I know. And I'm sorry, bitterly sorry, but I know that... no apologies I can make can alter the fact that in our thread you have been given a dirty, filthy, smelly piece of technical argument.
Those optimizers you are fighting with have thousands of man hours of research behind them. For every silly choice they make, they make hundreds or thousands of correct ones.
You are either being dishonest or just patently out of your mind if you think that you can query 100MB and 100PB in the same way. That's not even reasonable by HN standards of hyperbole. Do you have any idea how many orders of magnitude that is?
Except for the fact that you can explicitly contain the potential damage by controlling which accounts can do what. It's not like you have to have one god account with no MFA that has the keys to the city.
Not trying to be snarky, but why on Earth would I mind that my government is trying to prevent a rival government from gaining nuclear capability? World politics are what they are, and they are unavoidable, so my preference is that we do anything necessary to stay in a position of leadership. Would you prefer different if you were us?
That is total bullshit and you know it. This whole culture of self-loathing was cute at the beginning, but it's descended into absolute absurdity. You are patently out of your mind if you actually believe what you wrote. You don't, of course, but what's a little hyperbole when you're posturing for imaginary geek cred points on a website amirite?
This is a good thing even for those outside of San Antonio proper. I was able to upgrade to 1 Gbps on a small-time ISP this weekend, and it's because Google is coming to the large city near me. Competition is a wonderful thing.
> I'll be over here riding out the inevitable with my own file sync, git server, chat server, web server, and making my internet how I want it to be
To me, this is exactly why we're not headed for an internet-solely-comprised-of-walled-gardens scenario. There will be plenty for sure, but the pathways will still be open and we netizens can connect whatever we like with them. This is why I am still excited about it, even after 20 years.
> when the last user of it finally gives up and moves to gmail so they can continue to communicate with their contacts or maybe they give up entirely
Between the title and the quoted, I think you have used up your hyperbole quota for one day.
I guess I don't see the issue. The internet is a large piece of infrastructure on which citizens and companies can publish (almost) anything they want. Lamenting that for-profit ventures have tried to wall off their parts is curious, as I am not sure how that impacts me or my decisions. I don't facebook, I don't tweet, and I could not care less that these things exist. (Not entirely true, but my objections to them would be off-topic.) The world is a very large place, and there will always be people who hang out in the more distant corners of the net, you can go be with like-minded people and talk about the good ole days of (insert bygone era here).
Now if you are lamenting this because you want a piece of the action and the big kids are being bullies, then I suppose my answer isn't going to comfort you any. But for just simple usage, I think this is a tempest in a teapot.
There are lots of good sibling comments to this one, but I want to get one more point in before we all move on.
Spending an hour yielding to something larger than yourself is probably good for the soul and definitely good for the ego. You can walk into almost any church, and there you will find a quiet space where you can meditate/pray. You can find a sort of comfort in its 2000 year history, and in the myths/rituals of our past and the people who believe in them. If you are made to feel uncomfortable, then try another one or stop going altogether, there are literally zero negative consequences to it.
The point of this is that you don't have to swear an oath to little baby jesus to get a benefit from a modernized church. You can make of it what you want, they won't mind in the least.
If you join a fundamentalist cult, then yes. Lots of modern churches are non-denominational and quite relaxed. In fact, they are surprisingly similar to the entity being described in the article.
I liked the article, but this is like the cultural equivalent of Not Invented Here. Does it really matter that organized Christianity believes that a guy woke up from the dead? If you want a sense of community and the rituals that go along with it, then you could absolutely join a church of your choosing and just not believe in zombie messiahs.
The wife and I have been talking about this at great length as of late. We are not wired to believe in the supernatural, but I am having a hard time coming up with reasons why that would prevent us from finding a church to go to. It does limit which churches might be accepting of us, as I will not be handling snakes or washing anyone's feet. But as churches get more and more devoid of fundamentalism (a survival maneuver), they become more and more like the thing being talked about in the fine article. Maybe it'll all meet in the middle one day.
We have a POC running where we stream web hit data onto HDFS in near real time (several seconds of latency perhaps). There's no reason to think you couldn't do it with other streams of data as well.
edit: Not sure about Salesforce specifically, sorry if this is too far off topic.
> separately managed relational dbs all over the place
On the BI side, this is overwhelmingly the outcome for large companies. The business units get silo'ed, they build their fiefdoms, a consolidation project gets kicked off and fails, rinse, repeat. Even if the consolidation succeeds, it takes extremely strong leadership to keep it from devolving right back to silos. The tech is not the cause of this problem, so I don't foresee it being the solution to it either.
The enterprise I work for won't touch cloud with a 10 foot pole, and I know this because we literally got told to quit asking about it. :)
So yes, even we are building out a pretty beefy internal Hadoop cluster, so I would never say that it will be all-relational-all-the-time. But my point was more that there will be copious amounts of SSAS cubes and Oracle warehouses for the foreseeable future. They work great for their use cases and they have well known problems with well known solutions. Doing what Twitter's team is doing when you aren't Twitter might not be the best idea for everyone, after all.
In our case, we use Teradata for our work and it's quite capable of handling very large workloads, and thus we currently have no plans to spin it down in favor of the new hotness. (Even though the new Hadoop cluster positively dwarfs our TD appliance.) I'd say we have a mixture of both on the horizon, if only because our DBAs are less than cooperative about Java UDFs, so Hadoop is the easiest way for us to do complex processing against our fairly large data set.
Also, I hope you aren't a Python dev in your spare time. Guido would be appalled.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EdzqTGmEcZE