I think this is a pretty common goal. This video is a bit pessimistic, but it shows a lot of evidence that many tech billionaires are aspiring to that end. Most notably Peter Thiel
The use case for more is managing the history of it in a specific way to make it easier to understand. Most applications don't need this level of management since most applications don't have lives depending on them
"XYZ destroyed my business and there's nobody I can talk to" is a recurring theme, that's not specific to any one platform. Every complex system needs a manual override process.
Not any more than any other payment processor. They basically all are lazy and want to reduce fraud, which is insanely out of hand. They attempt to do this by not doing much review, most of which is heavily automated and the end result is what happened to you.
It's a common growing trend that as long as something mostly works for 95% of people nobody will care and all those who fall between the cracks will fall on deaf ears.
we have 0 disputes, 0 payments and we only make money by collecting application fee from the sales of connected Stripe accounts. We technically don't even carry a risk to Stripe
I am also learning about the linux kernel, but not in an embedded context. Here are some good resources I have found.
https://man7.org/tlpi/ This book is considered the best overview of linux kernel interface. Its old, but still gives a broad coverage of topics.
https://lkml.org/ Browsing LKML is really helpful since it shows you where current development is happening and how kernel devs think. Some conversations get very advanced and nuanced.
Expanding on your first criteria. The technology stack is fundamentally wrong is a good reason for a re-write. Language too slow. Doesn't handle the workload well. Other stacks have a better ecosystem.
Re-writes are also needed when the architecture doesn't match the problem space well. This can be incrementally done. Single threaded loops instead of using parallel-safe constructs like tasks and jobs.
Expanding on your point, rewrites can work if they can be accomplished in finite time.
It's one thing to rewrite a website, where the project timeline is measured in weeks.
It's another to rewrite large project where the -estimate- time is years.
We have mature desktop systems that have been in continuous development for 25 years. That might blow your mind, but its the same timescale as say Excel of Word. The question of rewriting, regardless of the tech stack, is moot. It would take years of effort (optimists think 5, more likely 10) and would cost a fortune. With negligible benefits beyond "now written in a language with a bigger developer pool".
I'm the first to admit that there are disadvantages to the stack. On the other hand we are where we are (doing well) thanks to that stack, so it's not all bad. We're still using code laid down in 1996, while being a modern desktop app. We're still the leaders in our field.
The time (aka cost) to rewrite is the major hindrance, and far outweighs any issues using an uncommon stack.
Observability is so key for successful infrastructure. A poor infrastructure with good observability is going to be more successful with than good infrastructure and no observability
Conspiracies aside, there are a lot of reasons for this. Reducing liabilities. Responding to complaints. The "Shiny new thing" effect reducing over time.
This is going to be the biggest problem with general AI chat systems in the future, inconsistency. Often, they are too complex to know precisely how they work. Small tweaks will break some use cases while improving others. As more complexity is added to fix the next series of bugs, the systems will become less effective overall while user's have their workflows broken then mysteriously fixed.
From the end-users perspective, consumers will lose trust and move on.
Could this time be different? The tools are now in the hands of the "masses", not behind closed doors or in lofty ivory towers. People can run this stuff on their laptops etc
Every time someone says “this time it’s different” (e.g. 1998 internet bubble, 2007 housing bubble, 2020 crypto bubble, etc) time proves that this time was not really that different.
Well, of those 3 the 1998 internet bubble actually was different and modern society actually was fundamentally changed by the technology in question, so idk if that's the best counterargument. The other two, sure yeah those amounted to essentially nothing. But there have been plenty of bubbles where the concept underlying the bubble actually did have large societal impacts even if the investors all lost money, like tulipmania with futures contracts and railway mania with trains
But the internet did change things? Even crypto is debatable. BTC still exists and still has pretty high value, just not as high as at its peak.
TBH, I'm not sure how to quantify housing bubbles either. I'd bet most of the country has much higher home prices now than in 2007. I bet they were higher than 2007 in most places and most years between then and now too.
During that time period, the internet and smartphones alone have completely changed society (for better and worse) in the span of only three decades, despite the former going causing a minor economic crash in its infancy.
Almost everything is different except human nature. The scammers are innovating just like everyone else.
When someone says a technology completely changed society, I think of the hypothetical singularity that Kurzweil and company predict, where it's basically impossible for us to predict what the future looks like after. But when you look back at the world before the rise of the web and then smartphones, it's just taking preexisting technologies and making them available in more mobile formats. TV, radio, satellite and computers existed before then (1968 mother of all demos had word processing, hypertext, networking, online video). And some people did more or less foresee what we've done online since.
We still burn fossil fuels to a large extent, still drive but not fly cars, still live on Earth not in space, still die of the same causes, etc.
I watch a long cargo train that looks like it's form the 80s go by and wonder how much the internet changed cargo hauling. I'm sure with the logistics the internet made things a lot more efficient, but the actual hauling is not much different. It's not like we teleport things around now. You can order online instead of out of a catalog, but brick stores remain. You can read digital books, but still plenty of printed materials, bookstores, libraries.
> the internet and smartphones alone have completely changed society
I honestly think this overstates the case pretty severely. They have certainly caused societal change, but from what I can see, society as a whole is not actually all that different from what it was before all of that.
There was also a voice recognition thing in the 90s, the whole self-driving car/computer vision thing early to mid last decade, and a _very_ short-lived period when everyone was a chatbot startup in 2016 (I think Microsoft Tay just poured so much cold water over this that it died almost immediately).
Apple products communicate with each other even if they don't know each other, so an airtag will utilize the cellular of a nearby iphone in order to get information to apple's servers. I think google has a tracker that does something similar.
Its easy to imagine that previous generation tracking devices that sends its information across a broader range than an airtag will need to be larger battery thus being larger.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RpPTRcz1no&t=67s&pp=ygUQZGF...