I was comparing the concept to the Actor model as I skimmed the piece, but I don’t think there’s much overlap. What about Smalltalk correlates to cells?
According to Alan Kays 1971 description of Smalltalk:
“An object is a little computer that has its own memory, you send messages to it in order to tell it to do something. It can interact with other objects through messages in order to get that task done.”
Smalltalk concepts heavily informed the Service Oriented Architecture (SOA) tenets, e.g.
1. Services are autonomous - Cohesive single responsibility.
2. Services have explicit boundaries - Loosely coupled, owns its data and business rules.
Choosing good service boundaries is really crucial for a successful, resilient, maintainable system.
The impression I got from the document is that cells don’t communicate much with each other. They’re effectively multiple copies of the same cluster of services.
Cells could certainly encapsulate multiple microservices, but I don’t see a strong correlation between Smalltalk objects and cells. That may just be a lack of imagination on my part.
Hummmm while there might be some similarities the concept are not that close.
Cells are usually used to reduce blast radius and to force design that can scale.
It is a bit like a multi-AZ/multi datacenter architecture where however cells can share the same AS/datacenter. But nothing else.
So cells can share physical hardware but not logical components.
If you were to create a cell based architecture, you might have 9 cells over 3 AZ each using a different S3 bucket and DynamoDB table. For 9 S3 buckets and 9 DDB table in total.
I'm 30, so roughly the same age as the poster of this article. But for a person who (rightfully so) derides the ageism and racism they encounter, their whole section on technical literacy is just a modern-spin take on ageism.
Just because people my age and younger use discord etc, doesn't mean this is either a "good" way for people to communicate, or something we should force people whose technical literacy could vary wildly between extremes to try and figure out.
Personally, I hate discord and messaging in general and much prefer to make phone calls. I guess that makes me an anomaly compared to my generation, but I generally find that whole section rude and trying to solve their own personal problem, not the problems of the community as a whole.
I'll be honest, all these asides feel like there is some kind of explanation or big reveal that never comes. I can understand a bank identifying a large-sum account and wanting to look after them, being annoyed by that account moving banks as well as a local branch having to take precautions on such large withdrawals. But otherwise, I feel like I'm missing something here that isn't spelled out.
The author is used to thinking of their bank account as an anonymous number, with operations handled impassively by whoever happens to be staffing the bank's reception desk that day. They probably never considered 35 million dollars to be an amount worth fussing over ("this is not a lot of money to a big bank, they'll barely notice").
The bank thinks of multi-million dollar business accounts as a deeply personal relationship between the CEO and account manager, where the AM takes the CEO to fancy dinners and golf outings and remembers the names of the CEO's children. HashiCorp's account might have been the largest that had ever been opened at that particular branch.
This article is an amusing(?) story about those two worldviews making contact.
I admit I was laughing at the part where he transferred out the $35mil and Alex called him.
Honestly I'm sure a lot of people on HN have experienced the "hey I just wanted to see how you were doing" call from their bank. Once you have >$100k in your chase accounts they'll start doing that.
But why would anyone have that much money in their Chase accounts? I keep a nominal amount of money in my chase account and send the bulk of my money to fidelity to throw into whatever investment vehicle I like. Sadly, I think you need to have $1mil at fidelity to get the same red carpet treatment chase will give you for $100k.
Having that kind of cash with Fidelity gives you a lot of perks, but you still need to keep an eye on them. My Fidelity guy is now a VP, but because of my balances he still handles my accounts personally. I've been with them for a while and my conclusion is that they are no better (and often worse) than I am at financial planning and wealth building. The economy is always changing, and the big sudden changes are the ones that usually catch everyone (including the experts) by surprise. What worked well five years ago doesn't work anymore. You'll never get the kind of attention and analysis from Fidelity (or any firm) that you can get from yourself if you are willing to put in the effort.
> Once you have >$100k in your chase accounts they'll start doing that.
Is there a good reason for this other than if you're about to buy a house or something? Most of my net worth is in investments; very little is in checking or savings, because it doesn't seem like there is any benefit to that.
Nope. And that's part of why they start calling you - to sign you up for CDs, money market accounts, etc. (I'm not sure if they get a commission for selling you into a locked investment, but I imagine they do). They probably also are trying to get you on a good credit card, get a mortgage with them, be the first place you come when you want to buy a car, etc.
I guess I'll note, I've never had that much in my personal account but I have a friend who did for a while (and a family member who also did). Personally, I canceled my chase account because a teller at the local branch was being a condescending dick to me. I assume because I didn't have that much money in my account lmao.
> Is there a good reason for this other than if you're about to buy a house or something?
Liquidity. FDIC insurance upto $250k. Of course, you don't want to put a big chunk of your money into a bank like this, but $100k is not a "big chunk of your money" to a lot of people, in relative terms.
I'm assuming your sentiment applies to HYSAs as well, which is the better place for this kind of thing.
Checking is the backing buffer for a queue of pending transactions. If you have one or two highly-compensated people in your family, and somewhat randomly-distributed large expenses (paying cash for a car, renovating a house, credit card bills after a vacation, etc), then $100k does not seem like an unusually large buffer size.
> >$100k in your chase accounts they'll start doing that.
Heh, not Wells Fargo.
After 20 years being a customer and carrying very large deposits they will charge you for a cahiers check at the window. After you politely ask for it to be waived (having worked for the bank knowing they can waive it for you), being declined by the manager on duty who handled the escalation, and responding "I need the check but if you charge me for this I will close my account" to the question "Do you still want the check for the fee?"; then they will start calling you after the 10k daily transfers out start.
Hmm yea that doesn't surprise me. I really wasn't sure what the magic number was lol.
Says a lot about the level of service my credit union gives lol. I've had more than that in my account before and they never gave me special treatment. XD
The only thing I was amused about was the fact that a 22 year old without any sort of work experience got 1 Million dollars just like that (and much more later on).
I am more surprised about the founder lack of interest for bank and finance. It’s fully in his duty to know where his investor money is. And he seems to be careless about it.
It makes sense considering he's gone from founder / CEO -> founder / CTO -> individual contributor i.e. probably never focused on these things and just wanted to build the product as an engineer.
I'm not a parent, but if I was I'd rather have security tell everyone, regardless of their motives to move along and not be anywhere near the children and offend a bunch of innocent bystanders than the alternative.
The way I look at it, if the standard you set is to tell everyone to move along, then you are creating the systems and processes necessary to prevent bad actors from doing what they will try and do, and that outcome is infinitely more important than some passer-by's feelings.
Or, maybe this is the classic 'bad actors don't stop being bad, but everyone gets punished' setup that seems to be more prevalent now than it ever was.
The whole story of Trevor is just heartbreaking to me. I see a lot of my experiences helping someone get proper mental health care in this story, and the fact that between the restrictions that COVID created and how ill-equiped the mental health sector is unless you send someone to a hospital is awful.
From my experience, putting someone in a hospital or other treatment facility is often presented as the only way you can get help for serious conditions, but for most people, the idea of being sent away to a hospital or other facility for an extended period of time can be very damaging, especially in the immediate term. For people who need that level of care, the feeling of being abandoned, or that your friends/family can't deal with you anymore or don't want you around.
You also have the fact that for a lot of people who end up in these facilities, do so because they have been forced in some way, shape or form to be there. Couple that with these places often feeling less like hospitals or places of medicine and treatment, and more like prisons, these environments can make you feel like a criminal or unwanted member of society.
Finally, while I don't want to paint all who work in places like this with the same brush, my experiences have shown me that it is not that uncommon for the doctors and support staff who work in these places to be somewhat uncaring to those in their care. And, while I understand that working in a place like this would obviously have a significant impact on your own mental health and make you jaded, from my experience what a lot of people who end up in these places want more than anything is empathy and compassion.
I'm not saying that we should abolish hospital treatment for mental health, because this kind of treatment in a lot of cases is both necessary and effective. My thoughts here are that for cases like Trevor, there should be some kind of service or help available that provides the right degree of ongoing care without having to upend a persons life in ways that can be damaging.
This post hits so close to home for me it is unsettling.
Every 4-6 months we have this ritual where everyone finally accepts that we can't have one person being the "center of the universe" and we have this almost performative process of trying to spread things around to other staff. This will last at most two weeks and then we're back where we started.
It can get pretty bad at points, like when dev's get so comfortable in relying on me to solve all their problems that they'll encounter an issue and instead of actually trying to do anything about it themselves, the first thing that happens is I get a call/text/email/slack asking me to fix it for them.
And to top it off, outside of the occasional weekend, I can't remember the last time I had a day off, but I do remember it lasted three hours before they called me to come in and fix something for them. Nowadays, I don't even bother with time off, public holidays or weekends, they aren't days off to me anymore, they are just days where I can sleep in a little longer before getting back to work.
I prefer working from the office, not because of the social aspect but because I find that I just can't bring myself to be nearly as productive at home as opposed to in the office.
What I really miss was the period in time where I could work in the office and everyone else was working from home. The quiet of no-one else around, the productiveness of not being at home and the commute for that period of time between work/home where I can have some time just to myself.
