Wish we lived in the universe where the term 'monkey' won over 'agent'. Would have given everything a cool Planet of the Apes feel.
I remember this getting a lot of buzz at the time, but few orgs are at the level of sophistication to implement chaos testing effectively.
Companies all want a robust DR strategy, but most outages are self-inflicted and time spent on DR would be better spent improving DX, testing, deployment and rollback.
I mean daemon was the previous winner before agent, and that had a solid mystical-djinni element to it. Monkey would have naturally gone the way of the daemon, as software development “matures” and undergoes corporate sterilization
The very next ask will be "order the zipcodes by number of customers" at which point you'll be back to aggregations, which is where you should have started
Anti-Patterns You Should Avoid: overengineering for potential future requirements. Are there real-life cases where you should design with the future in mind? Yes. Are there real-life cases where DISTINCT is the best choice by whatever metric you prioritize at the time? Also yes.
I hear you. It's not all _that_ uncommon for me to query for "things with more than one instance". Although, to be fair, it's more common for me to that when grep/sort/uniqing logs on the command line.
Here we start to get close to analytics sql vs application sql, and I think that's a whole separate beast itself with different patterns and anti-patterns.
"Figure out which codes they can use to get the most revenue" is a billion dollar industry with many players, subspecialties and surprisingly few lawsuits.
A lack of lawsuits can just be an off the record agreement that no one benefits from the entire mess being dragged in front of the courts with public record laws, because that is how you give future Luigis ideas.
The more shady the industry, the more everyone involved is shying awaa from sunlight.
Long wait times are not exclusive to public healthcare. My dermatology appointment to examine a concerning mole was scheduled 9 months out. And of course I pay for the privilege.
I implemented a casino in assembly for college. Started with a Mersenne Twister and added a few pure chance games like roulette and slots.
The PRNG was trivial. Managing the user's bank balance, switching between games, making the roulette wheel 'spin' by printing a loop of numbers slower and slower was painstaking, error ladden work.
State doesn't just contributing to complexity, it is complexity.
The key is goodness/badness of advice is a function of the receiver. The internet doesn't give you control over who reads your stuff, so internet advice is safer and less useful than it could be.
The advice "use 'any' if it's too much work to type" is dangerous/bad advice for some developers because they don't have a well tuned definition of 'too much work', and they might not have all the tricks in the toolbox for every situation.
But legacy code or poorly typed libs can be an infinity time suck, and the most pragmatic approach might be to cut your losses, slap an 'any' on it and move on.
A great mentor gives the best (different axis than good/bad or safe/danger) advice for an individual in a specific situation.
I remember this getting a lot of buzz at the time, but few orgs are at the level of sophistication to implement chaos testing effectively.
Companies all want a robust DR strategy, but most outages are self-inflicted and time spent on DR would be better spent improving DX, testing, deployment and rollback.
reply