> A model doesn't become a good model simply because
I agree, and
> nobody has bothered to make a better one
So bother! I have made 4 comments here and all of them ask the same question. What would you improve and how do you think it would affect the outcome?
Sometimes the simple model is (almost) as good as any in answering a simple question. For example, some people do not accept climate models (and probably never will), ostensibly for reasons that they are not good. I see the opposite - the models have gotten much better and much more realistic in the past 60 years. Yet, the same basic outcome (Earth will warm roughly 3 degrees by doubling CO2) was foretold by very crude models that even don't have the circulation.
I'd say that it is definitely possible for selection bias to indicate a causal relationship though. Because hiring and compensation isn't just controlled by technical ability or productivity. So there is chance a supposedly non-causal indicator will have a direct impact.
For instance, let's a dev with a really unremarkable resume gets paid significantly less than his coworkers in a really hot subfield because all his coworkers have a top-10 stem degree, research with top professors, and work experience at really hot startups. It's likely if he is a decent negotiator the underpaid dev's compensation will eventually revert to the mean. That will be the compensation of an extremely marketable dev if he can sell himself as a dev with really valuable experience.
Sure, but the question remains whether mandatory helmets would prevent a significant number of car injuries and deaths (I'd say that's quite plausible). Whether cars have other safety features already is neither here nor there.
Don't forget about pedestrians. Helmets are like avoiding ECC RAM, soon you are giving them out on every level of abstraction because you don't want to face the fact that the danger comes from cars/memory with bit errors.
That's novel of you to try to solve this problem by "thinking", the true sign of a great programmer. Yet here we are and the statistics show plenty of head injuries for pedestrians, and the folly of your thought naturally.
No, I mean that many motorist lives would be saved if they all literally wore helmets. They should be required to. Airbags and roll cages help, but they are (obviously) insufficient on their own to prevent the 20k car deaths every year.
It would also help reduce the 200,000+ TBIs (traumatic brain injury) caused by car accidentals in the US every year.
I might be convinced to personally start wearing a helmet if an awareness campaign gained traction. As it is, I will take the additional risk to avoid looking dumb.
I personally believe that (personal adult) helmet laws are a violation of individual liberties but we should create laws that force bike/scooter sharing companies to make sanitary helmets available. It is better to regulate business behavior than personal behavior.
Helmets are also insufficient on bikes but they significantly reduce injuries. With cars I'm not quite sure what problem you would be trying to solve because they probably wouldn't actually appreciably reduce injuries (I don't many of those car deaths are just really simple trauma to the top of the head that a helmet would actually protect against)
Oh come now, top of the head? Full face helmets are the better option, and if we're really looking to be safe, we should require them, and anti-whiplash headrest connections, as well.
Similarly six-point restraints, I'm always confused why there's just a lap-and-shoulder belt in most cars.
I'm not sure this is such good advice. It means you're guaranteed to miss out on high appreciation of anything but the largest coins. That's all well and good for a less volatile scenario like the stock market where the top20 is pretty well correlated with the top2000. But given the volatility of digital assets, i would worry that this strategy leaves more on the table.
> Given that stop-the-world pauses are never evenly distributed throughout time
That is not a given. And, even distribution is only part of the equation. If they are sufficiently short, then even being somewhat unevenly distributed should not have much of an impact on latency. For example, if the max length of a pause were 1ms, and 99p latency were 15ms, you'd have to be fairly unlucky to see a 33% increase in latency99 due to GC. That would entail 5 of 25 pauses happening during a 20ms period in a 1s window.
(This idea is not purely hypothetical. For example, Go's GC has very low STW periods.)
> It's pretty much accepted everywhere
Eh. Apparently everyone thinks C is the best language for cryptography and other secure but not particularly perf sensitive code. Go figure. Sometimes the wisdom of the masses is not wisdom. Best not to appeal to it during argumentation.
You're right on your first point. I responded a little harshly to OP because I believe they responded too harshly to the blog post. The P99 GC latency data they give is us not sufficient to explain their perf gains. More likely, the metric they were tracking was well-correlated with their perf gains, but not the only or even primary cause. The other perf gains could have been caused by reduction in older generation collection times, for instance.
Go's GC is non-moving, incremental and single-generation. Hotspot GCs are all moving collectors so they make different tradeoffs.
IBM's metronome collector would be the closest one to Go's properties.
Overall latency is important. Where it comes from isn't very important. Transferring data a few light-nanos of distance into or out of a colocated Mongo DB instance simply isn't going to move the needle on any important metric. (Disk IO latency might, but that has little to do with the speed of light.)
Technically the tithe is to be given to the church. Charity giving is above and beyond that. And you are supposed to tithe out of your gross income -- your "first-fruits." It's an expensive habit! One of the many reasons I'm glad to no longer be religious.
Also I think that the evidence doesn't really support the idea that having too much money is bad for your happiness.
I don't mean to be too flippant, but isn't this whole article an instance of exactly what the author is complaining about? Let's have good managers rather than bad ones. Good managers trust their reports to tell them the constraints of the work and factor that into the team's strategy. Being conversant in the underlying task helps a lot with that, but there are plenty of managers who come from an engineering background who make the same mistakes the author laments.
That's what I was thinking. Really, the problem with most managers is that they are not empathetic with both the business side and the tech side at the same time. Good managers know how to set expectations and communicate with correct language when talking to either cohort.
