How would anyone know if they had done so? The point is they CAN exercise this kind of power, and they can do so in ways that can't be traced back to them. So who knows if they've done it? Who knows if they will? The fact that they could is the problem. Even that shadowy hypothetical threat gives them enormous (anti-democratic) power.
Patio's street cred doesn't come from the results of BCC, which was designed to be a small low-effort business. It comes from A.) His tremendous skill as a writer-teacher and B.) His track record of consulting success.
BCC seems to have been a learning playground that gave him a real business on which to sharpen the skills he's now known for, and which produced a bit of profit on top to boot. But a small competitive market is still a small competitive market. There's only so far optimization can take you in that scenario--if you have the skills, you're better off seeking a bigger pie to apply them to.
My guess is that losing the "patriot" act would actually improve the capabilities of US counterterrorism because they'll be forced to get their shit together and do some real intelligence work rather than wasting huge amounts of time and resources on this panopticon fantasy that they clearly have no idea how to utilize effectively. Constraints provide focus.
WS are fundamentally more complex than HTTP since connections are stateful and that state needs to be stored somewhere. It's another dimension that needs to be properly distributed and load balanced to be scalable.
It's not something you need to worry about for small applications, but for a scalable architecture, it's important to know the details of how this works. What happens to Meteor (or Play) with 100k simultaneous connections? How much ram and how many servers will I need? How do I load balance WS data between them? Will another datastore like redis be required? If so, how does it integrate with the framework? What if I outgrow a single instance of that datastore?
If I use pusher, I don't have to think about any of this.
It's a valid point. If you aren't satisfied with 70 years of life, will having 700 really make you any happier? You'll still die eventually, and assuming there's no afterlife, you'll still spend almost infinitely more time dead than alive.
Regardless of whatever finite amount of time you have, can the best way to spend it be pining for more?
A big part of the problem is lumping all drugs together in the first place and painting them with the same broad brush.
While it may be true there's no non-self-destructive reason to use some drugs (meth and heroin come to mind), there are plenty of others that many people are able to use responsibly and gain enjoyment, insight, or other benefits from.
MDMA, for example, while widely abused, has shown great promise as a therapeutic tool for treatment of PTSD and can have powerful strengthening effects on relationships. Is it your place to tell someone who stands to benefit greatly and plans to use this drug responsibly that there's no good reason for them to do it? Shouldn't that be up to them?
But there's no such thing as an absolute market value for chairs--it's a function of quality (among other things). There are plenty of CEOs who choose to buy expensive chairs for their employees without causing any controversy.
Employee market rates are a function of quality too. If paying twice as much gets you employees who create three times more value, that shouldn't be a controversial decision either.
I don't know. Aren't there are also plenty of recent successes that owe a lot of their success to good design? This feels like an attempt to slap on a grand narrative when it's really nothing more than "most new products fail". More relevant would be a study of the exceptional cases--successes--to see if there's a correlation with an improving standard of design.