the fact that a multinational organization with revenues in the billions can do SEO is not at all impressive to me.
furthermore, you really need to question your belief system and analytical processes if you follow a church founded by a guy who thought he could find treasure by looking at a rock in a hat (he was also a convicted fraudster).
You made a valid argument with your first comment, but your second comment ("furthermore...") has nothing at all to do with the article or SEO. Go troll somewhere else.
it's pretty funny that you revisionist history mormon apologists will claim that his 1826 trial records are fake, but think gold tablets sent by angels and never seen by anyone are real. that's super consistent.
You're not being downvoted because you disagree with Mormonism or their so-called prophet, I'm sure many of us here do as well, but because you're being abrasive and incredibly off-topic. Save your trolling for someplace else, or start a "Tell HN: Mormonism sucks" thread and see how far that gets you.
I'm having trouble finding any other churches that exhibit good SEO practices. The catholic church doesn't have such a strong presence, the closest I can find is the westboro baptist church.
It’s quite funny to me that the Catholic Church (of all churches) has a very decentralized internet presence. Every church, every diocese, is responsible for their own website. They each have to find someone who does it and they have to pay. The Vatican’s website doesn’t seem so much like website for the whole Catholic Church, it’s much rather all about the Vatican and only about the Vatican. What you find on the internet is very much patchwork.
You might be right on the first comment, but you are fully wrong on the second. I suggest if you plan on ever making a comment about the Mormon church again, you at least do it justice by reading The Book of Mormon.
and out comes mongo's dirty little secret - you have to have enough ram in your boxes to hold not just all the data in ram, but all the indexes too, or it completely shits the bed.
putting hundreds of gigs of ram in a box isn't cheap.
are the foursquare folks considering rewriting with a traditional datastore like postgres and some memcached in front of it?
Your comment shows a scary lack of depth - this is the "dirty little secret" of ANY application that needs serious scalable data performance. You need to put your data in RAM where it is quickly accessible.
As soon as you go to disk especially on a low I/O cloud box you are going to be in 'extremely slow' territory. This is why, even before the current NoSQL movement, everyone was using Memcached all over the place. Not because it was a fad but because they needed speed.
SQL Databases have RAM caches as well which give you a pretty similar behavior. And big surprise - if you throw more memory at them - they run faster! Because they cache things in memory! In this case I believe that what Eliot was highlighting was that Foursquare's performance tolerance requirements were such that going to disk was not an optimal situation for them.
There are plenty of applications out there using MongoDB without keeping it all in RAM; I've deployed and maintain several. The more memory you have certainly gives you better performance but it tends to be about a most frequently used cache.
It never "Shit the bed" here to use your sophomoric vernacular. As the post states, it started having to go to the disk after it surpassed the memory threshold which slowed things down... nothing "crashed" as far as the description states. But a read/write queue backlog on any database is likely to exhibit the same behavior.
Your postgres + memcached solution fixes what exactly? They would still need the same slabs of RAM to solve the problem, lest they go to disk on postgres and slow to a crawl the same way they did with MongoDB.
Err you don't . . as the article states their usage and load pattern does. If you want the speed of keeping the DB in RAM you need the RAM available whether it is mongo, MySQL/NDB or memcache. (-1 for not RTFA)
i'd argue that almost everything done online (posting to twitter, writing a blog, and yes posting comments here, updating facebook) is done primarily to show off, garner attention, feel important, show people how gosh darn smart you are, etc.
anybody who disagrees with this just wants even more attention.
I can't wait for Obie's next book, "The Jails Way"
seriously though, if you associate and start businesses with people who send fake invoices for deceptive services like this, you are probably a sleazeball.
even if you do have glamour shots of yourself all over your webpage.
That's a good point, really. I mean, look at all the comments his work has gotten here on HN.
That seems like one of those rather obvious details that was "intentionally" overlooked.
this article's entire argument seems to be based around the idea that people only use twitter to broadcast mundane personal updates. that would get old very fast.
5 seconds of actual "journalism" would have evaporated this premise pretty quickly.
but hey, why actually try something out when you can just write a crappy fluff piece based on your preconceptions?
I'd argue that you are, and you have some extremely revealing hang-ups about sex and sexuality, as evidenced by your reaction to a freaking cartoon avatar ("make me, personally, uncomfortable about working there, or talking to anyone who worked there") and the "what will we tell our parents?" line.
how about you tell them "hey parents, i'm a grown-ass man capable of making my own decisions without being afraid of what my PARENTS will think!!"
I'd argue that you are [a prude], and you have some extremely revealing hang-ups about sex and sexuality, as evidenced by your reaction to a freaking cartoon avatar
Would you say somebody hated finance if they refused to work for a loan shark who kneecapped people for paying late? The porn industry sells a pretty disgusting version of sex and a really sad vision of what women are good for. You can excuse anything by saying they're just roles that some people like to play, that none of the apparent symbolism in porn actually means anything, that the only sides that can be taken are for prudery and against it, that criticism of any portrayal of sex reflects a desire to suppress and control women's sexuality, that nobody's desires should be stigmatized, but....
But the fact remains that 95% of porn presents a pathological and misogynistic caricature of sex, and the other 5% is iffy at best. I've watched more than my share of porn, always with the idea that I was looking for good, sex-positive porn. Eventually I realized that I would never find it at any mainstream outlet, like the local adult stores and commercial web sites. (Now I have a better idea of where I would look for that stuff, but I haven't bothered.)
Porn doesn't have to be bad, not for any reason I know if. It just is (which suggests that there is some reason I don't know about.) The porn we actually have -- as distinct from the ideal porn we could have -- is just the flip side of prudery, a fulfillment of the ignorance, frustration, and sexual neuroses that prudery creates.
Those cartoon avatars are an excellent example. They can be excused as exceptions -- just one way some women enjoy sexualizing themselves, just one-dimensional fantasies that no man would connect with the real world, just a few characters whose existence leaves plenty of room for other forms of female sexuality -- but that ignores the fact that they are entirely typical of the adult industry and freakishly different from the way most women want to dress, act, and be perceived.
I don't have any problems with individual women whose sexual identity is such that they enjoy playing the roles depicted in the porn I loath -- no matter how their sexuality came about -- they are worthy of respect. However, attempting to celebrate and normalize sexual identities that most women find degrading, for a variety of selfish reasons but not least because most women find them degrading, is reprehensible. The adult industry IS scummy, and anyone working in it should be ashamed, unless they are careful to work only with the small, practically invisible minority of products that aren't degrading.
furthermore, you really need to question your belief system and analytical processes if you follow a church founded by a guy who thought he could find treasure by looking at a rock in a hat (he was also a convicted fraudster).