Trello sold to Atlassian. Stack Exchange and Stack Overflow sold to Prosus FogBugz sort of lives on at https://ignitetech.ai/softwarelibrary/fogbugz but it looks like one of those companies that buys software solutions and retains the minimum staffing to keep lights on.
That's true but I'm not really worried about them. I'm worried about the people who are doing everything right and about to not be poor. Increasing the cost of every rung of the ladder, like for example slogging out a shitty commute and parking situation for some time decreases the number of people who make it up the ladder. It's almost like a pseudo welfare cliff. Public policy should strive to avoid doing stuff like that.
I'm of the opinion that when public goods are cheap enough to face shortages all the time the market economy steps up because better off people will spend more to save time/hassle.
The problem is when things are expensive enough to kick out a lot of people, but not enough people actually alleviate shortage, which is basically how it currently goes with parking.
> Increasing the cost of every rung of the ladder, like for example slogging out a shitty commute and parking situation for some time decreases the number of people who make it up the ladder. It's almost like a pseudo welfare cliff.
No, it's the opposite. A city built around everyone having a car makes car ownership a cliff. Normalising not having a car (and a reliable bus service - like the kind you get by turning street parking spaces into bus lanes - helps with that) makes the ladder gentler. If people are late for work because they couldn't find a parking spot just as often as people are late because the bus was late or didn't show, maybe there will be fewer horror stories of people getting fired because their car broke and they couldn't afford to get it fixed.
The market economy has solved none of these problems, and I suggest looking up just how socioeconomically mobile people in the US really are (it's not great).
Price parking at the market rate. Demand for other forms of transportation increase substantially. Provide it. Poor people can now take cheap buses and trains instead of expensive cars.
If you're worried about the transition, subsidize other forms of transport and build that out first, but forcing poor people to own cars just to make it to work is not a good way to help them.
Price parking at the market rate. Political competitor criticizes you for being an "eco-dictator" and promises a return to free parking. You lose the next election.
Sorry for the cynicism, I'm actually for increasing the price of parking, but recent political events have robbed me of any illusions that environmentally friendly policies have a future. When they have a choice between the environment and paying less money (short-term), most people will choose paying less money.
Outside of maybe a couple urban areas like NYC, that's patently untrue in the United States. It would not surprise me if the poor frankly had more and older/rougher cars than their more wealthy counterparts.
1. Open Ally Bank account (there are others but this definitely works)
2. Setup recurring bill pay for your check payment.
3. Setup recurring external transfer from your hipster bank to Ally or equivalent in step 1.
$6.99 isn’t worth replacing the above system that has another distinct advantage over this: you have two layers of cushion from your main account.
My understanding is that this service will print your account details on the check. The “bill pay” services typically are not writing checks against your account, they withdraw the money and use their own account.
Knowing the horror stories of intercepted checks that are cashed, this is not a triviality.
This is very wrong. These guys go downhill on small country roads very fast – sometimes over 100 kmh. You need deep riding skills to handle these speeds without getting injured.
For what it's worth, I don't think people are trying to say it's a zero skill sport. It's not an indictment of you or the sport.
I see the "argument" as: in sports like soccer or basketball, skills like dribbling or shooting accuracy don't have a skill "cap" and are generally uncorrelated to physiology. This is compared to the skill of descending a mountain at speed, which is dictated by how fast you can actually make yourself go, which is a matter of physiology.
It's not that strategy and skill don't exist in cycling, it's that raw power output (Watts per Kg) is ultimately the deciding factor once cyclists get to the skill cap of piloting their bike down a mountain.
So basically, could I cycle down a hill at 50-70mph? Absolutely not. But among the people who can, then the competitive advantage becomes how fast you can make yourself go down that hill.
> I don't think people are trying to say it's a zero skill sport.
I didn’t say you were, you were saying that there’s less skill involved, which is outright untrue.
> in sports like soccer or basketball, skills like dribbling or shooting accuracy don't have a skill "cap" and are generally uncorrelated to physiology.
Skill is highly correlated to physiology at the higher levels. Plenty of people practice as much as Messi, yet haven’t a fraction of his footballing ability.
> It's not that strategy and skill don't exist in cycling, it's that raw power output (Watts per Kg) is ultimately the deciding factor once cyclists get to the skill cap of piloting their bike down a mountain.
You’ve not watched the famous Pidcock descent then.
> the competitive advantage becomes how fast you can make yourself go down that hill.
Very little pedalling is involved at 60mph, it’s 100% skill.
> Skill is highly correlated to physiology at the higher levels. Plenty of people practice as much as Messi, yet haven’t a fraction of his footballing ability.
This is counter to your thesis. Messi's dominance doesn't come because he has elite physical characteristics. He's dominant because his level of skill with the ball at his foot is an outlier even among elites. It's not because he's pushing the physical limits of the human body.
There might be some variance in skill for elite riders, but I would guess the density curve of skill in that cohort is a very narrow bell curve, ie. low variance with relatively few outliers. This is what I mean when I say pure skill is not the major factor in success in cycling. Most riders are going to be pretty closely matched skill-wise, and the winners are going to be those that can generate the most power for a sustained amount of time.
No, it’s because his skill is deeply tied to his body’s physiology. I wager you’d find physical traits that you simply must be born with. His height, balance, reaction times. Physiology.
> Most riders are going to be pretty closely matched skill-wise
This is true for all sports.
> winners are going to be those that can generate the most power for a sustained amount of time.
Strategy comes into it a lot, just like most sports.
Also, there’s plenty of talented footballers that will never go pro because they lack the ability to run fast or maintain that intensity for 90 minutes (fitness).
I’ve given up on this thread because people seem to be getting very defensive and interpreting malice when there is none, but your comment here is similar to what I was trying to say. Cycling has a tighter bell curve of skill than other sports, just like all/most endurance sports.
It’s not a knock, I still enjoy those sports a lot, often more than wider skill bell curve sports.. oh well
> he said less in comparison with other professional sports.
No, we’re taking umbrage with the fact that people are saying cycling requires less skill, when this simply isn’t true. It requires different skills, that’s all.
I'm a keen cyclist (doing and watching); the elite differentiator is aerobic capacity (anaerobic for sprinters) not skill. Going fast up a hill wins GC and require no skill. Going fast down is more skilful but less important.
There’s plenty of amateur footballers more skilful than professionals, yet can’t make it because they lack the physical attributes (speed/strength/stamina). I’ve watched high skill teams shredded by a team that just shoved them off the ball and outran them. Barcelona’s style under Pep wasn’t mostly skill, it included a HUGE amount of physical fitness to maintain a press to win the ball back.
A massive part of Rooney’s rapid decline was his shit lifestyle reducing his fitness and speed as he grew older.
The competitive advantage is not physiological. Following your reasoning, that'd mean an F1 driver's competitive advantage is how fast they can push the pedals to get to 300kmph.
The real advantage is how fast you can navigate dangerous mountain roads which are narrow and have many hairpin turns.
I don't know that that's the analogy you'd want to use. It is correct that an F1 driver's competitive advantage is how fast they can get to 300 kmph (or just accelerate in general, since there's skill/strategy involved as to when/where to accelerate). If we're following that reasoning... the engine is that competitive advantage, and we know that to be a significant factor because there are millions of dollars of engineering effort to optimize the cars they race. The reaction time of how fast you can push the pedal is an incredibly small part of that equation.
If you're on a bike, that competitive edge "engine" is the cyclist own physiology. Yes, how fast you can navigate the roads is part of it, but is it not the acceleration/max speed out of the hairpin turn that represents the lion's share of overall time? Rather than the fractions of seconds gained/lost in the timing of accelerations at the turn? I guess it depends on the length/ frequency of turns in the course.
Just out of curiosity, would you be defending the skill required to do cross country as vigorously as you are for cycling?
This is very unhelpful. There's a difference between "someone fatfingered a command and brought this mysql machine down" and "our cloud provider shut down a core feature for our account".
When you design a new system do you plan for S3 to go down for more than a day? Do you have a fleet of offsite machines to smoothly transition to? If not, why not?
Well, it is about things to prepare before being in this situation, I acknowledged already that it was unhelpful now, since it is too late. It is advice for other business deciders looking at this, or for this one for changes to implement in the future.
Sometimes the plan is "well, this business had a good run, now it is over".
Sometimes it can be as cheap as "well, here's the documentation to run all my stuff elsewhere, starting from my external backups"
Depends on how much money you lose from a failure and how likely the failure is. As an additional point, you may not plan for s3 going down, but even a price hike on egress traffic may put a business in trouble if trying to move without already having external backups. So, as often, you have to do some cost/risk analysis. But having backups not controlled by your main provider is often considered a good idea.
Technical problems, human error, cost changes, various disagreements between provider and customer, can all be made easier if you have a plan B rather than being stuck with a single provider or solution
If data on S3 is crucial for business to be alive? Of course! I would even think about writing data to 2 separate storages in real time to be able to switch easily.
3-2-1 backup is a no joke, especially when it's your business, not a hobby project. Having DR too. And it's not a legacy, 20 years old system, so it's much easier to do such plans and test them.
You don't have to run it a entire duplicate of your current infrastructure, just plan for it to happen (depending on impact to your business). Then it means you can think about doing it after a few days of downtime, maybe earlier depending on difficulty/impact.
But, yes, you do have to plan to run it elsewhere and consider wether various features may make it harder for you to move on. vendor lock-in is a known business risk
Running multicloud (at the same time) is for availability not disaster recovery. Just having another copy of the data outside is good for DR, even if you have to redeploy everything manually in a hurry.
"There's a difference between "someone fatfingered a command and brought this mysql machine down" and "our cloud provider shut down a core feature for our account"."
No there isn't. Those are both exactly the same problem with exactly the same solutions.
Back in my day you needed a PhD in CSS to center a div vertically. We used to pore over the freshest W3C drafts with excitement. You don't see that anymore since jQuery.
I wonder if anything is left of the company besides Joel's blog posts.
reply