It doesn't look like you have. I watched the demo video "GUN Survives a Primary Fault" and the conflicting updates were resolved with a LWW semantic, which is non-deterministic.
(EDIT: I read some docs, and it looks conflicts are resolved by choosing the highest lexical order of the value. So, apologies for the assumption. I assumed LWW because the BBBBBB update was seen last after the fault was resolved. Nonetheless, I think it is interesting you're treating the browser as a peer in the system, and not simply a client)
> this is now available to developers - with or without the academic side.
I don't understand this attitude. Working closely with academics ought to be what industry strives for. They take the time to research, formalize theorems and write proofs to advance the current state of the art in Computer Science. This research helps move industry forward. A tight relationship between industry and academia is mutually beneficial, for what should be obvious reasons.
managing the # of actors, safely dealing with tombstones and reducing space complexity are just a few reasons why one might want CRDTs on the server side.
CRDTs can either be commutative or convergent; much of industry and academia have settled on the opaque "conflict-free" instead of CmRDT/CvRDT for simplicity
I was speaking with Eric Redmond about this conference last week. Sounds more interesting than a conference about writing documentation might initially appear to be.
Calling the game market "sinister" borders on hyperbole.
Horia Dragomir and Stephanie Kaiser from Wooga gave a presentation[0] on metrics driven game development at GOTO Copenhagen earlier this year. Through the lens of one of their more popular franchises "Monster World", they discussed, among other things, A/B testing and the surprisingly short life (days to weeks) of a game feature before it becomes irrelevant. Nothing in their talk suggested late night meetings in dark corners, plotting to turn their users into addicts. Rather, they discussed adapting to rapidly changing trends and patterns--which sometimes but not always included introducing new in-game purchase items.
If on the surface the game industry as a whole appears to you to be an online equivalent of a casino, thats fine. What I see are dedicated and passionate engineers trying to ensure the survival a product in which they've dedicated years of their lives to getting right, by employing many of the same techniques nearly every other user facing tech company uses everyday, and I for one am not ready to cast the first stone and accuse entire industries of moral bankruptcy.
>> A very small percentage of people buy stuff in games. Of this small percentage you have people who will spend a LOT. These are your die hard fans. I know, because I am one of them and won’t bat an eye spending $50 in a game I like.
I would love to analyze the in-game purchase data across multiple free-to-play games on multiple platforms (e.g. facebook, app store, etc) in order to see the distribution of user spending habits. While I'm sure there are power users who spend magnitudes more than the average, I'm skeptical that they're the main driver of revenue. What I'd like to see is the average % of users who make in-game purchases, the average in-game purchase over time, frequency of purchases and what % of total revenue the average represents.
Unfortunately, I don't think Zynga et al will be releasing this data publicly anytime soon.
That video should be available within a few weeks, so stay tuned.
Also, Anthony Molinaro from OpenX will be speaking at RICON, the distributed systems developer conference we're hosting i October. Tickets are still available :)
Ethics aside, an employer asking for login access to your Facebook profile is a violation of Facebook's TOS.
That being said, I don't care how difficult the job market is--if a potential employer demonstrates that they have no regard for your personal privacy during the interview process, you should thank them for their time, smile and never look back.
"Ambition is key because he[Bill Gates] could have left Microsoft much earlier, and moved on to do anything else he wanted as extremely wealthy man. He was already a billionaire when he chose to stay, and turned Microsoft into an empire."
Value creates opportunity.
I'm not suggesting that Bill Gates wasn't/isn't ambitious, but if one of your ventures has made you a billionaire I'd imagine it be much easier to stay on board and see how far you can ride that train.
I've always felt a little conflicted regarding term limits. While they are one possible solution for cutting dead weight, the problem is you also end up needlessly firing people who do a good job.
