> "My 5 year old would respond with a better comeback""No. We is the arrogant, opinionated "power users" and tech-commenters that think that the know what is best for everyone else."
What are you doing? Why is this discussion so triggering for you? You made the initial accusation and failed to see that it describes you.
The "we" is the commenters here talking about features they want, representing themselves and others, just like millions of other users who also have their own specific needs. The discussion is about why these features should exist, the benefits they bring, and the effects they might have.
Do we need to poll a billion users to discuss any functionality? Isn't Apple itself also just a few people deciding on changes that affect billions, while adding features that might only support a small minority? If someone says they want bigger buttons or slower animations, is that invalid because they're saying "what is best for everyone else" or are they just talking about what they want and why?
> "I'm siding with the status quo"
Cool, so just say that and make your argument. Many others have said similar things and there's been plenty of discussion about how this would affect the vast majority. But why get upset and call everyone arrogant because they have a different need or opinion? That's neither helpful nor productive.
> "At least I know not to invest in your fund, especially given your aversion to businesses that make money."
This is juvenile. Maybe take a break from the internet if you need to make personal attacks over this. We're also not open to outside money, perhaps if you weren't anonymous we can help you with investments more fit for you.
> "I also have a problem with a self-appointed tech commenters deciding what is best for everyone else due to their own biases."
This sounds like you.
> "but let's not pretend there are no other choices."
Nobody is confused by the current choices. Saying that the iPhone can't do the thing today that we want it to do in the future is just repeating a fact that is literally the reason for the discussion in the first place.
And yes it's strange to take the side of a trillion-dollar megacorp instead of users, especially considering the size and power of such a company.
There are hundreds of factors for each company and application. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn’t, but it’s rarely as simple as retail prices.
Even the same number of "technical specialists" doesn't mean it's the same if one option lets you move faster or remain more reliable.
Using vague terms like "the platform" are not useful. What does an operating system like "iOS/iPad OS" have to do with the "iOS/iPad ecosystem"? You're not clear even in your own reply. Please try to be more precise.
I'll assume what you're really asking is from the perspective of Apple since the benefit for users is clear - it'll help make more apps available which has network effects of more Apple devices and usage.
Nobody here is confused. We know what devices we bought, and we know what they do and don't support today. That's the point. Otherwise there wouldn't be a discussion in the first place to talk about what they can, and likely should do.
And that's what this is - a discussion (on a discussion forum). If you're upset that you people don't share your views, the problem is squarely on your side. Plenty of people can understand and discuss the topic though.
Because the scale of these companies gives them immense power and control over people's devices and (digital) lives. The size of the corporation leads to a geometric increase of power through network effects.
Now that you have an answer, what are you actually trying to ask? Do you have an issue with megacorps providing more control to users?
That has nothing to do with Kafka, or Java as a language.
Distributed big data processing systems need big data to actually be useful. Small data that fits on a single machine can also be processed on a single machine, which will always be faster than using a cluster with orchestration, distribution and network overhead.
Cassandra (and ScyllaDB which is the same data model) allow for customizable consistency level on a per-query basis. You can send 1 write with only one node confirming while sending another requiring full cluster acknowledgement.
Object storage is a higher-level abstraction than block-storage. FUSE and similar tech can do the job for basic requirements like read-only access by legacy applications but rarely works well for other scenarios.
A more complex layer like https://objectivefs.com/ (based on the S3 API) would be more useful, although I would've expected the cloud providers to scale their own block-store/SANs backed with object-stores by now.
Dropbox became popular because, from the perspective of 99% of users, it provides an incredibly simple and effective UX for syncing files across devices and locations. And better UX is enough to be a billion-dollar company.