is the place where you dump all your data and let everyone run poorly written programs against it.

Add to that poor engineering culture in data teams (often lead by non-technical people) and costs are bound to skyrocket.

I think the main lesson should be not to use it, especially at scale.

I think you're too quick at making assumptions which are not correct unfortunately. Let's recap:

> there's no selective pressure for it to become less lethal.

> If people take measures to prevent spread of a disease that’s literally selective pressure.

How trying to slow down its spread can "force" it to become less lethal?

The only possible answer is that lower lethality gives it more time to spread around right?

It turns out Covid has a long incubation period, in fact plenty to use the host to infect other people.

Tl;dr: Given the length of the incubation period a less lethal virus would not gain much in terms of its ability to spread. That's the thesis I'm hearing.

Agreed, macro predictions are very hard. Much easier to make predictions on individual assets (companies, commodities etc.) and hold long term.

Also, precisely because macro is hard, these analyses often feel superficial.

Inflation, especially if exogenous, can negatively impact the economy but at the same time cash-alternative assets become more attractive. What's the ultimate effect there?

And what about historically low interest rates? Don’t they warrant a shift in investment preferences towards stocks?

Wether a macro prediction turns out to be right or wrong it’s rare to read a deeper argument than “things are too high must go down”.

Don't really get your point.

> The people have dramatically altered their behavior on a global scale (on average anyways) because of COVID’s lethality. There is absolutely selective pressure in that dimension.

This reads to me: "Covid is certainly more lethal than the average flu, therefore is undoubtedly getting less lethal" (effect of selective pressure). It doesn't make much sense.

> there wouldn’t be anywhere near the amount of research into medical intervention

Right, how's that has to do with whether there's selective pressure or not?

It almost feels like you are attributing a different meaning to "selective pressure", but cannot understand which one.

Well if the two events (improved transimissibility and improved lethality) are not independent as I assumed then it's certainly bad news.

I also heard the opposite thesis btw, higher transimissibility might sacrifice something in terms of lethality. Like you can't really add much as I'm not an expert.

Yes my point is, when you do improve one (transimissibility) you probably did not improve the other one (or even got worse at it).