To bolster your point: Honestly they don't need to do much - the infrastructure is already there as a matter of being able to turn people's service up/down/on/off.
There is always a provider-managed CPE device that functions as the service demarcation point. This is the point where your contracted service speed is enforced (shape + egress queue and ingress policing).
You can have literally whatever router (dumb, smart, next-gen, whatever) spewing bits at X rate. The CPE will essentially normalize (police) that bit rate to your contracted speed (upstream scenario).
As a 33 year old I really am confused by this statement.
While I love my texting, slack, etc, nothing replaces the low-latency engagement (intimacy) of a one on one phone call. I can parse someone's tone very easily on a phone call. Text rarely conveys such depth.
I struggle with phone calls. I find them quite anxiety inducing with anyone who I don't know well. I think because I find it hard to read tone of voice accurately, and to control my tone of voice to accurately convey my emotions.
I generally much prefer in person contact. And messaging to arrange it.
Also: not sure if you are young enough to be in the MSN generation? But a good chunk of my generation (I'm 26), grew up spending every evening conversing via text for a chunk of our teenage years. We got pretty good at conveying emotion through text (using longggg words... elipsis for pauses, emojis, and idioms (lol, lmao, AF), etc)
I'm also 26, and I definitely relate to the teenage IM experience. I think the problem with phone calls is that it's an unnatural level of focus to give someone you don't know well. when you meet face-to-face, there's always some little distractions available to fill the gaps in the conversation. silence is way worse without context; after fifteen seconds or so, the other person will say "hey, are you still there?" I also find myself missing one word out of every other sentence the person says, so there's a lot of backtracking.
as an aside, I've noticed that my cohort of people who grew up sending hundreds of messages/texts to their friends every night don't really interact that way anymore over text. back then if the person was online, they would usually respond immediately and you could exchange a lot of information really fast. now every response seems to take a few minutes or an hour (I do this myself too, don't mean to blame anyone). it has the weird effect of making text a less useful way to communicate than it was ten or fifteen years ago. I guess when everything is immediate and urgent, nothing is?
> as an aside, I've noticed that my cohort of people who grew up sending hundreds of messages/texts to their friends every night don't really interact that way anymore over text.
Yeah, same here. Don't have time for that anymore! I also have the freedom to go an see people in person in a way that I didn't back then (well not currently, but most of the time!).
Yeah, I'm only a couple of years younger than you and I feel the opposite. I'm always trying so hard to parse the words and meaning, that I easily miss the sentiment of spoken words.
It's one of those things that I realize is probably just on my end though. I've had speech issues since I was a kid and am technically on the autism spectrum. I've learned enough by now so that most people wouldn't guess either of things - but real-time streaming audio processing is one of the few things I just can't learn or accommodate for. It's like I'm always 3 seconds behind in understanding what was just said. Often, I can even recite back what was said to me before I can parse it. I'm surprisingly fine at highly technical conversations / phone troubleshooting though - because it's easier to anticipate the path of the conversation and sentiment isn't usually a factor. Taking tons of notes helps too.
From my experience, text can absolutely convey a significant degree of intimacy - but it takes a great deal of practice to do so fluidly. There is some latency - but the trade-off works to my benefit since I don't have much more latency than my peers on average.
>nothing replaces the low-latency engagement (intimacy) of a one on one phone call.
For a lot of people, texting absolutely does replace the intimacy of a phone call. I have an ex-girlfriend who almost never talked to me on the phone, and only wanted to text, and she was like this with all her friends too. Note the "ex-" part here...
Phone calls are just terrible when you try to convey complex information. Just recently had that issue with a business deal where it only became clear that we were not on the same page w.r.t. some important details after I put things into writing after an IRL meeting and several follow-up calls. The lesson from this is always to follow up with a summary e-mail, and to avoid anything more complex than a simple yes/no or maybe arranging a time and date by telephone.
> "But China did it first!" Well, then we should highlight how outrageous and unacceptable that behavior is, and sanction them some other way. Not reciprocate.
You're falling squarely into the trap that I believe China plays so frequently: the belief that every other group of people shares a compatible value system and culture and any disagreement can be resolved with diplomacy, but never force.
To be frank, the Chinese view us as dumb by setting restrictions on ourselves, in an effort to inspire them to do similar self-restraint measures.
This methodology is flawed and outdated, the Chinese are not the Russians.
He still has a valid point. He simply expressed it hyperbolically. But intelligent people can ignore his emotional state and focus on the actual issue.
Nitpick: I really don't suggest a divergence in the DB/stack-of-choice between Dev/QA/Stage/Prod. I've chased so many issues that were in the planning process dismissed as "yeah that's an edge case and most likely won't happen".
The reasons I've seen for doing so are usually penny-wise, pound-foolish. Penny-wise in saving a few dollars (conceptually) on a spreadsheet for per-env/per-cycle, while neglecting the long-tail consequence of your labor factor just growing, potentially forever, without regard for total cost of ownership.
I believe this is the right way to think about it. You can start off with a relatively monolithic architecture, and then break that out into smaller microservices as needed with a much easier transition.
Yup! It depends a bit on the cell type (and how it's measured) but they're definitely on the order of 10s of milliseconds.
Here are some values mined from the literature: https://www.neuroelectro.org/ephys_prop/4/
Some very early work had estimated them as closer to 1 ms, but there were some technical problems with the measurement approach; I think that might account for some of the outliers there too.
Bear in mind that they're little bits of fat and water, so they're not going to be particularly fast. It's sort of amazing that the brain works at all!
[Also, no idea why your comment was dead, but vouched for it]
It can be a bit of a gotcha when trying to share your work with others. They'll have to clone with --recursive or the submodules will come up as empty folders for them.
I feel like a lot of design failures with new wire protocols, come down to the organization responsible for the specification not having enough leverage to convince the clients/stakeholders who will eventually implement the specification to “meet them in the middle” by adapting their systems to suit the protocol; instead, the clients/stakeholders hold all the leverage, and so demand that the specification change to a shape where it has knobs allowing each of them to implement the standard with no change to their current system whatsoever, at the expense of every other client essentially having to reify “the way each other client/stakeholder does things” in the form of each knob.
I wonder if any specification group has ever thrown up their hands and said, “you know what? Fine. Let’s just create one named sub-protocol for the way each of you major players does things; and then have the clients of this protocol do a sub-protocol negotiation; and then have the client use a plugin specific to the sub-protocol that’s been negotiated. Then you don’t need any knobs; all the policy can be baked into the plugin.”
(Come to think of it, this is kind of how the authentication phase of SSH works, when configured to use PAM. “Pretend we’re MIT” (a.k.a. Kerberos); “pretend this is a Microsoft Active Directory domain” (a.k.a. NTLM auth); etc.
There is always a provider-managed CPE device that functions as the service demarcation point. This is the point where your contracted service speed is enforced (shape + egress queue and ingress policing).
You can have literally whatever router (dumb, smart, next-gen, whatever) spewing bits at X rate. The CPE will essentially normalize (police) that bit rate to your contracted speed (upstream scenario).