Dependency weight is more a factor for maintenance than initial development.
The apps I write I have to support for many years, so this dependency weight does concern me. By dependency weight I am more referring to the breadth of authors/maintainers and not the actual amount of code. When working in the Java/.NET worlds you still deal with a ginormous amount of dependency code, but they are one maintainer that is funded. The downside of monolithic dependencies is lack of flexibility and vendor lock in.
It’s an interesting product but it’s very barebones. Netlify is a whole company vested in making the same thing as this “side project” by CloudFlare and therefore has a lot more interesting features than just serving static files.
>Whereas Cloudflare really are allowing people to deploy code at 100's of edge locations
Does cloudflare "really" deploy the code to the edge in any sense (e.g pushed to edge nodes, not just cached there)? I was under the impression this product uses some origin (likely, several) they manage, and their cdn.
Also cloudflare has a good number of POPs but I thought it was in the 100-200 range, not 200+
We have hardware in more than 200 cities in 100 countries globally: https://www.cloudflare.com/network/ It is very definitely above 200 locations. And we own the hardware there, we're not piggybacking on someone else's cloud and calling it our network.
They have a great breakdown on their blog[1] around the high-level request flow, but Workers run independently in each POP/colo. They aren't "faked" / running in some more centralized location.
Traffic only has to leave the edge if you want to fetch from _your origins_ behind it, but any responses the Worker generates itself are local to that edge POP. Return a static response, inspect/validate a JWT, modify something on the way out of the cache: all close to the user.
Disclaimer: used to work at Cloudflare, still think it's a great product.
Do you still have a regular WordPress host though? Do you use WordPress.com?
I always wanted to do this but every solution requires some non-free PHP hosting alongside the static host. WordPress.com doesn’t let you customize it unless you pay and if you want to use it headlessly you have to build a non-WordPress template elsewhere.
I have a low-traffic low-edit WordPress site I want to staticize, but no solution is server-free.
Yes I use wp.com as a dumb backend with a somewhat blank template so SEs won't find it. Then pull all posts via the API, download images, etc. Render them via Jinja and upload them to Netlify.
Semi-related: Do you think we’ll ever see a substantial reduction of pre-flight times? Why can’t we go through check-in and board directly, after an immediate security check? (Needless to say, this requires a brand new type of airport)
Some airports are in a good position to implement this already: Singapore airport has security checks right at the gate so you go through them and wait a short time in the seating area. When the plane is available, boarding happens immediately. What’s missing here is that the check-in desk is still way before this point.
I think the problem here is security checking, and not just because it adds time, but because it adds a highly variable AMOUNT of time.
Queueing theory says that unless you massively overprovision on available security screening stations, there's always going to be a long tail of latency for getting through security. For example, if a burst of people arrive all at once then you could take an hour to get through, whereas if you arrive at just the right moment you might only need 5 minutes.
The second part of the puzzle is that the plane costs a lot to be sitting around while people board. So it's important the plane spend as little time boarding as possible, which means passengers need to all be available to board at the same time.
I don't really see any other solution to these requirements except for passengers to arrive early enough that the worst-case security latency still gets them to their boarding on time, which means a long seemingly-useless wait for the vast majority of passengers who don't get unlucky.
Of course, the real solution to all of this is to discard or streamline the security theater that happens at airports, but that's a political problem, not a technical one.
It might be different outside of Europe, but we did go through a significant reduction in pre-flight times in our lifetimes: I remember scrambling with my family to arrive to the airport 3–4 hours in advance and spending all that time queuing.
Now for most of my flights I just check-in online, arrive to the airport an hour before departure, and spend 45 minutes and jaywalking around the airport while drinking overpriced coffee.
This is true. Most of these comparisons are between a well-used system with a brand-new one. “Of course Firefox feels snappier than Chrome, you haven’t installed your 20 extensions yet.” A so on.
I wouldn’t use it either, for the same reason. Choosing a movie now takes 1 second for each card since they’re displayed one at a time and I have to do something to say NO.
How about you just show me a list where I can mark what I like and then get a list at the end. Then just switch phones and see each other’s list. Instead of an exact match, you limit each other’s choice to 10 movies you just picked.
In other news, 12% of nurses are men. Is it because the nursing industry isn’t welcoming to men or is it because men aren’t attracted to nursing jobs?
You can see bias anywhere you look, but if you look well you’ll see that it’s just a natural consequence of the real world.
If a user joined a car shop group, said user is likely to be interested in car-related jobs. It happens to be that most of these users are men. The algorithm is working as intended.
In some fields this difference isn’t as clear or obvious, so we end up with these articles.
"consequence of the real world" feels like a cop out answer to the question. that very well may be part of if not the whole reason (I'm not a labor economists or the sort so I'm not going to speculate), but I would rather see if there aren't other systemic reasons for the biases - ie reinforcing gender with different jobs in media consumption, the domination of one gender in a type of job creating an environment that turns aways members of the other gender intentionally or unintentionally
and even of "that's just the way things are", I don't see any good reason why the advertising needs to remain so targeted on the lines of gender. job recruitment should be as free of biases as possible
In the car repair job example, it’s not clear to me that the ad is being targeted on gender; in fact, it’s pretty clear to me that it’s being targeted based on revealed interest in cars. That the latter has a correlation with gender is true but not especially concerning to me.
I don’t disagree with you, but that will make advertising less effective. A nursing job shown to me and a programming job shown to my sister will both be ignored and wasted. The opposite wouldn’t be true.
Likewise showing me a car shop job would also be wasted, not because of my gender, but because I have no interest in cars, as my Facebook profile clearly shows.
I think this depends on what the algorithm uses. Or would "liked page related to the job description" be considered a protected characteristic? My non-lawyer instinct would say that as long as the algorithm doesnt't contain a line that explicitly tells it to consider sex as a parameter to decide who to show the ad, it doesn't breach this law.
And, indeed, those laws are set up, in a sense, to cut against "natural" order (or, more specifically, to widen opportunities beyond the limits imposed by societal tradition).
> The algorithm is not "working as intended" if it's violating EEO laws.
It is if it is intended to work in a way that violates EEO laws.
Just like if somewhat sets a death trap targeting you and it works as planned, the fact that it is violating murder laws doesn’t suddenly mean it isn’t working as intended.
Looking at the data from the related women dominated profession of teacher, the answer is very much that it isn't welcome to men. "culture fit" as they call it.
An old theory to explain this is the impact that being a minority has on the individual. Any difficult and advanced education is going to cause ups and down, and each road block will natural trigger self doubt. Being a minority makes that doubt stronger and increases that risk that the individual will abandon their chosen path. Similar being in a strong majority demographic will lower the self doubt and associated risk.
Multiply that risk for 4 years of studying and then a few years in profession, and the minority demographic will look like a leaking pipe. If you ask those who choose to leave the profession, the answers will have a large percentage saying that they did not feel like they fitted in.
In addition, industries that are dominated with men tend to focus progression on a career path with a steady amount of raises, while industries that a dominated by women tend to focus progression on privileges and status positions within the organization. A miss match of those expectation may also lead to people not feeling appreciated for their contributions and end up quieting the profession.
The Boston Globe has an interesting chart of other professions dominated by women: https://archive.is/3t8dU (archive.is since there's a paywall at the Globe)
Women's representation in CS was highest in the 60s and has fallen pretty consistently since then (starting to rise a bit recently as the industry has started to see the gap as a problem). The general prestige and economic rewards of CS, on the other hand, have risen considerably in the same time period.
If a demographic's involvement decreases as the subject becomes more rewarding, it seems more likely to be because external forces are discouraging them rather than any inherent lack of interest.
That article goes over some problems with the initial study, and some issues replicating (although the follow up study did find a similar effect). Hardly seems like a slam dunk, though, and given those issues it seems the effect is likely weak if it does exist.
More broadly, I question how effectively "endogenous interest" can be accurately measured without risking a lot of confounding factors from the broader society. I didn't read the original paper, maybe they tried to account for that, but I can't really see how you reliably could. People's interests don't exist in a vacuum, they're tangled up in their upbringing and society. If they'd done a similar study a century ago they might have found women having a high endogenous interest in being homemakers.
I don't think you could separate them at all because things like gender roles are down wind from sex roles and societal upbringing and nobody is brought up outside of social conditions to act as a control.
The important question is whether passionate people are being kept out of industry en masse. My gut says it probably happens on an individual basis but I don't see why it would happen systematically.
Hope I don't like a fossil, because I wasn't born back then, but wasn't this due to skilled typists being primarily female - and thus naturally qualified to be computer scientists? If you go back further in time, they would've been flocks of human calculators:
How is CS being represented in this case? A 1960s CS syllabus would, at best, have amounted to typing classes, punch cards, FORTRAN, ALGOL, COBOL, and a bit of EE (a male-dominated major) on the side. All of this would have been learned largely for secretarial work in offices or academia. Nothing to do with kernels, operating systems, computer architectures, building killer apps or web-based services as it would today. Sixty years ago, computer science was just white-collar labor.
There are three reasons computers became popular in the first place: proliferation of open hardware standards with the S-100 bus, cheap computer kits, and software portability that came with Unix and CP/M clones. So anyone who knew how to build/buy hardware could program what they want on it. No need for a time-sharing system or a college degree. At that point the only limitation was time, money, and inclination.
I disagree with your final statement. It wasn't external forces artificially depressing a demographic so much as it was natural interest becoming a more prominent limiting factor.
Maybe, but why aren’t more girls interested in computing in the first place? If it was just a workplace issue we’d see a lot more college admissions of women in CS programs, who then would drop out or change career later due to those issues.
I don’t think computing is seen strictly as a gender-restricted job like, say, mining and teaching, I wouldn’t expect much friction in the way of a young girl to be potentially interested in it and begin a career.
It just doesn’t happen that often, however. Does it have to be someone’s fault?
Fixing your own website is fine, I’m just saying that unless a standard to fix this in a systematic way comes along, 99% of the web is still going to be unusable. For example a reasonable solution would be <button href=‘...’>
If I can write monaLisa() and get a nice painting on canvas then that really was 1 LOC.
What line count doesn’t include is the weight of the dependency, which may or may not matter.