I think those products are much better than k8s for many use cases, but I don’t think that anybody has really delivered the right thing in that space yet.
It's not a mistake to value your time to be worth more than "listening to Stephen Wolfram"
I think all the ad hominem you see in here are from people who waste too many precious hours of their life listening to him. I know I am: I spent weeks as a young teen over NKS when it came out. Wasn't as revelatory as he kept insisting it was. Turned me off of cellular automata.
I respect the work that he's done and the contributions he's given to humanity but for once I would like to see something by Stephen Wolfram that didn't involve at least 50% of the content being a form of self-aggrandizement.
I find that everything I try to consume from him contains his autobiography interspersed in the giant wall of text. This video is exquisitely cringeworthy.
blah blah (which I did in 1988) blah blah (which I completed in 1992).
He has no collaborators. He gives no credit to others. He just relentlessly names things after himself, takes singular credit for everything, and name-drops other famous scientists he bumped into.
I genuinely find the wolfram physics project interesting, but the behavior of wolfram himself sets off all my bullshit alarms.
I suspect that it will be someone else that will take these ideas over the finish line. He seems completely oblivious to the fact that his behavior makes it harder to take the ideas seriously.
My gateway to the ideas was Jonathan Gorard. Check out his videos if you are curious, they are much more accessible than Wolfram's own content.
But it takes a leader to assemble a village around a cause.
I do appreciate your take. The village deserves credit for the work they've done.
But, at the same time, for many folks I see "well actuallyed" for their achievements because of the village... I don't think the change would have manifested in the world if the village didn't have that person.
An example I see more frequently now is that a market for electric cars wasn't willed into existence by Elon. There are variations of this claim, from him not being the original founder to the huge number of employees involved with Tesla's accomplishments.
But, at the end of the day, I have zero reason to believe Mercedes Benz would be releasing an electric car if Elon had decided to take his market winnings and go sit on a beach.
I have no reason to characterize the wolfram language, and its ecosystem, as anything other than a magnum opus that was willed into existence by Wolfram.
I'm open to being wrong here. But I've not yet learned why I am.
If an evil villain crushes a man's spine and the man develops technology to get revenge that allows him to walk, does that make the act of crushing his spine not evil?
I think in your example the evil villain set out to crush a man's spine, not to develop an exoskeleton to help people walk? And they are introduced upfront as an evil villain.
Wouldn't this be a more appropriate analogy:
If a person decides to will an exoskeleton into existence to help people walk, and builds a techno-capital machine capable of supporting the team necessary make it happen, is the act of building the exoskeleton not evil?
His book "A new kind of science" is quite fascinating and has some interesting ideas about cellular automata. But I couldn't finish it because of how every few pages there is something about how great the author/his ideas are.
Famously, without a bibliography. Odd choice for a book claiming to be a substantial field-defining scientific work.
A few years later a list of "books that have been added to his permanent collection" appeared in lieu of a bibliography. It's pretty good but perhaps too comprehensive. https://www.wolframscience.com/reference/books/
This is the reasoning from the link above, which I post without comment.
> I always consider history important—both for giving credit and for letting one better understand the context of ideas.... I resolved that rather than just throwing in disembodied references, I would actually do the work of trying to unravel and explain the detailed histories of things.
> And the result was that of the nearly 300,000 words of notes at the back of the book, a significant fraction are about history. I did countless hours of (often fascinating) primary interviews and went through endless archives—and in the end was rather proud of the level of historical scholarship I managed to achieve. And when it came to traditional references I figured that rather than using yet more printed pages, I should just include in the notes appropriate names and keywords, from which anyone—even with the state of web search in 2002—could readily find whatever primary literature they wanted, at greater depth and more conveniently than from lists of journal page numbers.
The article and the comments here don't make it clear why running it in production shouldn't be done. If slow_query is already running in production, why would running EXPLAIN ANALYZE slow_query be bad?
Is the overhead of running EXPLAIN ANALYZE so much worse than running slow_query itself?
No, it's really not, and that's why I say it must sometimes be done. Certainly if you're running tens or hundreds of copies of the query per minute, one more won't hurt (much).
The real problem you run into is when the query in question is doing something pathologically bad - locking a bunch of tables and then grinding away for an hour, which effectively is a denial of service attack.
one thing to consider is the person who needs to run explain analyze may not have any access whatsoever to the production database. Also, there may be no process in place to get someone to run it on prod on their behalf. Finally, if there is a DBA on production they may just say no.
