Seems like you have some experience with the orchestrator offerings. Airflow still the way to go, or would you recommend something else for someone just starting down the path of selecting and implementing a data orchestrator?
I haven't used Airflow for years but it used to be quite clunky, not sure how much it's improved since. I'd look into Prefect and/or Dagster first, both are more modern alternatives built with Airflow's shortcomings in mind.
People acting as though this is nothing new are ignoring how the system and numbers have changed over time.
- There used to be more children per family, so the burden was shared. The parents in question had fewer children, and now a single person is often responsible for both parents.
- There are fewer and fewer middle class families. The younger generation is more and more barely able to foot their own bills, let alone take on additional for additional care for another dependent.
- The expected life span has risen, so parents are spending additional years alive, often long past when they simply would have passed previously.
- Rates of dementia and Alzheimer's continue to rise, and require an entirely different level of care than someone who simply can't drive or get around and needs check ins once a day. Round the clock caregiving is an entirely different animal.
Taken together, the burden on children taking care of their parents has never been higher. Either the support system will grow, or we're going to see a rise in mental breakdowns among the current caregiving population, imo, because they are being put in increasingly hopeless situations.
Regardless of whether you morally want to take care of your parents, the bottom line is people can only do so much and be so strong. It's really difficult.
Search for Quirk CBT. I think the core is open source and they have supporting apps for the various phone platforms. It isn't a general survey tool, but specifically tailored for CBT from what I understand.
I've not used it, so I can't endorse it one way or the other, but the author was interviewed on a podcast I listen to [1] and it seems like exactly what you are asking for. He went through a situation similar to what you are describing and created the project when he couldn't find software like what you are looking for.
There are no perfect alternatives, just imperfect ones.
Apple has their own issues, but they've claimed that their business is selling you a device and software and media to run on it, and making their money from that as opposed to reselling your data. Everything they've been doing lately supports that stance, and they've already recognized it as a differentiation, hence the way they have been up-playing the privacy features of their devices lately. Since they aren't selling you as much after the fact, they are going to charge you more up-front, and since they make their money selling software, they're obsessed with controlling the marketplace.
Google gives away software and media, and sells your personal data and advertising. They're showing increasingly that they don't care about your privacy if it affects their bottom line.
You have to decide which of those business models you support, and then support it. There's no third model where a business gives everything away and cares about your privacy. That's inconsistent with a bottom line of making money, and at the end of the day that is what the business is trying to do.
For a while Google gave the impression that they cared, until they established a large enough market, and now you're seeing them make the natural transition. They've grew their cash cow by giving away stuff, now they are milking it.
Any rational company with their business model is going to do the same thing though, so if you jump ship to another ecosystem now selling you a business model that is too good to be true, don't be surprised down the line when that proves to be the case.
Google does make a ton of money from ads and tracking, but how do they not "sell software and media" too? They sell apps and media in the same manner that Apple does.
Abusing users isn't OK just because they've found additional ways to extract money from users.
Disclaimer: I was a Google fanboy until a few years ago and I disliked but trusted Google until a couple of weeks ago. Now I don't know what to do but at least I've finally got around to switching my search habits.
Oh I agree, absolutely not. I'm against Google and don't use their software. I just thought that the parent comment wasn't very accurate as it characterized Apple as selling apps and media and Google as doing neither of those things.
Google has relatively few ways to actually give them money directly for software and media. There's Google Apps (assuming you aren't a grandfathered free customer from back when it was free), and I guess YouTube Red, and, um.... is there any other way to actually pay money to Google for services rendered? I honestly can't think of another option.
(I'm ignoring their hardware here because of course that's not free, and I don't think it's even intended to be a significant source of revenue anyway)
Don't they take a cut from any transaction in the Play store?
In stores around here, you can buy gift cards with a Google logo on it (play store credit). That's about as direct a way of giving them money as i can think of.
They do, but I wouldn't consider that to be the customer paying Google directly. There's a reason why people usually use the word "tax" to refer to this (and Apple's cut on their store).
I suppose buying a gift card is technically giving Google money directly, but that isn't the same thing as payment for services rendered, it's just exchanging USD for Google Play credit, which you then spend on apps. Or in other words, you get the exact same service that you do if you skip the gift card and just pay for apps at the point of sale.
>Google has relatively few ways to actually give them money directly for software and media.
Doesn't Google sell music, e-books, and movies/TV through Google Play? They also have Google Play Music as a subscription service. I was counting the Play Store as buying applications from Google, although it isn't Google's first-party software.
They do, but the context we're talking about is paying Google for Google software, not using Google as a storefront for buying other people's software.
I didn't realize Google Play had their own subscription music service. Good to know.
If I pay $10 a month and see 3 movies that are normally $11 apiece (local tickets are $10.75), that's a pretty clear value proposition. How can you ask what the service is with a straight face? Are you honestly implying that if I have to think at all, a 200% return on my money isn't good enough?
I don't really understand anyone who would even care that much about this change. I can barely find time to go to the theater 3 times a month let alone more. The changes that limit the most popular movies were much worse, honestly.
I don't think they are going to last, because even with this reduced offering I don't see how an outlay of $33 for a $10 subscription works. As long as I see at least one movie a month using the service I more than break even though, so I'll stay subscribed month to month until they go under.
When you pull the old "I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further." routine every few weeks, just being a moderately good deal isn't good enough because you can't trust that you will actually get the deal that they say they are offering.
I completely agree with you. But all these signs of MoviePass altering their offering again and again just points to them being headless and in "survival mode", trying to find anything that can keep them afloat. From the outside, it just seems like it's not profitable at all to let subscribers pay $10 and give them $33 of value (earlier it was a lot more for some outliers) back. That just can't work longterm. I wonder what their longterm goals look like, how are they going to make their money back? What's the plan for that?
Is that what they are saying though? I'm not reading it as 'small teams can't comply'. I'm reading it as if you comply, you will make less money advertising, and that affects the dynamics in a social app.
If you have to charge money, your chance to overcome the network effect of FB or an established site is difficult, because en masse migration of users to a new service typically goes hand in hand with that new service being offered freely.
Conversely if you don't charge money, your ability to fund the development of a competitor is based on reduced ad income since you can't offer targeted ads, which is going to shorten your runway by a significant amount.
These two things seem to indicate that the likelihood of building something that replaces one of the existing social services goes down. I don't think it makes it impossible, but the law seems to make it less likely that the social app incumbents get replaced (if that was at all possible).
As far as those in other regulated fields having done this for some time, I can't think of many regulated fields where the network effect is so high as social apps, so it is probably a bit apples to oranges. Presumably it is not as large a deal in those markets where social network dynamic is not as strong.
It's about eliminating cognitive load when reading and/or modifying source later. The more code you can eliminate from what is being looked at, the easier it is for the reader to understand the purpose of the function and what it is accomplishing.
At some point, someone is going to need to change your code. When that happens, it is easier to 'surgically' modify a single method that does one simple thing, than adjust one tiny piece of a much larger function. Even though the change might be exactly the same, it will be easier to understand which callers are affected by the change so you can detect the impact of your modification.
It is a guideline, not a rule. You'll (probably frequently) have methods that logically make sense to keep longer, but if you're writing and find yourself creeping past that, it is a good indicator you might want to review the function and make sure you're not inlining something that might make sense as its own function.
> it is easier to 'surgically' modify a single method that does one simple thing, than adjust one tiny piece of a much larger function
I would agree for the most part but modifying one small function might cause unwanted side-effects when that function is reused elsewhere (tooling that reports references can help this). A good descriptive function name could help as well. When a function is not meant to be used in multiple places another option is writing a nested function, there might be arguments against that but that helps keep the number of possible method branchings to a better minimum
We don't yet have a committed time we'll keep you warm and it might change (<-- this is me hedges against future change :)), but it's about 5 minutes today. That's ANY function within a collection of functions running.
Can you offer any sort of guidance on what cold start times currently look like? I know it depends on how much code is being loaded and interpreted, but it's obvious you're a really dedicated PM, and I know that—as a result—you must have a qualitative sense of what the perf looks like.
For background: I maintain OneBusAway for iOS, and am investigating options for sidecar data (e.g. how delayed is a bus, is there still room on it, etc.). Ideally, this would all be part of the core OBA API, but that may not be an option. I'd just use Apple's CloudKit, but I want to be able to process incoming data and share the data between iOS and Android. Hence my interest in your product :)
I just ran a sample http triggered function after it sat around cold. It took about a second to respond with "hello world" and then under 100ms after that. Purely anecdotal. Your experience will vary, etc. Cold start is kinda par for the course with "serverless" so far. We're trying our best to minimize the time it takes to having NO servers to having a server. I think we've got some great folks on our team working to solve that.
FYI - You can reserve a VM, if you want, but then you're paying until you turn it off. It will always stay hot, though.
