None of these seem to apply and I am not a lawyer, but if they do not apply then, why would the president have the power of taxation when that is given to the legislative branch not executive branch.
Not clear to me why these new tariffs would be on better footing than the last and the last never seemed to be on good footing.
> Its like going 70 mph in a sleepy subdivision because a road sign on the interstate says you can go 70 there.
> Trump is taking an law that says "You can do X if Y" and saying "I can do X"
I think it's more like going 70mph downtown because there's a sign saying "if onn an interstate you can do 70mph" -- the "if on an interstate" is pretty important there!
Potentially inflationary yes but would correct the current account deficit and some of the other imbalances (lack of blue collar jobs, excessive financialisation, income inequality) that accompany it.
Not the best way but not completely stupid either.
If you’re interested in this perspective look up Michael Pettis’s work, he explains it better than me.
To be clear, I’m not defending trump, I think he is an idiot. This would be a “stopped clock is right twice a day” situation if he ends up doing it
You are correct. My country does not have the similar separation of powers the US has. I do not understand why Americans have a hard time realizing this: the President and other elected officials work for YOU. They literally run for office to get the position, and they get voted in. Why would someone let an elected official enrich themselves and their friends with your money? Why would the legislative branch allow that?
A populace with a functioning representative democracy deserves its leaders.
There is no mechanism for citizens of the united states to recall a president or member of congress. They must wait 2, 4, and 6 years depending on who they'd like to replace. This contributes to the the current woes as as many members of congress and some presidents (like this one) would certainly undergo recall battles or be immediately recalled. Since we can't though, and elections in this country are a 12-16 month barrage of lies, propaganda and ads by the time voting does come around people just check which ever box matches their team, zero thought given and are thankful the whole mess is over with so they can mostly ignore politics until its time to start complaining again about how poorly they're represented. Repeat.
Another issue is that you actually need a lot of money to meaningfully run for most federal office roles, so that's one filter which promotes rich guys who don't care about doing the job well.
To put it another way, I have not participated in a federal election where I was excited about my options, ever. I have always been triage voting in federal elections ever since I was old enough to vote.
So yes, we do vote for our clowns, but only because we're not given any decent options to vote for.
Fortunately, the US giving a lot of power to states means that our more local elections are a lot more interesting to participate in and at least in my state, I have several decent options to vote in people who will make a real difference.
>”Why would someone let an elected official enrich themselves and their friends with your money? Why would the legislative branch allow that?”
Let is a heavily loaded term here. The most an individual can reasonably do is cast their single vote in an election year. I could attempt to bring a lawsuit against a politician, but it would almost certainly be thrown out due to a lack of standing. Activism is certainly an option, but that is really just an effort to convince others to cast their single vote differently. Outside of those options, one would have to break some laws.
About 30% of our electorate consists of so-called "deplorables" who are geographically distributed in a way that gives them outsized influence. The deplorables were happy to set aside their own best interests at the voting booth because Trump promised to hurt other people more.
Promises were made, and as far as the deplorables are concerned, promises were kept. They continue to approve of his actions wholeheartedly.
There is probably no way back for us, unfortunately. Please keep in mind than a healthy majority of American voters either voted against Trump or chose to sit out the election. We are largely powerless, though, due to system-level weaknesses that have been present since the nation's founding but couldn't effectively be exploited until recently.
>Why would someone let an elected official enrich themselves and their friends with your money? Why would the legislative branch allow that?
Republicans in Congress were elected expressly to allow Trump to do as he wishes.
>A populace with a functioning representative democracy deserves its leaders.
Yes. Despite Trump himself being a fascist, the government continues to operate as a representative democracy. Most Congresscritters have their thumbs up their asses waiting for things to get much worse, which mirrors the vast majority of voters.
Is it national apathy? Decadence? Addiction to the drama, anger and depravity of Trump TV?
In my experience, it's easier to take schema out into a new DB in the off-chance it makes sense to do so.
The big place I'd disagree with this is when "your" data is actually customer data, and then you want 1 DB per customer whenever you can and SQLite is your BFF here. You have 1 DB for your stuff(accounting, whatever) and then 1 SQLite file per customer, that holds their data. Your customer wants a copy, you run .backup and send the file, easy peasy. They get pissed, rage quit and demand you delete all their data, easy!
> If you know what you're doing you don't need AWS support.
Some big companies have massive monolith code bases. This is not a generalization you could apply universally. There are a lot of other considerations. What kind of features are we talking about, what kind of I/o patterns are planned, what is the scale of data expected, etc.
Highly recommend reading Designing Data-Intensive Apps [1] and Monolith to Microservices [2]. I can't remember which (maybe both?) but I definitely took away the idea that if services share a DB, that DB's schema is now a public interface and becomes much more difficult to evolve with new requirements.
The way I think of it is that a DB should only be accessed by a single replicaset in k8s. Only processes of identical code should share the DB. Everything else is through RPC interfaces.
This is how large scale systems are built, but the pattern makes less sense the smaller your footprint is.
Coming from a world of acquisitions, I see almost every startup make the same decision of having a single database for everything. Can’t stress enough how big of a problem this becomes once you scale even a little bit. Migrations are expensive and time consuming. And for most teams, moving an application to a different db almost always becomes an urgent need, when they are least able to.
The issue wasn't sharing a database, it was not being clear about who owns what.
Having multiple teams with one code base that has one database is fine. Every every line of code, table and column needs to be owned by exactly ONE team.
Ownership is the most important part of making an organization effective.
He doesn't want to manage the database the way he manages the rest of his infrastructure. All of his bullet points apply to other components as well, but he's absorbed the cost of managing them and assigning responsibilities.
- Crud accumulates in the [infrastructure thingie], and it’s unclear if it can be deleted.
- When there are performance issues, infrastructure (without deep product knowledge) has to debug the [infrastructure thingie] and figure out who to redirect to
- [infrastructure thingie] users can push bad code that does bad things to the [infrastructure thingie]. These bad things may PagerDuty alert the infrastructure team (since they own the [infrastructure thingie]). It feels bad to wake up one team for another team’s issue. With application owned [infrastructure thingies], the application team is the first responder.
What's the DBMS? We moved in the other direction with postgres, merged multiple databases to simply have a schema per service/application instead. All the advantages with none of the disadvantages, imo. (We then had a single database per running test/dev environment, rather than multiple.) Of course, that's a pg thing, if you use MySQL for example it's not an option.
Yes, we are using postgres and my plan was to use separate schemas, if going the single db route.
The only thing that worried me is that one product might need SOC 2 sooner than another. I thought separate databases would give a smaller compliance surface to worry about. However, this will be my first time going through this process, so I am pretty uninformed here.
i think this is aligned with the author's choice. a separate schema is effectively a separate database (from a product eng perspective) with shared infra.
Accept that eventually you'll have multiple databases, so it makes sense to plan from that from the start and get in place the mechanisms for the databases to talk to each other.
Because it's nice to get $10k legally + public credit than it is to get $100k while risking arrest + prison time, getting scammed, or selling your exploit to someone that uses it to ransom a children's hospital?
Depends. Within the US, there are data export laws that could make the "whoever" part illegal. There are also conspiracy to commit a crime laws that could imply liability. There are also laws that could make performing/demonstrating certain exploits illegal, even if divulging it isn't. That could result in some legal gray area. IANAL but have worked in this domain. Obviously different jurisdictions may handle such issues differently from one another.
Issue 1: Governments which your own gov't likes, or ones which it doesn't? The latter has downsides similar to a black market sale.
Issue 2: Selling to governments generally means selling to a Creepy-Spooky Agency. Sadly, creeps & spooks can "get ideas" about their $500k also buying them rights to your future work.
I get the feeling that we are in the golden age of LLM dev tools, where many tools like Claude Code are very subsidized. That will go away soon, and worse. In the most recent Dwarkesh podcast with Dario, he mentioned that not all tokens should cost the same.
He gave an example where tokens giving advice to restart a computer should be cheap. On the other hand, tokens advising a pharma company on molecules should be expensive.
In the near future I can imaging CC replying:
> That's a great idea, this will solve the problem in production! However, given the number of users I see, this will be charged at 20x. Would you like me to proceed?
a network of tunnels and sensors is easier to defend than a open space exposed position where drones can see you from miles away, I guess that makes tunnels better for defense
Given that we have bunker busters that will travel beyond the horizon at hypersonic speeds and bust 200 feet of reinforced concrete...
I don't think any fixed installation is particularly easy to defend?
Also, I'll grant that a drone can see you from miles away, but don't you think any one of a large and growing number of satellites can spot your massive earthworks from tens and hundreds of miles away for the months or years it takes you to construct?
But now you've forced your adversary to deploy and use "this little guy" on top of everything else they're doing. If you raise the costs high enough that they can't pay, you win. Yay!
reply