DBOS is much less complexity compared to Temporal. That’s the benefit.
Main tradeoff is lower performance. Or at least, you’re going to be limited to what you can push through Postgres. If that’s sufficient for your needs DBOS is great.
> we are transferring value from our current standard of living to pay for retirement checks
Isn’t this just what happens when you have an inverted pyramid (older population is larger than the younger population)?
> One can argue that PEs make the business more efficient
I’ve never seen it (I agree with you). To improve something they’d have to understand the business and do a bunch of work. Mostly they show up at quarterly meetings and want spreadsheets that measure some number that will go up (regardless if that number means anything).
I was thinking that Covid and widespread antivaxxer mentality would have.
But no. This will be the latest ladder-pull by the boomers and silents to extract the last bit of wealth from all the younger generations. And this will impoverish gen-x and all younger generations even more so than we already are.
It goes beyond boomers (the boomerdoomer is already in full swing) - as they're dying off, most new employees do not have pensions (instead having defined contribution plans which have their own issues) - except for a few very large swaths, namely government and education.
20% of boomers are already dead and only 5% expected to be last another 30 years (AI).
The world isn't likely to change much over that time, so my guess is we'll collective find new victims to blame for everything rather than boomers. Old people are such great targets.
It lowered the chances, and in case of getting sick it also massively lowered the chances of getting the worst side-effects, exactly like any other vaccine does.
It's a shame that even highly educated populations do not understand a basic fact of immunology.
"The durability of protection against infection and hence transmission was relatively limited."
— Fauci, 2024 congressional testimony
Anybody that questioned the religious dogma that the vaccines were super effective and that healthy people needed to get endless boosters were crucified and in many cases, fired from their jobs for refusing an unnecessary medical procedure.
Natural immunity was just as strong as getting vaccinated though despite what you might have been told.
"All of the included studies found at least statistical equivalence between the protection of full vaccination and natural immunity; and three studies found superiority of natural immunity"
--Shenai, Rahme & Noorchashm — Cureus / PubMed, October 2021
There are so many things that went wrong during the pandemic. You were not lied to, that means someone has intent.
The lesson was not that vaccines are bad imho. I do not live in the US, so I just find it tiresome to listen to you guys blaming everything on people. There was no right way.
Vaccines for respiratory illnesses are bad. Even Fauci admitted so. Why do you assume good intent from the United States government when the FDA is bought and paid for by pharmaceutical companies.There was so much money to be made on specifically covid vaccines. I am not anti vax in general.
The flu vaccine has saved countless elderly lives.
You don't assume good intent from the US and its institutions, fine, but other countries also rolled out vaccines, are they all bought and paid by pharma companies? Is that really the argument?
Yes exactly. They are great for immunocompromised people. Much less so for healthy people. Which is why it should have been an option and not mandatory.
Herd immunity depends on the most amount of people being vaccinated, it's a numbers game, lowered chances of contracting the disease among the vaccinated translates into dwindling chances for spread.
Just look at measles, to stop spreading it to children who cannot take the vaccine due to other health issues you need almost every children that can be vaccinated to be vaccinated, otherwise the disease spreads.
It's not a really hard concept to grasp. It was crisis time, you don't get to play with lives at that point due to your individualistic convictions.
A measles vaccine is actually effective at containing the spread. People with natural immunity should not have been required to get a vaccine for something they were already inoculated for and had immunity that was greater than what you could get from the vaccines
There was no way to trust someone saying "I have natural immunity, I had COVID" when the crisis was happening, even more given how it was used politically to fan the flames for political gain.
Stop thinking about individuals, think about systems, and societies.
Given that people were refusing basic instructions (keeping distance, for example); that people dying of COVID in a hospital didn't believe the disease was real due to political influences; how do you think governments and their healthcare systems would be able to track if someone had natural immunity or not? There's no way, the only answer is: vaccinate as many people as possible to cover for uncertainties.
Again, it's a numbers game, in a fast moving crisis there's no opening for individualised actions, you are part of a larger whole and the larger whole required for people to get vaccinate to stamp off the crisis.
You still only think in individual terms, you are not at all engaging in this discussion with any kind of systems thinking...
All healthcare resources were stretched thin during the height of the pandemic, your proposal is to add yet another resource-intensive test? For what exactly? So people could skip taking the jab? Don't you see any issues with the cost-benefit analysis of this? Not even accounting for the fact of how easy would be to defraud it.
People were faking vaccination cards, faking a blood test showing antigens would be another very common fraud. You cannot trust people when the consequences are much greater than any individual issue...
> Explanations exist; they have existed for all time; there is always a well-known solution to every human problem — neat, plausible, and wrong.
Everyday I am infinitely grateful I have the ability to understand nuance, and the mental firepower to be able to comprehend data coming from sources rather than tiktoks, twitter, and hyper-partisan news orgs.
No one ever said the vaccine would prevent transmission. What they said was that it !could! prevent transmission. But no one would know before studies were done. What they did say is that it would lower mortality rates. Which it did in fact do. But the factors of transmission and spread were dice rolls. And everyone with first hand knowledge knew that from day one.
But, you are in fact correct, you were lied to. But not by anyone with knowledge of the vaccines, but by the grifters you hold up has being "a beacon of truth". The grifters who read "Vaccine has a chance it could slow or stop transmission" and turn around and say "They are promising it will stop transmission!" just so they can tear it down later as "another victory for TRUTH!".
‘“So even though there are breakthrough infections with vaccinated people, almost always the people are asymptomatic and the level of virus is so low it makes it extremely unlikely — not impossible but very, very low likelihood — that they’re going to transmit it,” Fauci said.‘
Extremely unlikely is a lot stronger than reduced. Calling it breakthrough implies that the norm is prevention. Obviously nothing is 100%.
Preface: I have been in favor of the COVID vaccine and disease mitigations (and wish we would have used this opportunity for clean indoor air...).
I'm willing to accept my memory is wrong here with evidence, but I remember a very strong narrative in the early period claiming that the vaccine did in fact prevent contraction and transmission, to the point where it was supposedly surprising when "breakthrough" cases started being reported.
It's possible there was some loose language around "prevent" as I did see that especially later on, but I have trouble finding reliable information on what they actually believed and if they actually reported this accurately to the public.
There is the unfortunate mark against where they knowingly promoted misinformation around masks - persistent through today - that they were ineffective, in an effort to direct uncontrolled distribution of masks to medical professionals most in need.
We already know that the CDC literally lied about masks not being helpful in the early pandemic in order to protect mask supplies for healthcare workers. We also know that Fauci lied about Gain-of-Function research.
"The NIH has not ever and does not now fund gain-of-function research in the Wuhan Institute of Virology"
-- Fauci, under oath to Congress, May 2021.
NIH's Principal Deputy Director Lawrence Tabak contradicted this in writing five months later, confirming funded experiments had produced findings that met the gain-of-function threshold.
If we know that there were deliberate lies were said about certain aspects of the covid pandemic, why should we assume good intent otherwise, especially from a U.S government that is jhighly influenced by well funded lobbyists?
Exactly. IN cases of national or world-level event, governments and government related bodies (WHO) will do whatever they can as not to cause a widespread panic. And if that means lying, they will absolutely do that.
A world-level 6 week pause would have burned covid and a whole lot of other diseases out. But no. Poor capitalists need their 3rd yacht, 13th vacation home, etc etc etc.
As for me, my SO worked in health care. And Covid is a SARS. We have decades of effects and response. The shit's airborne. WHO knew that. CDC knew that. But they lied and lied and lied.
We take our healthcare in our own hands. I'll critically listen to the "experts" and deal with med doctors for prescription drugs. And Im definitely interested in my own manufacture of pharms https://fourthievesvinegar.org/ . But yeah, the wider and general the message, the more propaganda it likely is.
And we also have a good stock of PPE now, including a few tyvek suits. And everclear is 95% alcohol and $30 here for a handle. Best sanitizer you can easily acquire and food safe to boot.
EDIT as comment to WarmWash:
No. The WHO and CDC lied about Covid being an airborne infection. They refused and refused, up to then redefining what an "airborne infection" is.
Covid is a SARS. Airborne. SARS requires BSL3 to handle properly. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosafety_level#Biosafety_leve... "Biosafety level 3 is appropriate for work involving microbes which can cause serious and potentially lethal disease via the inhalation route."
I dont need international experts to tell me a stream of bullshit, when I can look at the type of disease and go "wellll fuck, airborne. time to wear masks outside the home and no parties or events. and go to store when its not busy."
Was Covid as bad as SARS? No. But is SARS response something that can be compared to what we should have did for Covid? Hell yeah.
Yea worth it. The original implementation ended up being the most complex, and also not a great UX. But I didn't really get it was a worse UX until I built it and tested it out a bit.
And I wasn't attached to that complex implementation in the way I would be if I architected it from scratch, so it was easy to move on.
Maybe it’s just me, but I’ve never understood how one understands from reading code. Yes you can understand what that code does, but not why it was done that way instead of a different way. In the end I only understand it deeply if I end up writing it. Chatting through it is helpful to me, but having AI crank out code loses all of that context pretty quickly.
I’m not disagreeing. Just curious how you think about this, and if there are key parts of your process that help you stay contexted in.
If you can't understand why the code is done in a certain way from reading it then the code is missing comments or needs to be refactored.
Even code you write yourself, given enough time, you will forget the why unless you wrote comments. In a way comments are as much for you as they are for others.
Even before AI, understanding code you didn't write is essential to working on a team of other developers. If you can't understand the code from reading it, then that's part of the feedback loop - too complex, needs comments, etc..
On large teams you'll spend as much time reading code as you do writing it. And long term when it comes to writing maintainable code - the ability for others to read and understand it, including the why of it, is paramount. Your code could literally be around for decades.
> If you can't understand why the code is done in a certain way from reading it then the code is missing comments or needs to be refactored.
Code is never missing contexts. If what your code is doing is not obvious to the reader, it is bad code that needs to be fixed. Things like cryptic low-level expressions should be extracted to helper functions with descriptive names or even extracted into a class, and classes need to comply with the single responsibility principle.
Ah the classic thinking that 'code documents itself'. It does not. Some devs are so full of themselves they think their code is so good that it is obvious what their intent was. It never is obvious, and just ends up as tech debt. Write comments.
> Ah the classic thinking that 'code documents itself'. It does not.
This is demonstratably false. Case in point: all the code that does not require comments for developers to understand what it does.
> Some devs are so full of themselves they think their code is so good that it is obvious what their intent was. It never is obvious, and just ends up as tech debt.
That's why you need to address the problem in the PR stage and aggressively refactor code that fails to be clear.
This is not rocket science.
> Write comments.
No, that's just compounding the problem. Now you attached comment noise to cryptic code, which means not only do you still need to decipher the hot mess of a code you cannot parse on your own but you also have to parse the comment next to it to try to understand both.
And God forbid they get out of sync.
The solution is already known for over a decade: write clear and obvious code. Extract weird expressions into helper functions.
yeah that's how a simple algorithm that would fit on a napkin gets broken up into a soup of ravioli that I have no hope to understand. I often end up refactoring it into a simple function in a branch so I can figure out wtf is going on.
> yeah that's how a simple algorithm that would fit on a napkin gets broken up into a soup of ravioli that I have no hope to understand.
No, not really. You get spaghetti code by being unable to refactor your code to follow inconsistent level of detail across calls. That's the textbook definition.
Once you start to follow basic code quality and software engineering principles, you'll notice right away that your code becomes both easier to understand and to test.
Yes exactly. I don't like Codex not writing comments - and even proactively removing useful comments! There was some change in the last month that causes Claude to write crazy long comments. I routinely have to ask Claude to 'tighten' up the comments before the final commit.
I think it's just like reading a book. Will you get more context & understanding if you write the book? You most probably will. But that doesn't mean that you don't get anything just by reading it.
And if you already know the material explained by the book, yes i don't need to write it to understand it.
People get into being amazing at code by being interested in what it does rather than what it is. It's a whole area that I can see but can't get to, where it's all about DRY and elegance and what's being done is relatively unimportant because it's web stuff or whatever, just widgets and sadness.
As a result there's a whole universe of code where the how of it, the elegance, is the main thing, and what it's doing is putting characters on the screen a bit slower than the next thing but there are some amazing concepts that are supposed to make it all an axiomatic synthesis of how to think about code forever, replacing all precious concepts of thinking about code.
Now AI can think about code forever while doing nothing.
People have done this. They call it tablebases [1]. They’ve computed 7-piece tablebases, but not 8 pieces.
”After the completion of the 7-man, some people were curious about the feasibility of building the 8-man. Ronald de Man estimated that without modifying much the generator, the task requires computers with 64 TB RAM and 2000 TB hard disks[10] (cost about $640K and $40K respectively in 2020). The generator can be modified to work on much cheaper computers with 64 GB RAM but that may need a few thousand years of computing”
And to solve chess you’d need to calculate the 32-piece tablebases.
Like your sibling comment, you seem to be missing my point. Tablebases are fundamentally enumerating positions explicitly even though they use lots of tricks to make that more efficient. I'm talking about foregoing that entirely.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Mockapetris
reply