My issue with lack of moderation in social media is not the political polarization. My issue is the blatant scams pushed by bots, or by questionable companies paying sub celebrity influencers.
Criminals are not willing to have rational conversations. But they just won a free pass from the platforms.
That very in order guarantee is the issue. It can't know exactly where the connection died, which means that the client must inform the last time it received an update, and the server must then crawl back a log to find the pending messages and redispatch them.
At this point, long polling seems to carry more benefits, IMHO. WebSockets seem to be excellent for stable conditions, but not quite what we need for mobile.
Connections are dropped all the time, and then your code, on both client and server, need to account for retries (will the reconnection use a cached DNS entry? how will load balancing affect long term connections?), potentially missed events (now you need a delta between pings), DDoS protections (is this the same client connecting from 7 IPs in a row or is this a botnet), and so on.
Regular polling great reduces complexity on some of these points.
My personal theory (which is also baseless speculation) is that we use intuition to consider the decision pipeline closed and the matter settled. We keep at it until it feels right.
In this representation, "system 1" is simply an early pipeline decision, where one intuitively feels that it is the correct decision immediately. And if a satisfying decision doesn't come up, we keep looping over the decision, adding more factors, until we finally find the factors that make our intuition agree with it and close the matter. The longer we try to find a satisfactory decision, the more factors we try out, and therefore, someone came up with "system 2", but I see "system 2" as a particularly bad misrepresentation: it is still the same system looping, we are just staying in it longer.
The source of my theory is the interesting effect of a broken intuition: OCD sufferers are unable to break from this cycle, and even when intellectually satisfied with a conclusion, they perceive their brains as "stuck" in the question.
So fundamentally, I agree with your general idea: intuition plays a major role in this system, and when it breaks, people get paralyzed in it, no matter how good the decision is intellectually. My only point is that there is no division of systems. It's one single subsystem, integrated with many others, forming one single blackbox entity. The fast/slow thinking framework is a misrepresentation that doesn't really help one understand people's behaviors. It's a bad map.
> most notably that many of the properties attributed to System 1 and System 2 don’t actually line up with the evidence, that dual-process theories are largely unfalsifiable, and that most of the claimed support for them is “confirmation bias at work”
The article absolutely does not agree that S1 is lower cost than S2, as the article does not agree that S2 exists at all.
My understanding was that System 1/System 2 thinking is unproven conjecture[1] that can't even be replicated[2]. It would be unwise to analyse behaviour using this framework.
We tend to be pushed towards immigration because of a lack of safety, of growth opportunities, and no hope that things will get any better.
With that in mind, if Latin America had safety, I suspect at least half of the immigrants wouldn't leave, especially the ones who are able to hold a middle class job.
Most of us would live in a lower standard of life if it allowed to stay close to friends and family. But not being able to walk down the street bears a heavy weight on our anxieties.
Not parent, but I have a similar impression. Design patterns, clean code, and several of these well known tools were particularly useful during C++ and early Java eras, where footguns were abundant, and we had very little discussion about them - the Internet was a much smaller place back then. Most of the developer work was around building and maintaining huge code bases, be it desktop or server, monoliths were mostly the only game. And many initiatives grew trying to tame the inherent hazard.
I think that microservices (or at least, smaller services) and modern languages allow the code to stay more manageable, to the point where Java devs now are able to dismiss Spring and go for a much simpler Quarkus.
> Like with everything else, using your brain cells can quickly make you realize it's a lot more than "gambling"
Which sounds similar to how gambling addicts report their thoughts on their addiction - that they are smart enough to learn poker, or they know enough basketball to be able to predict outcomes.
Like with everything else, some research and data interpretation shows that with the remarkable exception of two or three highly specialized companies that employ some of the best mathematicians alive, most active investors underperform.
Because it is a fantastic movie, with fascinating characters, a thrilling storyline, and full of interesting concepts.
The popcorn and soda public loved it - it was the highest grossing movie in 2017.
There is no mystery in its rave reviews. Both critics and general public enjoyed it. The vicious hate this movie gets is from Star Wars fans only. Nobody hates Star Wars as much as its fans.
I think the issue is that bringing the application down might mean cutting short concurrent ongoing requests, especially requests that will result in data mutation of some sort.
Otherwise, some situations simply don't warrant a full shutdown, and it might be okay to run the application in degraded mode.
Taxi doors already automatically open and close in major Japanese metro areas.
There is a certain romance around good service, but the good service is not the reason why people use taxis here.
One could make a similar argument that self service restaurants serving revolving sushi, or tablet ordered sushi miss the good service of a great restaurant. Yet these places are wildly popular, because one goes there to eat.