The US Marines or the British Parachute Regiment heavily promote their status as an elite corps. Advertising for theme parks and even toys often uses the "Are you tough enough?" trope. The Hermes Birkin bag has become one of the most sought-after items in fashion, precisely because Hermes won't sell them to the 'wrong' sort of people.
Either I live in a world where a startup is being stupid and flagrantly spending millions on an ad during superbowl, or they'll be a raging success....by spending millions airing ads which appear to insult their potential customers and pandering to base exclusivism...
Its like a social desirability Catch 22...either way, we lose.
> Is something like HHVM considered a tech breakthrough?
A largely backwards source-compatible, JIT'ed interpreter for one of the world's shittiest designed but most widely deployed languages? That runs the frontend fleet for the #2 site on the Web? While supporting new core language features and extensions? Yes, I would say that's a breakthrough in interpreter implementation, and thus tech.
What about transaction latency, driver/passenger reputations and ratings, local legal compliance, payment for auxiliary services like maps and point-to-point navigation? All those things sound like they'd be worse off.
The end benefit to the consumer being monopoly prevention isn't likely to outweigh the service guarantees of a centralized service.
Yes, but I'd ideally go to a licensed, brick-and-mortar store for the reputation and reliability over either eBay or Craigslist, if it weren't for the prices and availability of items. My point is that the benefits of centralized, non-blockchain solutions can outweigh what you lose when you go decentralized, and that's something that should be questioned of every new blockchain application.
> There is no reason a blockchain based app couldn't be implemented.
I don't think anyone is doubting this bit. It's the overwhelming current trend of forcing everything onto the blockchain, whether it improves the application or not. The interesting questions (frequently not answered) revolve around why one should do this.
To me, the supposed benefit of using blockchain was so obvious as not to require stating: Removal of any central authority over connecting customers to service providers. And you might not want Uber tracking your travels, for example.
There are good arguments for centralization, too. Not saying the blockchain argument win out. Just saying, the benefits are the same as for every other blockchain application, and well understood.
The whole system wouldn't have to sit on the blockchain - only the parts that are needed to put out a request. The only part that would need some thought is the initial location. One option would be to put out a general location, within 10 miles, then only give exact location to those who request it and have a proven record of being good drivers. That's another problem as well - how do you create a ratings system on the blockchain that can't be manipulated? Perhaps a page-rank style algorithm could do that.
That often expands into hundreds of thousands of lines though. It's more routine to go backdoor-hunting in binaries; you've given me the interesting idea of running `strings` on the binary and looking for anything that's not in the source.
Are they actually using multi-master replication? I gleaned from the article series that they have many small independent MySQL clusters, each with one master and two slaves, and that their worker layer handles requesting data from the correct cluster for whatever shard a request routes to. Writes to a cluster can only go the master. So this seems more like a single-master design, just replicated a bunch but without the masters communicating with each other.
That said, I haven't used MySQL much at all. Am I just missing something or misunderstanding what multi-master means in the context of MySQL?