Well my platform is n number of $20 linodes to start. I'm clustering the python application across them using uwsgi+nginx (all I have to do is add an IP address in the config to scale), it's going to be a given that I shard the database across them as well. If you feel I should avoid Mongo would you recommend Cassandra instead?
Regardless, I think my initial question regarding when to denormalize data applies to any database including scaled MySQL, but perhaps was a better question for stackoverflow.
Looking for a way to hands-free scale very cheaply without vendor lockin. Would be nice if I can simply add another machine to the database to the cluster. And not have to generate the ids in the application layer, use hashing algo to select correct machine, and have everything stop working when a single database goes down. Seems like it should be a solved problem by now. Investigating new tech won't set me back much time, and my MySQL queries aren't going to disappear if I don't like it. Furthermore looking at large sites such as Flickr that massively scaled MySQL it seems like they stopped using its relational features anyway.
I am investigating replacing MySQL with MongoDB in my model layer for my next prototype.
My mind is still thinking in 3NF though. I understand dernormalization and avoiding joins will be useful from a performance standpoint. However I am unsure when to either go ahead and include a foreign key, retrieve it and perform a second query from the application layer, and when to go ahead and duplicate\embed all the field data. I'm leaning towards just making 2 simple sequential key lookup queries, the 2nd on the retrieved foreign key, rather than duplicating fields everywhere and keeping track of massively cascading changes. Instead of performing 1 MySQL Join. Although I usually think in terms of minimizing roundtrips to the database server.
Wondering if anyone has a heuristic for this or suggested reading?
Do HNers still watch TV?
I stopped paying for TV ~ 2 years ago and find it mildly nauseating when I visit relatives and they want to have it on in the background.
> wealth would be 'the ability to follow curiosities and interests, whatever they may be.'
How would you differentiate between the terms wealth, freedom, and happiness (or do you consider them interchangeable)?
I think from those 3, 'wealth' has the heaviest connotation of objective comparability and applicability to organizations in addition to individuals. (ex. a wealthy company or a wealthy country)
Wealth is the ability of an entity to create change.
Skills you know, your business network, your emotional support network, assets you can exchange.
People with great wealth can affect the world in profoundly positive or negative ways. In other words, wealth is closely tied to the notion of power.
A member of congress who has relatively low networth could have as much financial influence as Bill Gates. While this power is not as liquid or easy to exchange as cash, it is still exchangeable and a store of value.
[ To directly answer the OP: No we should not exclude speculation, everything is speculation to some small degree. Even holding everything in cash is a speculation on that nation's currency. We'd have to use other measures to estimate expected security\longevity, like liquidity of assets. ]
> their backers were betting that Mr Obama would push through an energy bill that would force America to embrace alternative sources of energy more aggressively.
Give him a break, getting healthcare reform passed already involved flame-baiting half of congress to the extreme. There's a thing called filibustering that massively slows down all legislature once anyone bill becomes flame-baitable enough. There is no way any president could have halted the greatest financial collapse since the great depression, passed education reform, passed healthcare reform, AND also gotten to a new energy\immigration policy in 18 months, while filibustering exists, without assuming dictatorial power.
"Gains" obviously did not refer to strictly cash. Gains refers to anything you value. Cash is just a tool. I would go further than you and say the vast majority of entrepreneurs seek autonomy. Use occam's razor when interpreting the statements of others.
I studied cognitive psychology not economics ;) I'm familiar with the topics your bringing up and agree they're interesting but also think they are irrelevant to the issue of correlation vs causation and the red herring of "risk" when looking at what motivates entrepreneurs.
If you want to go to Kahneman & Tversky, yes different heuristics people may use for estimating risk and reward are probably biased estimators (although I hope all pirate-entrepreneurs are using a little math and obtaining feedback ). That certainly does not mean risk, independent of gains, becomes intrinsic utility for the non-masochistic.
>What I think is wrong is to take only a single terminology
Utility is a basic textbook economics term and the context of Arrington's article. Also, Arrington was an economics major. I think sticking to one terminology is highly preferable over acontextual obscurism.
You seem to be implying a mountain climber makes no gains by tackling Mt. Everest. The risk is not what is preferred, the sense of accomplishment and fulfillment is what is preferred. Without gains to be had, the mountain climber would cease to choose decreased lifespan unless they intrinsically enjoyed suffering.
> What if exploring the boundaries of your capability, your talents, was its own reward?
Then you're gaining something (discovery of new assets, freedom, happiness, sense of accomplishment, self-actualization, etc.) and seeking to maximize gains. Risk does not magically become utility. If gains are held constant, nearly everyone chooses the one with less risk because it has a higher expected value. Entrepreneurs are gain maximizers. Risk is only _ utility _ in the case of masochism.
> They don’t need to be rewarded for risk, because they actually get utility out of risk itself. In other words, they like adventure.
Completely flawed. Every sane person seeks to reduce risk. What entrepreneurs also seek is to maximize gains. Increased risk is merely often required to do so.
On one hand you want to avoid trolls, but on the other hand you want to avoid a circle-jerk and "my boss can google everything I wrote" timidity and un-hackerish conformism. Tending toward either extreme can disincentivize thoughtful discussion and negatively impact a community. So I would be hesitant to declare that a safe assumption.
Seems unnecessary considering some of the most thoughtful discussions come from throw-away accounts doing Tell\Ask HN. It could also exacerbate other issues: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
[ ie. comment upvotes co-vary with name of commenter instead of content communicated ]
keep track of submission karma and comment karma separately. People should not be able to downvote in comments unless they have earned the karma threshold required to do so from comments.
Ex [of what to prevent]. someone submits the latest tech-crunch article first and gets upvotes from everyone else trying to submit it. They can then downvote in comments without first being subjected to a socialization period of earning upvotes from thoughtful comments.
> a sort of wildly self-improving problem-solving algorithm that has no real consciousness and simply goes on an optimization rampage through the world
Regardless, I think my initial question regarding when to denormalize data applies to any database including scaled MySQL, but perhaps was a better question for stackoverflow.