That'd actually be a really cool pledge to make as a company. Sorta like the 1% for the planet initiative, but something similar to pledge a slice of profits or revenue, or exit-event-cash to the OSS projects you depended on most.
Slide 54 is insanely important. At my current place we've invested tons in instrumentation and metrics. Every IO operation is guarded with a semaphore and access is monitored and exposed. Every cache in the system logs everything from hit and miss rate to volume etc. Every async operation logs operation trails. We also ship a ton of tools for everything from bread and butter stuff like stack dumping, pinpointing long running threads etc. to more sophisticated stuff like being able to break in to a page rendering and profiling various element hierarchies, either over time or following specific users.
As I said, we've invested so much in getting the entire stack monitored very granularly, but every time our customers run in to issues it pays dividends.
For reference, we run on the JVM which is very pleasant. A ton of tools interop with it and basic things like MBeans being integrated in to JVM makes monitoring a lot easier.
Run time or development time? Runtime is mostly negligible except for places with heavy congestion (caches + rendering) where you can turn the heaviest operations on and off as needed -- in our case the call to `System.getCurrentTimeMillis()` is usually too expensive to do unless we really need it.
In terms of development, it's not a lot of work continuously, but it took some while to write up, test and benchmark standard libraries for eg monitorable semaphores. In general though, what it does is raise the entry threshold for new developers a bit as you need to have a feel for when something requires monitoring and when it doesn't.
This talk was given at AirBnB in SF. Talks there are fairly new and typically occur every other Wednesday. There is a talk tonight by Yehuda Katz and upcoming talks are posted here: http://www.airbnb.com/tech_talks
On slides 61-69, it seems to suggest that they were storing their photos directly in the database. Is this correct? It seems rather inefficient to do this, rather than storing the images in the filesystem.
I would argue that Facebook and Google are bubbles too since they do not provide value. Advertising is a joke of an industry - it produces nothing and is essentially the business of mass psychological manipulation. For proof that such bubbles burst, look towards to entertainment industry which also provides nothing of value yet charges through the nose for it.
>Please don't confuse your personal opinion of the advertising industry with 100+ years of empirical evidence.
It really depends on what your definitions are. My personal take on it is that advertising is duct tape for a broken economic model. If we have an entire economic system where one of it's pillars is something so asinine (psychological manipulation with no opt-out for certain flavors like billboards), perhaps we should rethink the model.
So, from the perspective of a business which is trying to find clients/customers, sure, there's a tonne of value. From the perspective of trying to move humanity to bigger and better things, it has a huge negative value, again, IMO.
>"Entertainment" is doing fine. The current industry establishment is not. Not the same thing.
I actually wrote "entertainment industry" in my post :)
> So, from the perspective of a business which is trying to find clients/customers, sure, there's a tonne of value.
Excellent. And I'm sure you'll agree that's something of a leap from "it produces nothing"? Also, there's a corollary to this: This enables competition by lowering barriers to entry, which massively benefits consumers.
>And I'm sure you'll agree that's something of a leap from "it produces nothing"?
A diamond is worth a great deal in a lot of peoples' eyes yet it produces nothing. Interestingly, the goal of advertising and marketing is to increase the value of actual things by tricking people into believing that a) there's not enough supply - buy it now! and b) that demand is too high - buy it now! What exactly has been produced here? Demand? That's not a thing, it's an idea. Intellectual "property" is an absurd term, therefore, nothing has been produced.
On the subject of why I think that it has no value - well, most businesses see no value in me scratching my hand because it has an itch. From my perspective, there is a great deal of value in it. Similarly, I see no value in what some businesses do, since, from my perspective, they are harming the people around them. There is no absolute value in anything. Therefore, the value of something is determined by the beholder, which in my case is me.
>This enables competition by lowering barriers to entry, which massively benefits consumers.
Assuming that a competitive economy is a good thing, ofcourse.
Google's might be overvalued but I don't think so. They've had 10 years of search data to analyze and understand human behaviour. They're working on solving mass consumer real-life issues; Maps, Chrome, Self-driving cars, etc..
I'm a pragmatist, so anything which makes survival easier has value. Everything else is fun and games (not important enough to build businesses around and charge money for). Personally, I think it would be good to have two economies - a 'core' economy where there is a gold standard, currency can only be traded for essential goods and patents and speculation are strictly forbidden. Then a 'extra/luxury/optional/nice-to-have' economy for all the rest which does allow a more fragile currency, speculation and what-not.
If you want food, produce something which will help someone else survive. If you want want to play around and relax, create something which will help other's do the same. Trade what you produce for what you require.