It seems from the comments on the video that your joke has actually been the case for a few people. Sometimes what's needed is a new perspective and a "worthless platitude".
Not really. Cloudflare could have used their rust implementation for doing a fair comparison, instead they compared a beta product to a stable product. It's not like CF didn't have a choice to make a fair comparison.
> Today, we’re excited to report that Cloudflare Workers is 196% faster than Fastly’s Compute@Edge based on the time to first byte from the tests we ran on 50 nodes using Catchpoint’s data from across the world.
Kind of? At minimum they made misleading representations. They used abbreviated explanations of how they're better and then expanded on what the test actually consisted of later on.
Fastly does not have a production-ready JavaScript product. From their blog post,
> Their tests compare JavaScript running on Cloudflare Workers, a mature, generally available product, with JavaScript running on Compute@Edge. Although the Compute@Edge platform is now available for all in production, support for JavaScript on Compute@Edge is a beta product. We clearly identify in our documentation [2] that beta products are not ready for production use. A fairer test on this point would have compared Rust on Compute@Edge with JavaScript on Cloudflare Workers, which are at more comparable stages of the product lifecycle.
Restricting any comparison isn't satisfactory since we care about both the supported languages and performance. Let there be writeups about both and allow users to make up our own minds.
I think the Cloudflare article [2] could be amended to refer to the compared product as "Fastly's JavaScript on Compute@Edge" and all would be fine. Fastly will probably still say they advise against this comparison since it's "beta". Nonetheless, we should all feel free to compare publicly available products and write about them.
I don't really think it's worth piling on the topic more, but Fastly's post (original topic) expands on why the test is poor in other ways worth reading over again.
Beyond just those points, the whole Cloudflare blog post reads like an attempt at a performance sales kill sheet. (In other words, their sales may point to this as to why folks should choose Cloudflare Workers over Fastly Compute@Edge.)
> Fastly's post (original topic) expands on why the test is poor in other ways worth reading over again.
Do you want to highlight any of those? RTT is mentioned in a post from "Cloudflare Research" which was just shared by their head of research [1].
> Beyond just those points, the whole Cloudflare blog post reads like an attempt at a performance sales kill sheet. (In other words, their sales may point to this as to why folks should choose Cloudflare Workers over Fastly Compute@Edge.)
There is nothing wrong with advertising. This comment section is just about keeping them honest.
Yes, maintainability, ease of porting code, and ease of hiring knowledgeable workers do matter, and so does performance.
I hope Fastly stops calling things "cold starts" that aren't [1].
And, I think Cloudflare could do a quick find-and-replace on that article [2] to change "Fastly’s Compute@Edge" to "Fastly’s JavaScript on Compute@Edge". A phone call between friendly CEOs probably would have sufficed for that.
We all want to be on the same page when making these comparisons. Some may choose Fastly and write in Rust, some will choose Cloudflare and write in JavaScript.
lol. Because people aren't always rational. And what does the NYT or her fame have to do with it? Anyone can lie at any time. And accusing someone of lying isn't ad hominem.
> victims making up stories in which they are the victim are exceedingly rare, in reality.
Not in my experience working retail/hospitality jobs. And lots of people crave attention. I see no reason to give either party more credence than the other absent evidence.
But consider how many people shop. It's pretty likely that the number of people running retail scams is a small percentage. Doesn't make them any less soul-sucking to deal with, but that's not really the same thing.
Eh, ok fair. I was thinking like, percentage of consumers with legitimate complaints vs those with scams. I think that's relevant to the overarching discussion of "believe victims", but I agree at the complaint department the common denominator doesn't matter.
It's clear you have never heard of "innocent until proven guilty", so I'll explain it to you. You're actually supposed to believe the person accused until they've been proven guilty.
Victims making up stories in which they are the victim is INCREDIBLY COMMON.
You want honesty, but what is the cost of that? Would that make things better or worse? Is honesty for honesty’s sake valuable? To put it in another way, how many people would be saved or how many would die just because we want honesty?
To clarify what I’m saying, if you’re honest with the public and say, we’re doing this but we aren’t sure if it actually works. Will that help? Or just freak people out, making any later, hopefully more helpful, attempt at establishing policy less effective, hence more people dead.
Just some thoughts. I don’t want to be lied to, I want my rights respected, and I want authorities to be as transparent as possible, but these are some of the issues I can imagine exist when I put myself in their shoes.
Modifying the procedures and allowing people to work before they're through arbitrary redtape does. The EUA the vaccine received is the same concept. The reason the vaccine was developed faster wasn't just the number of scientists working on it, but the amount of funding directed towards it. Increasing money to education programs would increase the amount of people they can train, allow for further optimizations to be developed etc.
Not really, its unfair but not a scam. Can we talk about the actual scam known as layer 2 rollup chains? Optimism is completely centralized and even Vatalik is shilling it like a good thing. At least the PoS shill makes sense, it artificially benefits early adopters.
