simo7

7 ms·

31.
by simo7 6y ago
Many people seem to think the same but I don't get it. If you only want to change lambda's configuration without touching the code, Terraform will do exactly that since the source_code_hash hasn't changed. Opposite is also tr
32.
by simo7 6y ago
I completely agree with your point about modules. My rule of thumb is: only use a module if you want to enforce a very opinionated way to create resources across multiple projects. Most of the times you don't want that. Regarding lam
33.
by simo7 6y ago
> They actually do serve the same purpose. The purpose is communication You just said that a name, definition, question and assertion all serve the same purpose and can be used interchangeably...I mean what else can I say? Exactly. It wa
34.
by simo7 6y ago
> We call function names a "name" but it can also be called a function "sentence" or "function phrase" I mean...we can also say that pigs are birds if you wish, everything is possible XD Who in English would
35.
by simo7 6y ago
You're mostly arguing on why your naming preferences are better. You're missing the point, I'm not addressing that. Instead you seem to agree people name things in the same (irrational according to you) way both in English
36.
by simo7 6y ago
NB: I'm answering to the claim that we behave differently when naming things in programming languages vs natural languages. Otherwise I think it's mostly a matter of preferences. I understand you prefer to be more detailed in your
37.
by simo7 6y ago
The problem with your analogy to English is that you're comparing the wrong things. A function is a "thing", you should rather compare it to an entity in the English language. Why do we say washing machine instead of a hom
38.
by simo7 6y ago
> Hint: good PMs won't just base it on gut feelings or anecdotal evidence. Sure you want some structure, but people often get this wrong. Intuition is surprisingly important and it's easy to get into some pseudo-scientific app
39.
by simo7 6y ago
I work with sensor data and although not explicitly mentioned I thought you could locate it in the "event streaming" and "stream processing" boxes. What piece of architecture you think is left out?
40.
by simo7 6y ago
For us it's the following reasons: * It's more cost effective to place all the services on one cluster. As containers can share the instance resources it's easier to increase resource utilisation (not true w/ Fargate tho
41.
by simo7 6y ago
Of course...some people seem to have an obsession for race, they connotate everything with it.
42.
by simo7 6y ago
> You can totally design your tasks to be idempotent Yes of course, I mean Airflow is not a good fit for the tasks you don't want to be idempotent (I think most but not all tasks should be idempotent). > I've never ran int
43.
by simo7 6y ago
I think it's better to place everything in one DAG if that solves the problem. If it doesn't then sensors are ok I guess, but I would try to avoid them otherwise.
44.
by simo7 6y ago
Correct, I use operators only to delegate the actual workload to an external service.
45.
by simo7 6y ago
I would add these gotchas/recommendations: - Airflow the ETL framework is quite bad. Just use Airflow the scheduler/orchestrator: delegate the actual data transformation to external services (serverless, kubernetes etc.). - Don&#x
46.
by simo7 6y ago
Understand but the quote from the article is wrong. Edit: actually it seems in Italy is also reported every day.
47.
by simo7 6y ago
Actually in Italy (as well as France) deaths outside hospitals are counted.
48.
by simo7 7y ago
Yes, cases like Beretta, to name one, are more interesting. Founded in 1526, privately owned, never changed its name nor got acquired. It makes more than 200ml€/year in revenue and it seems it's still owned by somebody whose last
49.
by simo7 7y ago
I'm wondering how this technology could work for OLAP cubes. An OLAP cube that is automatically & incrementally kept in sync with the changes in the source data sounds promising. Is that a potential use case?
50.
by simo7 7y ago
I think the article is a bit simplistic. It's true that _often_ OLAP cubes are not needed. That's simply because the amount of data and the latency requirements are _often_ not too demanding. Also, materialized views don't so
51.
by simo7 7y ago
Two false statements in this article: > ...Amazon, Airbnb, Uber and Google have rejected the data cube... Airbnb uses Druid which is essentially an OLAP cube. > BigQuery, for instance, doesn’t allow you to update data at all It's
52.
by simo7 7y ago
As in not phasing out products? That's more of a problem with Google than GCP itself. GCP has its problems (heard bad things about CloudSQL support for Postgres), but it does seem to be willing to innovate when it sees an opportunity f
53.
by simo7 7y ago
Yet I have the feeling GCP is the one which has been improving the most the quality of its offering. It's interesting to monitor what's happening with data-warehouses for instance. It almost feels AWS is having its "Kodak mom
54.
by simo7 7y ago
I'm not convinced the idea could never possibly turn into a successful business. Maybe he just tried to sell to the wrong people, maybe pharmaceutical companies could have been interested, maybe re-packaging the product differently...w
55.
by simo7 7y ago
Pronouns are meant to be a finite set, contrary to names which are an infinite (or unlimited) set. That way you can group many multiple names under few pronouns. If you want to allow an infinite set of pronouns you might just as well remove
56.
by simo7 7y ago
> Think of special pronouns as names. That's exactly the problem: pronouns are not names for a reason. Pronouns are meant to be a finite set of words that can group an infinite set of other words, names. In many languages gender
57.
by simo7 8y ago
True, big organisations are always dysfunctional in a way or another. It's surprising to see how successful companies can be, simply by not being too dysfunctional. That being said, I do believe some of the German automakers are prett
58.
by simo7 8y ago
> ...thus gets to the heart of the actual empirical disagreements between them. I'm not sure the disagreement (between bears and bulls) is necessarily to be found in a different outlook on the future. One can conclude all those cond
59.
by simo7 8y ago
I think he/she meant something different: it's not about how big/small are the chances, but about how much we know on the probability distribution. You assume you know the probability distributions, you compare them and deter
60.
by simo7 9y ago
This should not come at a surprise as money really is debt. Say you get a loan of 100$: now you have 100$ more to spend...but your creditor can still factor his/her credit (sell it at a discount) and spend that sum. That initial 100$ c

More ›