Thread local storage means all async tasks (goroutines) must run in the same thread. This isn't how tasks are actually scheduled. A request can fan out, or contention can move parts of the computation between threads, which is why context exists.
Furthermore in Go threads are spun up at process start, not at request time, so thread-local has a leak risk or cleanup cost. Contexts are all releasable after their processing ends.
I've grown to be a huge fan of Go for servers and context is one reason. That said, I agree with a lot of the critique and would love to see an in-language solution, but thread-local ain't it.
A more correct term is "goroutine-local" storage, which Go _already_ has. It's used for pprof labels, they are even inherited when a new Goroutine is started.
Docker has jumped the shark as a company, good thing the alternatives are maturing quickly. We've had pretty good (not perfect) success with the Colima project.
They decided they want to actually get paid for their work and changed their pricing structure so large companies need to pay for their software and apparently that's terrible and everybody started being very vocal about alternatives despite still being able to use it for free.
Honest question as someone who prefers single payer but acknowledged it's not a silver bullet: how much of the costs are nurses and doctors vs. admin? It seems to me there's a lot of overhead in passing the bills around to get paid. I just had my appendix out last year and got billed 8 times by 8 different firms, each with payment portals, call centers, billing providers, etc. I assume there's a lot of inefficiency internally too.
You're ignoring the fact that all of the large insurers are increasingly also the healthcare providers.
UnitedHealth Group is the owner of both United Healthcare (the largest insurer in the country) and Optum (the largest healthcare provider in the country).
Part of UHG's low profit margin is its liberal use of intra-company eliminations, where transactions between Optum and United Healthcare get zeroed out and don't count toward profit despite it ultimately generating more dollars in the parent company's coffers.
I feel people defend them by opposing any other approach to solving this. Politicians in particular say things like "preserving customer choice", which I think just means having the ability to select among all the terrible insurance companies who will treat you poorly.
That excuse doesn't even hold up because in places like the UK which have universal healthcare, private health insurance still exists alongside it as a "premium" option. That's more choice!
And shouting about "death panels" in public healthcare systems, as if the private insurance companies don't have people whose whole job is denying as many claims as possible
Yeah. The biggest difference is you can elect the public healthcare death panels, or call your senator or representative to lean on them. There's not a thing you can do about the private insurers' death panels.
Medicare may turn you down for an organ transplant because there are only so many to go around and you're not the best candidate. Private insurance may turn you down because "shareholder value".
Technically, they have the ability to choose whoever they want, they just have to pay full price with post tax income. If people accept their employer's choice, then they get to pay for a lower, employer subsidized premium with pre tax income.
That is one thing that would fix this problem fast. Let individuals tax deduct the price of their health insurance directly. There’s no reason it should only be up to your employer.
Part of the problem is that the websites need to "share" budget with the teams that build 2 separate native apps (or maybe they use something like React Native, but that still costs money that could've been used for a better mobile website).
Also, if a company has a mobile app, a bad mobile website is less of a problem. Take Takeaway.com. Their mobile site is terrible. But they have a pretty good mobile app, so why would they need to pour money into making the site any better?
But yes, (mobile) web also just needs to do better.
Ready to use (or buy/download) controls in appdev usually pack some ui wisdom into themselves for free, borrowing most of it from the base system.
Webdev is constant reinvention of a wheel in all sorts of wrong ways, with “components” on the same level of ui quality.
Many apps are just electron apps or vb-like (x,y,w,h) forms slapped together by someone barely familiar with a platform IDE. But the rest is absolutely superior to the “web”.
reply