But you don't have a way to figure out what your competitors are charging and have automated systems find the maximum you can extract without losing the customer
Not a user of this particular database, but in event sourcing you dont typically do updates like that? You just add events to the stream.
Is this not a lock per event stream? That would make a lot of sense and make the blocking not an issue as concurrent writes don't work well in that paradigm anyway.
> Since such writes are evaluated one after the other, writes that carry such a precondition more often than their query takes make every write wait longer and longer, up to five seconds for each of them ahead of it: keep them rare, or bound the query by event ID or by time where the rule you check allows it.
I guess having a generic precondition could be useful but in general for event sourcing systems the "lock" would usually just be to validate the current state and make sure that no other state was written since the current state was read.
Supporting anything for 8 years is a huge commitment. That means 8 concurrent versions needing at least some work all the time.
I think Microsoft regretted those long (10 years) support guarantees they had for .net framework. In the end, it probably slows you down in terms of innovating
Given .NET's release cadence, 7-8 years of LTS would mean 5 concurrent versions: 1 STS release and 4 LTS releases. This is still a lot of old versions to keep updating, of course.
Anyway, the critique was less about the exact length of LTS, and more about the lack of significant difference between LTS and STS.
Not the person your replied to, but I'm in the same position.
No? Unless you consider an HOA the government. Why would the make this hard? I now quite a few that will subsidize it. Fill in some paperwork, submit it along with the invoice and wait a few weeks/months for some free money back.
> Then the market is kind of putting their faith in giving Tesla 10 years to apply the same playbook to humanoid robots and all of the jobs that that _could_ replace
So when I go for a coffee, I don't go to the place where it's a dollar less expensive because it has a robot...
I'm not convinced we wanted to be helped by a robot, even if it does the same thing.
So the economics might be there.... But that's not the whole story, this isn't automating a production line...
It won’t be a dollar less. The large companies that currently have the massive share even though they charge more will all go for robots and will simply increase their profits.
Uber and Airbnb are unambiguous good for the world?
You might want to look up Barcelona and the issues airbnb causes there. Basically it follows out the cities as you can make way more money doing Airbnb than renting to people living/working there.
As to Uber, I'm not sure if the driver experience is unambiguous good. For some, sure. For the ones that depend on it, I'm sure they'll disagree
> Uber drivers are welcome to no longer drive for uber if they don’t enjoy the experience.
Are they?
The drivers have a certain set of capital and skills, and Uber (and to a lesser extent, Lyft) have created a near-monopoly on the market to buy services produced using that capital and skills. Since the ability to execute a transaction in that market is severely compromised if you don't work by Uber's rules, you are effectively outside of the marketplace if you no longer drive for Uber. You make no money. You go broke. You don't have the capital necessary to effectively compete in the market for giving rides in exchange for money. They own your skills and capital in all but the legal sense.
If there were either real, multi-company competition for Uber's market share, or a larger amount of regulation upon their monopoly, it'd be a different story.
Of course, there are people who think that monopolies are good, but that seems to be counterintuitive to anyone with a basic grasp of human nature and history.
Why don't we make another Uber, a third and fourth and fifth Uber until prices converge to the market optimum?
This isn't a rhetorical question. As far as I know there are only two globally - Uber and Lyft. If most of what you need is a web server and a lawyer, shouldn't there be ten of these in every city?
"Car" and "follow GPS" are a set of capital and skills shared by most adults. Uber doesn't own most adults. You're supposed to have marketable skills on top of that.
The skill of knowing all the roads stopped being important a decade or two before Uber even started.
> Uber drivers are welcome to no longer drive for uber if they don’t enjoy the experience.
This is obviously a fallacy under our current economic system; workers are not "free to choose whatever job/occupation" they'd like. Their circumstances (material conditions) dictate what they can and cannot do for work, and in some places, driving for Uber is about it, at least for a part time gig that can fit around a primary job (since many Americans at least must work in excess of 50 hours a week to afford food and rent).
So, instead of punching down and saying "man, just get a better job" we could recognize the realities of the world and hope we can make the conditions of drivers better. Uber, or a system like it, at least if we are forced to have car-centric infrastructure, should be a net good. At the moment it is not.
I dunno. This is a job that didn't exist until recently. Society isn't structured around it and I don't think it's punching down to say people can skip that specific job.
It should have more protections too, I'm not arguing against those. I just think "it's the only job some people can get" is often a bad argument. And it's often used to perpetuate bad systems.
Things existing generally can't be ignored as their mere existence can have higher-order effects. For example your landlord can now raise your rent higher and say "why don't you just drive Uber to pay this", and even if he doesn't actually say that, people's extra Uber income still raises the average amount that people can pay for rent, which raises the amount that landlords can charge for rent and still fill their apartments.
That is not at all how it works in practice though. Where I live, Uber has basically fixed the rate of all taxi companies. Effectively, if you order an Uber, you will 80% of the time get a normal taxi, except they earn less.
While it's often a scapegoat for lack of construction, it does contribute to a lack of housing. It's not an unambiguous good, especially when you look at the hosts that have more than 1-2 houses.
Barcelona's at something like 1.2% empty housing and a similar amount of Airbnb locations if these Google results can be trusted. Let's say we want 10% more housing. If shutting down Airbnb would put just 1/4 of those locations on the market, that would be 0.3% of the market or 3% of the goal. That's not a meaningless amount. It's not your flashlight's roughly 0.00000000000001% of 100PWh per full charge.
Also, prices are set on the margins. Everyone who lives there has to pay a competitive rate to AirBNB because otherwise their landlord would just evict them and make it an AirBNB instead.
(Competitive doesn't mean the same price per night - there's also factors of cleaning and occupancy rate)
reply