They're hiring for roles that look like cloud and infrastructure engineers- although that may be for internal infrastructure for training their models.
Postgres as a queue is one of the worst decisions I've seen made and I and others I've worked with have spent years of our lives unwinding the consequences.
Surely if your complaint is general enough to give such advice to everyone here, there must be a way to express generalized technical details of that complaint without disclosing anything more privileged than you already have. If that kind of abstraction and generalization isn't possible, then it sounds to me like something specific to your work's implementation of the ideas and not something that applies broadly.
Completely disagree for our use case. If your messages aren't send-and-forget but rather represent work that needs to be tracked, it is incredibly difficult to manage the state when your database and queue are separate. Using postgresql as the queue and leveraging the same transactions as your business logic solves many many issues.
As a person who has implemented worker farms at scale, I don't understand which part is "incredibly difficult", or what having a dedicated queue server prevents you from updating database state within "the same transactions". If your worker process has to update some kind of task state and calculate some business logic, it can still do so whether if you use rmq, redis or whatever.
dralley is saying your queue push and database write aren't transactional. You have to be ok suffering some small % of message loss or messages sent without a database commit
At the end of the day, the ONLY way to reliably do this is to hook into the databases native journal/log anyway. Postgres gives you better primitives to work with than installing Qlik for example.
I've ridden long distances around US and usually if you've got 120 miles of gas range, you're fine pretty much anywhere on pavement, even in that very long stretch of no services in Utah. Off road of course is another universe.
I don't think an EV will replace the GS's capability for decades. I'm much more interested in replacing the capability of my DR-Z400 or WR250.
That would be a great start. But one could ponder the usefulness. Bikes like the DRZ400 is a niche bike. One doesn't replace that with an EV for the sake for the environment. I'd love to see an EV with that capability, but it won't happen if there's no market for it. We could easily be riding gasoline motorcycles for the next 100 years.
Niche? We must live in different places. Where I live dual sports are probably the most popular bikes after Harleys. All the kids in my neighborhood are getting Surrons instead of gas dirt bikes.
I don't get their marketing pitch. The idea seems to be to brand water as if it were an energy drink or alcoholic beverage. I'd have thought that the appeal of the irony would wear thin very quickly.
The product is almost a commodity. I've bought it and it tastes good, but it's virtually identical to other sparkling waters. But look at how differentiated the packaging is.
They're entering one of the least exciting/innovative categories, branding it in this unhinged, hyper-masculine way (e.g. cartoon monsters decapitating thirsty people) that has already proven successful (in things like energy drinks and craft beer) and completely stands out in aisles full of bottled water branded with rivers/waterfalls/mountains.
Is it worth $700 million? Who knows. But as someone in marketing, I am really in awe of brands that can actually pull off something so wildly different like this. The risk of it falling flat and you looking like an absolute idiot is so high, that it's incredibly impressive when someone actually nails it - as these guys clearly have.
I daily commuted on a 300cc for a long time and yeah, the extra power is very handy on US highways. I find at least 70hp is a nice sweet spot, and everything above that is mostly for putting a grin on your face for a solo rider.
Yamaha Niken. Ducati also does some really cool stuff with their bike tech, but doesn't market it as much as the other brands, preferring their exotic brand image.
My F750GS is such an easy bike to live with. It's one of those products that on paper seems boring compared to the competitors but when you actually use it every day you see why it's nice.
I also had a F750GS for a year or so. It was my first bike (at age 41). It was a wonderful motorcycle, considering my lack of experience on other motorcycles.
Lightweight, not too tall (as I am relatively short at 5'7"). Capable with good performance, but not too fast.
Cyclists are supposed to stop at stop signs, if not stop at least yield. At least in this case (if true), the cyclist followed the truck through a 4 way intersection (assuming it's a 4-way stop), that would put them in the wrong.
There’s rules as written and then rules as followed — I’d much prefer a system that recognizes the rules that people tend to follow/bend/break — as a cyclist I too will often “convoy” with a bigger vehicle as it provides some additional protection most of the time (though obviously not here)
As a bicyclist in San Francisco, if I follow the rules as written, I cause traffic. Cars expect me to blow through four-way stop-sign intersections, and if I stop and wait for the cars, the drivers get confused & don't want to go (afraid of hitting me, I suspect).
In terms of right of way, the rules as followed seem to be pedestrian > bike > car.
I sometimes give way to bicyclists at four-way stops because I can't be sure they didn't get there before I did and I didn't see them because they're small.
And of course, if a vehicle, be it a bicyclist or car, enters an intersection when I have right-of-way, it's not like I'm going to start crossing and intentionally run into them.
Where bicyclists really risk their lives if they start assuming cars will give way to them is when they blow through two-way stops, especially at night or at one of the many intersections with poor visibility.
> The felony conviction was the first of its kind in the nation involving a bicyclist.
The list of things that have killed one person in the last several hundred years is long. Everything is potentially deadly by that standard.
Here's a case mentioned in Law's Order:
"The plaintiff was about 14 years of age, and the defendant about 11 years of age. On the 20th day of February, 1889, they were sitting opposite to each other across an aisle in the high school of the village of Waukesha. The defendant reached across the aisle with his foot, and hit with his toe the shin of the right leg of the plaintiff. The touch was slight. ... In a few moments he felt a violent pain in that place, which caused him to cry out loudly. ... He will never recover the use of his limb."
(Vosburg v Putney, 80 Wis. 523, 50 N.W. 403 (1891))
Note that there are bike lanes on the likely street where this occurred. The cyclist was not necessarily following the truck but could have been parallel (and overtaken).
This grug not big brain. This grug ate food and read article on big screen at the same time. Now food on screen, not in belly. Grug still hungry, but need to find rag now to clean screen. Otherwise no more work and no more shiny rocks for grug. But grug thanks other grug for article. Grug belly empty, but grug brain full now.
