> If you run a database without reading the documentation then you're the dangerous part
I think that covers almost all the whole dev population, for what I see in relation with RDBMS. Lucky us most RDBMs shield the mistakes in their usage, a lot.
That is why I see is "dangerous" to call ephemeral/eventual stores as "db". Marketing/positioning have impacts...
All databases are ephemeral if the person running it don't read the docs. Your comment is hence fully redundant, as opposed to the default single-node install of any DBMS.
I wouldn't bet my income on my 97-year-old grandmother for surviving as long as I promised my clients their website would stay online.
That said, I don't think Heroku is that close to being sunset, but that's my guess, and that guess is as good as the people who say it is. I'm currently messing around with fly.io and that product is so young one would be crazy to think it has better chances to last the next decade than Heroku does.
I don't think Salesforce is probably planning on sunseting Heroku anytime soon.
But they seem to be totally starving it, allocating it the minimum of resources they think they can to keep it going pretty much as it is without any new features.
Based on how they handled the recent security update, I won't be surprised if it... just kind of crumbles into the sea at some point.
We all know that software doesn't just "keep working" at all without continual maintenance. For several different reasons, security being one of them. Heroku's ability to keep "just working" with the languages/platforms it does, as new versions of such come out, seems to be dependent on an increasingly smaller workforce that goes above and beyond.
Is this style of marketing legal in US? In the country I am in it is quite likely to be illegal due to being deceptive. In my country being technical correct doesn't help if misleading.
(If these companies signed up for the service then or course it would be legal to claim that.)
Logos are fine as long as you have an agreement in place, but you run afoul of a number of laws by using another companies logo without their approval. Although, it seems this happens all of the time with various companies.
As for myself I turn down every request for a logo, I like and use your product but I don't really care if you cut me a small break for using it.
I'm not sure whether this type of marketing being legal in the US is as relevant as is this type of marketing legal in Israel since it is an Israeli company.
Maybe it differs from company to company and country to country, but at least the company I work for would hesitate enormously before purchasing a service from a company which immediate appears to do something that is illegal in many countries.
This company (is there a company behind it, I couldn't find those details) markets to countries outside of Israel I assume.
This is how my workplace operates now. If you have to discuss something you throw it in slack and anything real-time requires a meeting set up at a specific time. It works very well and no one just barges in and interrupts my work whenever they feel like it.
I guess if everyone else feels the same way? It does sound like kind of an all-or-nothing situation, but for the right person, "coworker who is guaranteed to never ever ever bother you" might be kind of nice?
> Sustainable aviation fuel can be made from any of 60 different feedstocks — among them plant oils, algae, greases, fats, waste streams, alcohols, sugars, captured CO2 and other alternative feedstock sources and processes. The Department of Energy estimates that the United States alone has the resources to produce 50–60 billion gallons of SAF per year.
By "article", you mean "marketing blub from someone trying to sell you something".
Ultimately, all of those "sustainable" feedstocks will have to be grown. As my quick maths points out, the size of the field we're going to need is just staggering.
>The Department of Energy estimates that the United States alone has the resources to produce 50–60 billion gallons of SAF per year.
I'd like to know where from. Actually, I looked it up. It's the "Billion Tonne Plan". It involves "thinning" all US forests, and planting practically every available acre with crops for biofuel. Basically, dedicating all of the available plant matter grown in the US to burning for transportation.
It's bogus that jet fuel can be renewable, at least in anywhere near the quantity we currently use. Mainly because the amount of arable land needed is staggering, and we already are destroying virgin rainforest just to feed the world.
I mean sure, you can reach that conclusion if your number is off by a factor of 30.
The amount of carbon in paper, cardboard, and food in existing municipal solid waste streams in the US would be nearly enough to make the current US jet fuel demand. It's not like replacing all liquid fuel use -- jet fuel is about 6% of US liquid fuel demand.
Assuming we use the hydrogen conversion process you mentioned, and have fitted the 1000's of square miles of solar panels it would need - I find it hard to believe that the US throws away 90 billion kg of carbon-rich domestic waste every year (apparently, the US gets through about 15 billion gallons of jet fuel per year).
Obviously, even if this is true, we then need to address the other 94% of liquid fossil fuel use.
The point is not necessarily to suggest that landfilled material be what is used to make jet fuel, but to point out the volumes are not enormous compared to what's already flowing through the economy. The US produces even more agricultural waste -- over 200 million tonnes of corn stover each year, for example.
The other fuel uses may in many cases be replaced by non-fuels, for example by electrification. Aviation is a special case where the high energy density of chemical fuels, and particularly hydrocarbons, will often be unavoidably attractive.
Do you really think that our current lifestyle is at all sustainable, without using nuclear power?
So far, you have suggested that we build several 1000 square miles of solar panels, and dedicate 90 billion kg of carbon-containing material annually, just to fuel 5% of the world population's aviation habit. How do you propose we replace the other 94% of that 5%'s liquid fuel use? After that, how about their total energy use (which dwarfs the total liquid fuel use)?
Absolutely. Nuclear power is neither necessary nor particularly useful. Not only is it too expensive, but if used to power the world it requires either breeders (which have not been found to be competitive with our current burner reactors) or very aggressively cheap sea water uranium extraction.
1000 square miles of land sounds like a lot, but for land at $1000/acre (which you can find in much of the US) that's $640M, or maybe 6% of the cost of a single one reactor nuclear power plant.
BTW, the world produces 2,000 million tonnes of municipal solid waste each year. The global production of agricultural waste is also very large. I also wonder how you're going to be fueling those nuclear powered aircraft, if not with carbon-containing synfuels.
I don't even care about the cost of the land, it's the mind-boggling amount of solar panels that would need to be manufactured to fill it. Have a think about how the panels would get shipped and fitted in this proposed facility - the panels would start degrading and reaching end of life before you could get anywhere near completion.
Look, you're arguing by vague feeling and handwaving there, not by calculation. If you actually look at the numbers, solar's going to be cheaper than nuclear here. The shipping argument is obviously wrong if you think about it even a little.
I think you need to step back and ask yourself why you're allowing yourself to make such silly statements. You look like a person defending an irrational prejudice.
Not sure how you can say that, when almost every comment I've ever made to you has had some kind of calculation in it. Sounds like it is you who is attempting to dismiss arguments with hand-waving. How can solar possibly be cheaper per unit of power than nuclear? Do you understand how EROEI works? It's about 15x greater for nuclear than solar, which is about the most inefficient way to generate power.
>The shipping argument is obviously wrong if you think about it even a little.
Humour me - how, exactly? How exactly is it "not a problem" to ship and install several thousand square miles of solar panels? Just for fun, here's another calculation for you to ignore:
To make the 15 billion gallons of jet fuel needed per year (for the US), you need 7.5 billion kg of hydrogen, requiring 375TWh (at 50 kWh/kg H2). Assuming an annual output of 360MWh per acre of solar, you need a million acres, or nearly 2000 square miles of solar panels (just to remind ourselves - this is just for jet fuel for the US, as you seem determined that this is feasible to do sustainably. I'm not sure what we will do about the other 99.9% of total US energy usage).
A commercial solar panel weighs 40 pounds and is 5ft by 3ft. Assuming they fit, you can load up a semi trailer with 1000 of those panels, for a total area of 15000 sq ft of solar per semi truck. You will need 4 million 18-wheeler loads of solar panels, for this proposed 2000 sq mile array. I'm not the one "handwaving away" the obvious difficulties here. The Evergreen container ship would need 200 journeys, loaded entirely with solar panels, to carry them all.
Apparently, installing the panels is the easy part. Hooking them all up to the grid is the time consuming part. I'm not sure what hooking up a 2000sq mile array would look like, as it is somewhere over 1000x greater than the current total world solar capacity.
Yeah, there free tier was useless when I tried it. Essentially couldn't send email to anyone, including myself, since their fiercely guarded IP addresses were crap.
For _any_ database there will be important information only available in the documentation.