They are still pretty limited compared to what's in the enterprise version, but it's not right to say basic backups are closed source and have never been there.
> My current database is in a private subnet, it would be unfortunate to have to open it up to the world to take advantage of this.
Agreed, this is a big current limitation. As mentioned in the blog post, though, we'll be adding support for connecting into private networks via our other networking products (Cloudflare Tunnel and Magic WAN).
Misleading title -- it isn't claiming that there are any newsletters generating $22M a year individually. It's just saying that the top 27 (why 27?) newsletters in aggregate make at least that much.
Storage is replicated across a handful of nearby sites. It does add some latency to writes, but that's preferable to Objects being offline or lost in the case of hardware or network failures.
There's no Jepsen testing in the works at the moment, but we'll see if it makes sense in the future.
It means that you'd use a different ID to access each document. Each document's Durable Object would run the same code as part of the same namespace of Durable Objects, but have their own in-memory and durable state. Check out the docs for a bit more context: https://developers.cloudflare.com/workers/learning/using-dur...
I am still a bit confused. Will this ID be different from the object id of for accessing the Durable Object, essentially in this case we would be using the Durable Object as a key-value storage? Or is it like the Namespace is separate from the Durable Object and each Namespace can have multiple objects of the same class under?
Edit: I think I get it now. Sorry I misunderstood that each Durable Object is like a singleton for the class you define. Its the other way around, you have the definition and namespace and then you can create a new object from those whenever you need it and this one would unique and accessible across all workers.
“““ We wanted to find a solution that would minimize frustration (and
time-consuming meetings) internally, while setting the correct
expectations with users around quality and stability. ”””
Honestly, this doesn't explain much. If anything, hearing “FooDB 19.1”
makes me think of stuff like React 16 or Chrome 69. That is, of “hip
dudes” who “live fast and bump major versions”. On the other hands,
hearing “FooDB 2.16” would make me think “Yep, this thing seems stable
as Perl or Linux”. The meetings point also doesn't explain anything.
Go simply does a minor version bump every six months. Why couldn't
Cockroach Labs just do that?
Oh well, who cares, really, as long as the product is great.
With how often I've seen spaced repetition mentioned online recently, I'm starting to assume there's a grand conspiracy that's trying to use spaced repetition to trick me into remembering about spaced repetition.
Surely if this were so, it would mean you'd see fewer mentions of spaced repetition over time, rather than more? (assuming your comment implies having seen more than usual recently)
As an aside, I love doing this sort of thing. In conversation, someone makes a joke about X doing something impossible, and then all of us who analyze everything to death start playing the scenario in our head to understand ramifications or limitations in the fictional and often impossible scenario. Drives my wife nuts, but I enjoy it so much :)
Your theory holds true with my wife and I. I love Seinfeld, she hates it :D
I should note that I actually don't find what I do comedic, nor am I doing it for comedic effect - I'm analyzing the scenario in a similar way that I find myself programming. It seems to feel.. similar to me. Eg, if we're discussing superman I might start thinking about all the normal scenarios Superman must find himself in. How he deals with those normal scenarios with abnormal abilities, and such.
Regardless, she still hates obsessing about that in the way I love haha. Similar to your statement, Seinfeld seems to take the same approach to analyzing things but for the target of comedy.
Interesting all around. Well, except to my wife. :)
I enjoy analyzing in the same way, it's just that Seinfeld takes the same tendency and turns them into jokes, which seem to be much funnier to people who enjoy breaking down trivial things.
My version of your Superman example is thinking about mutants from the X-Men universe with trivial mutations: there must be countless useless X-gene mutations, right? What might those be? Invisible skin, but not organs?
This assumes everybody started learning at the same time. Since they didn't, there have to be compromises on timing.
But just seeing the answer repeatedly isn't sufficient, you also need the effort to recall the answer. That's why so many headlines take the form of a question.
“X big website is down” just hit HN the last few weeks and people on our normally highly rational news site were convinced it was a connected conspiracy.
They are still pretty limited compared to what's in the enterprise version, but it's not right to say basic backups are closed source and have never been there.