They already had PostgreSQL (with its strong ACID guarantees) in place, yet the design introduces eventual consistency via MongoDB for reads—without a compelling justification. A DBA could have optimized those PostgreSQL queries to single-digit milliseconds, avoiding the added sync overhead entirely. Instead, it feels like unnecessary complexity was layered onto a proven double-entry ledger approach.
* Most single-db deployments give up on ACID for performance reasons (see READ_COMMITTED)
* Even if you have ACID, it's not sufficient for distributed systems. Its guarantees will keep one node consistent with itself. No transactionality between the customers app and your db.
Maybe you're one bank with all the customers, but as soon as you want to talk to other banks, are you really going to share the one ACID instance? Who's the DBA?
Currently the state of fintech is 90% of devs being in denial that they're in a distributed system.
> proven double-entry ledger approach.
Yes. In that language, the ledger is the list of events. If today's devs were around 300 years ago they'd be calling for 'balances' instead of 'ledgers' because they're simpler.
A double-entry ledger is a combination of a process and a view that was mistaken for a data model centuries ago, and that mistake became embedded.
Fundamentally, you’re dealing with a sequence of events. The double-entry ledger is a particular result of processing those events - a view. There are many other useful views.
PlanetScale's move is intriguing, but sharding data across nodes is where the real challenge lies. Are the trade-offs similar to Vitess with MySQL, or does Postgres's feature richness complicate things further?
When data grows beyond a single machine, the hard work begins. Distributed systems sacrifice features like complex joins, extensions, and strong consistency. Maybe they should get Jepsen to poke at their setup. Who can show us what we lose compared to standard Postgres?
MySQL compatibility documentation https://planetscale.com/docs/vitess/troubleshooting/mysql-co... exists, it's not clear how that translates. I anticipate that even with a Postgres protocol, the practical experience of using PlanetScale will be fundamentally different from standard Postgres.
Hi! I'm the CTO of PlanetScale - the PostgreSQL offering we launched today is built on top of pure Postgres and doesn't come with any limitations.
The future sharded version will also be based on Postgres directly, and will be as compatible as possible. We're not looking to just speak the PG wire protocol to a different backend store.
I’ve got a system that I think could smooth things out for your team, especially since developers and management/biz people seem to be working on totally different wavelengths. Let me break it down for you in a chill way and explain why it could work.
developers and biz folks are basically living in two different time zones, work-wise. Developers need big blocks of uninterrupted time to think hard and get stuff done efficiently. When they’re yanked into meetings or forced to hop between tasks all the time, it kills their groove, and honestly, they end up getting less done. Meanwhile, the biz people—like your management or OWSP types who love to chat—want to see progress in the ticket system. And I get it—developer time ain’t cheap, so they’re stressing about whether the money’s being well spent or if people are just slacking off. But here’s the kicker: sprints themselves aren’t the bad guy. It’s really about the feedback loop—or lack of it—and how it makes everyone feel like they’re not on the same page.
End-of-Day Sync System
Instead of those morning standups that mess with developers’ focus right when they’re getting started, we flip it and do a quick check-in at the end of the day. Developers get to work all day without interruptions, and biz folks still get their updates to keep the ticket system humming. Win-win, right? Here’s how it shakes out:
How It Works
Quick End-of-Day Huddle (15-20 mins, max): Everyone jumps in at the end of the workday. Developers say what they got done—did they finish their task, are they still grinding on it, or did they hit a wall? Then they grab a small task for the next day off the Kanban board—something they can knock out in 2-4 hours. Keeps it doable, no stress.
Biz Folks Do Their Thing All Day: While developers are heads-down coding, the management crew has the whole day to mess with the ticket system, shuffle priorities, and prep for the huddle. No more last-minute panic in the morning—they’ve got time to think it over and bring solid updates.
Tasks That Fit the Day: Developers pick their next task at the end of the day, so they can sleep on it and hit the ground running tomorrow. Since the tasks are small, there’s no pressure to pull all-nighters or play hero. Everyone clocks out on time—no burnout, no unpaid OT.
Keeping Biz in the Loop: This setup gives biz people daily visibility— they see what’s done, what’s next, and if anything’s stuck. It’s not about hovering over developers’ shoulders; it’s just enough to keep them in the know without breaking anyone’s focus. Plus, they can tweak priorities for the next day if stuff shifts.
Why It Beats the Sprint Chaos
Look, sprints aren’t evil—they’re just a way to chunk up work. But when you squash all the planning, reviews, and standups into a tight one-week sprint, it’s like you’re spending half your time talking instead of doing. This system keeps the structure but cuts the fat. That end-of-day sync replaces a bunch of those meetings, so developers can actually breathe and work, while biz folks still get their progress fix.
And let’s talk about that “slacking” vibe for a sec. When there’s no clear daily update, it’s easy for management to wonder what’s going on—especially since developer time is so pricey. But with this, everyone sees small wins every day. If someone’s not pulling their weight, it shows up fast—no blame game, just facts. Plus, developers get better at guessing how long stuff takes, since they’re sizing tasks daily and getting instant feedback.
Oh, and the biz people? They love to talk—OWSP types especially, right? This gives them their stage at the end of the day without dragging developers into endless chats during prime coding hours. They get their ticket system updates, they feel in control, and developers don’t have to fake-smile through it all morning.
The Bottom Line
Developers get their space to think and work efficiently, biz folks get their daily dose of progress without freaking out about costs, and nobody’s burning out. It’s all about respecting those two timelines—letting developers dig in deep and keeping management happy with a steady flow of info.
The tariffs on foreign films aren't just about economics. They're a lever to reshape culture. Trump seems to bet that studios, squeezed by costs, will trade progressive themes for conservative ones to align with his base. It's a high-stakes move—Hollywood's global audience might not follow. But if it works, it’s a masterclass in using policy to shift incentives. Curious if studios bite.
I think this is giving the decision way too much credit w/r/t foresight, strategy, etc.
As always with this admin, it's always hard to tell if something is actually thought-through policy or just knee-jerk stupidity. Most evidence points to the latter, IMO.
Google offering Gemini 2.5 Pro for free, enough to ditch OpenAI, reminds me of an old tactic.
Microsoft gained control in the '90s by bundling Internet Explorer with Windows for free, undercutting Netscape’s browser. This leveraged Windows’ dominance to make Explorer the default choice, sidelining competitors and capturing the browser market. By 1998, Netscape’s share plummeted, and Microsoft controlled access to the web.
Free isn’t generous—it’s strategic. Google’s hooking you into their ecosystem, betting you’ll build on their tools and stay. It feels like a deal, but it’s a moat. They’re not selling the model; they’re buying your loyalty.
The joke's on them, because I don't have any loyalty to an LLM provider.
There's very close to zero switching costs, both on the consumer front and the API front; no real distinguishing features and no network effects; just whoever has the best model at this point in time.
I'm assuming Google's play here is to bleed its competitors of money and raise prices when they're gone. Building top-tier models is extremely expensive and will probably remain so.
Even companies that do it "on the cheap," like DeepSeek, pay tens of millions to train a single model, and total expenditures for infrastructure and salaries are estimated to surpass $1 billion. This market has an extremely high cost of entry.
So, I guess Google is applying the usual strategy here: undercut competition until it implodes and buy up any promising competitors that arise in the future. Given the current lack of market regulation in the US, this might work.
I feel like they’re trying to increase switching costs. eg was huge reluctance to adopt MCP and each had their own tool framework, until it seemed too big to ignore and everyone was just building MCP tools not OpenAI SDK tools.
History shows it's a self-defeating victory. If one provider were to "win" and stop innovating, they'll become ripe for disruption by the likes of Deepseek, and the second someone like that has a better model, I'll switch.
Nothing lasts forever, not even empires. This doesn't mean that tech monopoly is any better than any other monopoly. They're all detrimental to society.
Eh, and if you're in the US the 'big guys' will have their favorite paid off politician put in a law that use of Chinese models is illegal or whatever.
The same was true for Web browsers in 2002, yet MS controlled 95% of the access to the web thanks to that bundling and no other "good enough" competitors until Firefox came along a few years later and took 30% from them giving Google an in to take the whole game with Chrome a few years later.
The strategy worked, Netscape is no more. Eventually Google did the same to Microsoft though. I wonder if any lessons can be taken from the browser wars to how things will play out with AI models.
Yep, this is why android phones are now pointing out their gemini features every moment they can. They want to turn their spying device into an AI spying device.
> Netscape, in contrast, sells the consumer version of Navigator for a suggested price of $49. Users can download a free evaluation copy from the Internet, but it expires in 90 days and does not include technical support.
90% of Netscape users were free users and by late 1997, less than two years after the IPO and massive user growth, it was free to all because of MS's bundling threat. That didn't help. By 2002, MS owned 95% of access to the web. No one has ever reached even close to first mover Netscape or cheater bundled IE since, with the far superior non-profit Firefox managing almost 30% and Chrome from the biggest web player in history sitting "only" at about 65%.
Bundling a "good enough" products can do a lot, including take you from near zero to overwhelmingly dominant in 5 years, as MS did.
