Yeah, I came here to say this. Hard to comprehend how someone could have a comms role at Intuit and not know basic principles like this. Only plausible explanation is that the CEO insisted on taking this approach even after the very likely Streisand effect outcome was explained.
Durable Objects have long term storage. They get hydrated from that storage, so in that sense, they can move to any Cloudflare DS. However, there is no API call to move a Durable Object. It has to have no connections and then gets recreated in the DS nearest to the next/first connection. Memory gets dropped when that happens, storage survives. (This is slightly out of date as they have some nuanced hibernation stuff that is recent).
1. Security — I much prefer to hand write APIs rather than using security rules (see recent Arc browser exploit, among many others). Firebase pro’s will call those skill issues, but idk if that really makes it less of an issue.
2. Lock-in - I’m fine with S3 and SQS where the lock in is pretty limited, but Firebase is a floor to ceiling commitment to Google Cloud.
3. Cost - if your app succeeds, you will find yourself investing lots of time moving cost sensitive workloads off of Firebase, though this only matters if you are worried about ‘good’ problems.
Azure is the only major (or even minor) cloud provider refusing to build an S3 API. Strange to me, because Azure Cosmos DB supports Mongo and Cassandra at the API level, for example, so idk what is so offensive to them about S3 becoming the standard HTTP API for object storage.
It's because S3 api is quite a fair bit worse than what they offer. They define their guarantees for storage products way more clearly than other clouds, and for blob storage, from my understanding, their model is better than S3.
I’m a fan of all these projects that are leveraging S3 to implement high availability / high scalability for traditionally sensitive stateful workloads.
Local caching is a key element of such architectures, otherwise S3 is too slow and expensive to query.
I think there is a fundamental difference between MMOGs and TikTok-style social media. I suspect the human brain has a relatively healthy reaction to creatively connecting with other humans via virtual worlds but a comparatively poor reaction to algorithmic feeds.
People were active participants in MMORPGs. You get the dopamine from achieving goals inside the game, and make connections with other people as you collaborate to reach these goals. Your relationship with other players is that of coworkers (or cohabitants). On social media, most people are just spectators, getting entertained by a small group of creators whose relation with the rest of the community is that of salesmen. Both systems are not designed in the same way.
Not everyone who plays MMOs are active participants. Majority of people in a guild are not active participants. A lot of them won't even get on a shared voice call anymore to listen to instructions during large group events.
A lot of MMOs also make active collaboration a complete pain, whether it's introducing a messed up matchmaking system, not dealing with bots, or adding new content that rewards you for going at it alone. A lot of content now is quite literally zero communication, not even a message in chat, just queue for group, do content and leave.
And people will spend 5+ hours a day doing that. Farming mindlessly as if it's a second job.
MMOs have always been like that though. The forced group content is a later addition that not every game follows (eg OSRS). But that doesn't really mean anything. You're still sharing a virtual world. You see people pass you by, meet random people etc. They are still active participants, they just don't have to wait around for other people constantly (because that's what forced group content always turns into).
All of those have always been the case though, it only wasn't if it wasn't. It's not like nearly everyone was inclined to jump on Vent and raid, that's always been relatively few. Only more recently have there been some systems that make lower tier content less requiring of vocal comms, but for anything demanding it's still pretty typical.
Tik-Tok (and Social Media) exists around content. It's fundamentally social but has no inherent "meat" which is why it go bad so easily, just like high school gossip and cliques. It's hollow by itself, focused on reaction and judgment.
MMOs are that "meat". It's someplace you go for it's own sake, and (hopefully) you meet people around that shared space as a consequence rather than an intention. There will be debates, trolls and conflicts of course, but I feel that the focus on content is a shared axis that can keep things healthier on the long term.
Well MMOs are dying, and a growing number of zoomers would rather passively watch than actively play games, so I guess gamers aren't immune to social media either, but I think in the future we will return to this for answers that our present can't answer.
Even if MMOs are dying, fun collaborative gaming experiences with friends (Minecraft, Roblox, Fortnite, ...) continue to be very popular. It's often done with an external voice chat program (Discord), meaning groups of friends can wander from game to game having many different experiences than MMO grinding.
I think MMOs are dying because the casual players play mobile games instead, so MMOs end up catering more and more to the hardcore crowd. This further turns casual players away.
The fact that you may not have experienced it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist :) There is actually a lot of socializing on TikTok, for example in the "BookTok" community. The format is a little different than on a message board, or IG, but it is there.
Perhaps at risk of reading too far into it, but it seems the implication is that while Tiktok is called "social media", it seems to be the exception that socialising occurs. World of Warcraft, and many similar games of that era would often be canned as anti-social, but fundamentally facilitated the pursuit of common goals and deep bonds for those otherwise isolated or barred from such engagement in other avenues.
Yep. WoW was problematic because the mainstream had already decided that the participants were problematic, not because of any careful analysis of the game's merits. TikTok is okay because the mainstream participates, not because of a careful analysis of the platform's merits.
Either way, you're doing socializing wrong. the only acceptable way of socializing is how our parents did it. In person, with lots of alcohol, and the only qualifier was physical proximity.
i was meeting with my MUD playing friends almost weekly for dinner and drinks, and the wizards met to plan work on the game. every holiday weekend we travelled to other cities to meet player friends there. i didn't drink any alcohol though. i fondly remember when a guy fell asleep during such a meeting someone attached a note to his back saying "idle", like inactive players were marked in the game.
Netflix is curated and not user created, so I’d say TikTok is more like YouTube. Then of course everyone copied the format including YouTube, IG, X, and even LinkedIn (saw this one just today). But even with that slight naming difference, I couldn’t agree more with you that MMOs are rich cultural hubs compared to endless short videos. It’s a low bar :)
I still remember playing Anarchy Online in the mid 2000s and teaming up for a few hours with a guy who'd broken his back a month or so prior. He talked about how he got so much happiness from the social interaction and a sense of helping people (he was much higher level than me) within the game when he was otherwise bedridden.
I play WoW still. It is very much a fun social group and hobby as much as it is gaming. We nerd out over the lore and shared experience in the game. It can be a very humanistic experience if that is what you want. I have played this game for 15 years now. Been with the same guild for 6 now.
Yeah that’s the key question. To actually be competitive with Linear, etc. we need client side rendering and local caching. A basic create-react-app + React Query stack feels much better than GitHub due to the constant SSR for all routing.
As an Ent user, I’m surprised to see that as the default ORM. It is graph oriented for better and for worse. No composite primary keys for ‘nodes’ and minimal use of joins (no use?) in the underlying generated SQL. The DX is great, but GORM is a better default IMO.
Nonetheless, great to see a new serious Go meta framework.
Ent heavily uses joins and does support multi field indices, you should read up on the docs. You can show the queries it’s running using a debug client.
It’s not a Graph DB under the hood and uses any normal relational db quite normally beneath the DX
Devs assume that the `With` methods are adding join clauses but that is not typically the case.
> does support multi field indices
Composite primary keys are useful for reasons other than unique constraints and query speed. For example, CockroachDB uses the primary key to partition rows. Also, at scale, an extra multi-column index in addition to the primary key when the primary key alone could have sufficed can be a meaningful performance degradation.
> not a Graph DB under the hood
No it is not, but because it has a graph ‘mindset’ and does support Gremlin, traditional SQL folks expecting a lightweight ORM (such as Drizzle in the JS world) may not have a good time.
Same here. Go community has a tendency of not using frameworks as much (which I guess is confirmed by the lack of long term maintenance for a lot of Go frameworks), compared to say Ruby. I don't think that is a bad thing. We ended up using Gorm as one of the few frameworks for our web stack and I personally have mixed feelings about it.
On the one hand, it's a very comprehensive ORM (support for different DBs and types of queries, joins, associations, etc). On the other hand, the documentation is not very good and often its behavior leaves you baffled (updates of columns and the associates in different times, for example).
Overall, I think I'd still choose an ORM over writing SQL or quasi-SQL in the code for the sake of maintainability and readability of the code. GORM is the best one around but I wish there were more options.
I don’t totally understand the target audience here. I’m sure these scams work or they wouldn’t invest so much time in running them, but who is it that 1) is into crypto, 2) is aware of OpenAI the company and its leaders and 3) falls for this extremely basic give-me-your-wallet attack?
A lot of openAI followers are just people who listen to pop-tech podcasts or watch TikTok get-rich-quick schemes. It’s not limited to programmers in the same way crypto isn’t.
I interpreted "aware" in OP as if only people truly in the know were aware of OpenAI. A lot of oblivious grandpas have probably heard of ChatGPT at this point.
Another macro point, I don't know OP's age but this vision of Silicon Valley as a tiny subset of nerds in the shadows tinkering is way out of date. The biggest public companies on the planet are all here, and a lot of people have spent the last 10+ years trying to break into tech for the monetary rewards, especially among the terminally online crypto zealots who spend all day chasing the next get quick rich scheme, which just so happens to be AI applications currently.
A lot of these people are also fundamentally clueless.
more like hundreds of thousands of dollars, and unlike ransomware, the FBI and other law enforcement does not care, so it goes under the radar especially when less famous channels are hacked.
The LTT hacker ran the classic fake Elon Musk crypto livestream that scammers have been rehashing for years. It probably says something about the kind of person who reveres Musk that they're apparently known to be marks who will easily fall for the wallet inspector routine.
> who is it that 1) is into crypto, 2) is aware of OpenAI the company and its leaders and 3) falls for this extremely basic give-me-your-wallet attack?
A surprisingly enormous amount of people who are enthusiastic about the finance side but entirely clueless about the tech side.
My other thought would be automated trading algorithms — would they be able to distinguish between a real OpenAI post and a scammer hijacking the account?
On the scam url side of things:
Sam Altman runs Worldcoin which caught on in the developing world, in some regards, despite the nonscam part of the product looking like a scam anyway. Worldcoin’s speculative value does move based on OpenAI news, not because people expect dividends or for a rich Sam to pump it, just because people want to. Developing nation sycophants are less discerning about urls. Developed nation sycophants exist too, or are lapsing in judgement at that time of day when it drops.
On the token side of things:
It has been incredibly lucrative to interact with projects without tokens. One of the main ways that tokens have been avoiding securities law issues since 2020 is to airdrop unpredictable amounts to users. What this means is that people who actually use the product or platform the most - with their funds and liquidity - get airdropped potentially disproportionate amounts of a potentially valuable token. They typically announce a “snapshot” date in the future, meaning that you have to get all your activity in early.
VC backed projects are the main ones doing this, and it has been even more lucrative to try and sybil attack these, because all of your addresses get rewarded.
People have earned millions of dollars worth of tokens, that, yes, they can immediately sell for millions of dollars. I probably made $80,000 from Uniswap airdrops in 2020, spending nothing and only using Uniswap for trading.
Scammers can take advantage of that by making a vague site you have to interact with, that drains your wallet instead of providing a service or dispensing a token. I understand that all three of those possibilities are considered a scam to people skeptical of the crypto industry. Only the draining violates the social contract and it is useful to differentiate if you want anything different to happen.
I guess there's a significant audience of people who are interested in cryptocurrency but know nothing about it.
Even as someone who likes crypto, it seems like the push for "public acceptance" of cryptocurrency starting like 8 years ago was way too early and mostly caused by price action. I also blame the "steve jobs" imagery we always see associating technological development with mass adoption, It's clear that you have to develop the a strong basic use case first before marketing to users.
The time spent discussing poltics and price of crypto and onboarding new users would be better spent developing the core technology and creating simple real-world markets that use cryptocurrency. Instead, cryptocurrency is getting outmoded by the likes of "dumb" systems like CashApp and more competitive inter-bank systems like Plaid.
The mass of uneducated users in cryptocurrency space is a major problem because it does not allow the open-source development process to be democratic. That requires a userbase that is proactive about change and willing to undergo Hard-Forks that respect the users at large (against other interest groups like Miners, Owners, etc.).
>The mass of uneducated users in cryptocurrency space is a major problem
Maybe I'm too cynical, but from my perspective, the mass of uneducated users is literally by design. They are people who early adopters wanted in so the price would go up without too much hassle of really explaining what was happening. Something, something, bag holders?
The problem is that you are conflating the users with the owners. You can own cryptocurrency on an exchange or make a couple transactions to hold your funds in a wallet, but that is not really being a user.
Users use cryptocurrency for real transactions and ultimately derive actual economic value from the convenience of the network. If a cryptocurrency has a lot of users, the price will be more stable and the fee model will hold up in the long term. Users do not necessarily have a lot of funds.
Owners only get value by on-boarding more owners, so they can sell and stop being owners, which is ultimately zero-sum (actually less than zero-sum because someone has to pay the miners).
The problem with pretty much every cryptocurrency that exists is that there are more owners than users, and the owners have more power than users. But the long-term success of the system relies on users.
Techbros who are chasing the next get rich quick scheme and who often fail to question/critically evaluate dumb or blatantly false statements from their perceived figures of authority/celebrities.
All the same techbros who were into NFTs a couple of years back, and DAOs before that, and various Etherium shitcoins before that, and Bitcoin before that.
(And some of who are in leadership positions at OpenAI now.)
There are plenty of MAGA-like people here in Not-America, and like their MAGA counterparts, they do tend to congregate in the social media once known as Twitter.
There's a certain kind of ideological alignment there, as odd as it may be.
Yeah, I guess in my circles the term MAGA is abused to point at people who are not quite nazi's but want 'other stuff' but don't have the mental capacity to formulate what that is or how it would work (except racism and violence, but even that is not quite ... well ... coherent). For instance in my home country NL, my friends now group 'tokkies' (people who are rude, have a garbage heap in their garden and like to beat and shoot things) and 'wappies' (conspiracy nuts) as MAGA as it's the same kind of 1 braincell carrying kind of people.
I personally don't quite know how to handle them as it's basically more sad than anything; before the internet I didn't know that many of these people existed in my country. Let alone that they can get voted into government and make policy (well... policy... anyway). In the 80s we had 1 guy; JanMaat and he was a joke of a person; no-one took him in any way seriously, so there was no way extreme right would get anywhere with this slackjawed idiot at the helm. Now these people get voted in... How?
