No, I mean that many motorist lives would be saved if they all literally wore helmets. They should be required to. Airbags and roll cages help, but they are (obviously) insufficient on their own to prevent the 20k car deaths every year.
I'm not sure this is such good advice. It means you're guaranteed to miss out on high appreciation of anything but the largest coins. That's all well and good for a less volatile scenario like the stock market where the top20 is pretty well correlated with the top2000. But given the volatility of digital assets, i would worry that this strategy leaves more on the table.
> Given that stop-the-world pauses are never evenly distributed throughout time
That is not a given. And, even distribution is only part of the equation. If they are sufficiently short, then even being somewhat unevenly distributed should not have much of an impact on latency. For example, if the max length of a pause were 1ms, and 99p latency were 15ms, you'd have to be fairly unlucky to see a 33% increase in latency99 due to GC. That would entail 5 of 25 pauses happening during a 20ms period in a 1s window.
(This idea is not purely hypothetical. For example, Go's GC has very low STW periods.)
> It's pretty much accepted everywhere
Eh. Apparently everyone thinks C is the best language for cryptography and other secure but not particularly perf sensitive code. Go figure. Sometimes the wisdom of the masses is not wisdom. Best not to appeal to it during argumentation.
Overall latency is important. Where it comes from isn't very important. Transferring data a few light-nanos of distance into or out of a colocated Mongo DB instance simply isn't going to move the needle on any important metric. (Disk IO latency might, but that has little to do with the speed of light.)
Technically the tithe is to be given to the church. Charity giving is above and beyond that. And you are supposed to tithe out of your gross income -- your "first-fruits." It's an expensive habit! One of the many reasons I'm glad to no longer be religious.
Also I think that the evidence doesn't really support the idea that having too much money is bad for your happiness.
I don't mean to be too flippant, but isn't this whole article an instance of exactly what the author is complaining about? Let's have good managers rather than bad ones. Good managers trust their reports to tell them the constraints of the work and factor that into the team's strategy. Being conversant in the underlying task helps a lot with that, but there are plenty of managers who come from an engineering background who make the same mistakes the author laments.
I think what's concerning is that advertising that an app is in a sandbox suggests to those out of the know that they can use it safely. They expect that the integrity and privacy of their information will be preserved. That expectation does not exist with ordinary win32 or Linux programs.
Are windows store apps sandboxed? If so, is it trivially easy to do this with those? Or is it just win32?
Theorems are all well and good, but ultimately the thing that matters is the experience of using the system "IRL" as the kids say. If spanner is up 99.99% of the time, and is consistent at all times, it is probably not going to be the weak link in your software chain.
(Fwiw their slo for multi-regional instances is 99.999%, although I have no idea what their measured performance is against that objective.)
The first slide, which names the presenting company as "[redacted] data broker llc" already had my bullshit alarms firing. Does someone really name their company that? Who would trust such a company?