shvedsky

5 ms·

1. 1.▲
   by shvedsky 2y ago

   don't be such a debbie downer! celebrate it, and we'll find a use for that some day
2. 2.▲
   by shvedsky 3y ago

   Totally agree. Just yesterday, I was finishing up an article [1] that advocates for conversation length as the new definition of a "score" on a Turing test. You assume everyone is a robot and measure how long it takes to tell o
3. 3.▲
   by shvedsky 5y ago

   There is an inherent speed / reliability tradeoff that is extremely difficult to solve inside one message bus. When you get to truly large systems with a lot of nines of reliability, it starts to make sense to use two systems: 1. Fast
4. 4.▲
   by shvedsky 5y ago

   Yes to the combination of both. I worked on architecture and was responsible for large-scale systems at Google. Reliable giant-scale systems do both event subscription and polling, often at the same time, with idempotency guarantees.
5. 5.▲
   by shvedsky 5y ago

   Maybe the tests will move from requiring some precise correct answer to instead requiring randomness that machines can't yet generate. It would be similar to the captcha that asks you to click inside a box and analysis not the answer
6. 6.▲
   by shvedsky 15y ago

   The article is still there, and rest assured that nothing is "hacked". I just tried to fix the performance under high load (and failed). //owner of the website