Worked at a large B2B SaaS from near beginning. You want a hybrid; shared DB, but with the ability to move to a 'shard/pod' architecture where you separate out your customers/users into different dbs / apps servers as you scale.
We did it about 3 years in, when DB became a scale challenge. Eventually you'll also get to the point where you want to be able to rebalance and migrate data between each shard.
All of this is nothing you should be trying to solve too early; i struggle to think of any real benefits of single DB per user, unless you are separating out all architecture- including app servers - and that might only be relevant for large enterprise customers? Selling in that market is hard.
It may not have explicitly stated that there was no human to human transmission, but that was strongly suggestive that there wasn’t.
The default assumption should be, that a virus affecting hundreds of people already, could be contagious. Suggesting otherwise, with no reasonable evidence to support such, is deliberately obfuscating if not deliberately misleading. There was absolutely no reason to make such a statement other than to parrot without question what was being reported by the PRC.
Considering Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus received support from the PRC in his candidacy for leadership of the WHO, and the significant ties between his home country of Ethiopia and the PRC, I’m skeptical that it was just absolute ignorance without any political influence or bias that prompted such a statement.
That’s totally true, but I don’t think it should be controversial to say that the WHO lied by omission, and that their statement was intentionally intended to convince countries _not_ to lock down.
"No clear evidence" uncovered in a "preliminary investigation" was a completely true statement. They never ever said "okay, this definitely isn't transmissible, everybody can ignore it". They said in the early stages that it was too soon to be sure. All the other tweets from this period are saying the same thing: something might be coming, so countries should prepare.
I expect that you'd be able to pay a premium to get a vehicle to yourself (or use a different service that offers that). Otherwise you're at the mercy of their algorithms. Based on pickup and dropoff locations/times, each vehicle would pick 4-6 people from disparate locations and then work out the optimal route and drop schedule. You'd get a cheaper fare (or monthly subscription) in exchange for tolerating the extra pickups and dropoffs.
Fewer stops than a typical bus, more nimble, and more flexibility with locations/routes. I imagine we'll see apps that offer a further discounted fare if you move closer to a thoroughfare for pickup or accept a dropoff short of your house (e.g., end of the street).
That doesn't seem too unreasonable. The car-summoning services like Uber and Lyft already offer discounts for opting into shared rides where other riders may join you.
In the end we're all responsible for our own actions - but there are a lot of outside factors that influence us. The leak appears to have been a significant factor. I'm less interested in the fact that infidelity would likely have eventually lead to the divorce (though if it was privately dealt with it may not have) - I'm more curious if the timing was advantageous for MBS. This is all pure speculation, though.
I'm surprised this take is so controversial. Bezos didn't deserve to get hacked and exposed like this, but the hack exposed infidelity. The hack didn't plant fully fabricated evidence of infidelity.
I don't think "I would have gotten away with it!" is a compelling argument, but I'm not a Scooby Doo villain.
The comments about timing, malice, financial consequences, etc., are all fair for making a case that the hacks and leaks are scummy, but the Bezos's are in charge of their own relationship, or lack thereof.
> The company told internet service providers to connect to its other servers to "route around the problem".
I believe this means they changed their DNS settings and waited for it to propagate. This implies that the internet in general was accessible, but some larger companies that bought part of a fiber cable were inaccessible over that line.
It's not a controversial stance within NZ these days, nor seen as particularly partisan there. Other countries (especially the US given what it meant for ANZUS) might find it more so.
It was controversial at the time, resulting in the US kicking NZ out of their security alliance (something that was of no detriment to the US), and continues to be controversial every time the topic of a US ship coming to NZ is brought up. The fact that the only outcome this policy has ever achieved is the prevention of allied navy visiting NZ is a very consistent source of controversy in NZ. To claim otherwise is simply rewriting history.
"Day 1 Editions are designed to bring you our most innovative ideas faster. By choosing to participate, you’ll have the opportunity to contribute feedback that informs future product ideas and development."
So compared to for example Apple, they are taking a different approach with this product.
This is actually a pretty clever way to get early feedback on new ideas.
And the people who say "you have to pay for this stuff". Um yeah, that is the point. If nobody buys it.... maybe that is a clue there is no market for the idea (at least at that price point).
Neat! Too bad the discussion is about this particular device and not the actual program itself...
> Sounds like they're making people pay to be beta testers.
Kind of the point. If people aren't willing to part with their hard earned dollars for the device, maybe it won't be a market success and they should stop investing in it?
No one is being made to do anything, but if you want to be a beta tester, you have to actually buy the thing. They aren't giving it away for you to test with. And you have to be invited, apparently.
This product is part of Amazon's "Day One" program, which is largely stuff that they're throwing against the (shopping) wall to see if it sticks. It's like the Alexa Microwave...a shitty microwave that was intended as a reference design that became the best-selling microwave on Amazon.
Amazon is testing the waters for Alexa-integrated wearables. Not just earbuds, which are a saturated market, but other wearables like rings and frames.
If it does, the potential upside is huge--they could create an entire new market, like they did with the original Echo and Kindle. If not, it's a rounding error in an immaterial account on the financials.
I think it's more that Amazon has so much money that their version of market research looks much different than what you typically think of as market research.
Producing a new device, throwing it up on their website to sell, and seeing how well it does is Amazon's version of market research. It's "move fast and break things" brought into the hardware space. They actually even say as much in their description of the "Day 1 Editions" program, of which the Echo Loop is part of.
The "move fast and break things" motto doesn't mean actually "breaking" things. It means not being afraid of mistakes, because things that are "broken" or "wrong" can be fixed down the line.
In this case, Amazon is exhibiting not being afraid of releasing a possibly unsuccessful product, because they know they can iterate on it (or pivot, or exit entirely) later on.
Remember the failed phone? Half of these new echo devices likely will suffer the same fate. I can’t imagine wanting to speak to my hand or my glasses in public... looking completely insane while doing it.
We did it about 3 years in, when DB became a scale challenge. Eventually you'll also get to the point where you want to be able to rebalance and migrate data between each shard.
All of this is nothing you should be trying to solve too early; i struggle to think of any real benefits of single DB per user, unless you are separating out all architecture- including app servers - and that might only be relevant for large enterprise customers? Selling in that market is hard.