From a first look it seems like the subscription requires to use that service in a EU-only fashion costs at least 200$. While this seems like a good option for large and medium size companies, I fear that this pricing leaves out all small companies that may not require 50k solved captchas a month but may require EU-based hosting nonetheless.
I second Plausible but to everyone looking to self-host it, be aware: It’s AGPL licensed! From what I have seen it seems that they only want to discourage direct competitors but an APGL license is an APGL license and that’s a deal breaker for many commercial projects. Older version were licensed under the MIT license iirc so might be an option for some.
Ofc you can always support them and use their cloud hosting solution without any of these problems. I just wish they their pricing was fairer.. Their plans start at 6€ for 10k monthly page views - for that price you could run your own VPS capable of handling literally millions of requests.
I almost did the exact same thing today but with Vite [0]. Initial build time of a pretty large project is now 930ms instead of 20s and build time was reduced from over a minute to about 10s. Really excited to experience the performance that native ESM enable!
> and yet do not either seem to get infected nor to develop antibodies
One aspect that's worth mentioning imo is that while a percentage of people has been reported not to develop anti-spike antibodies at a measurable level [1], other factors come into play as well.
- Antibody levels after natural infection wane [2] with seroreversion (like seroconversion but the other way around) being common
- Some tests used by researchers have low sensitivity (especially many weeks after infection)
- Qualitative assays may return negative results even though antibodies may be detected through other methods [3]
- There are multiple targets that people may develop antibodies against, testing only for one target like N or S is not conclusive [4, since I can't seem to find a better study on this topic I saw earlier this week]
A big theme that I see in all of this is the fact that we have public health officials making proclamations with high certainty like "Natural immunity is inferior to vaccine induced immunity and therefore you need to get vaxxed even if you recovered from a previous infection" in a specific area of study that is ongoing and in constant flux. It's clear to me that we are only scratching the surface of understanding the immune system. Maybe they are right when they say this, but I don't know, and I strongly suspect the scientists don't know yet either, considering how much research is still on-going.
I was being told with absolute certainty by friends that natural immunity is less effective than the vaccines, while simultaneously a high-N longitudinal study from Israel is showing a rate of reinfection far lower amongst previously infected vs. breakthrough infections in the vaccinated. I think that the certainty of this conclusion is driven by antibody measurements, but not taking into account some of the things this study is mentioning, like memory T-cells.
One of the assumptions that is pretty baked into the public health folks that the scientists are definitely not certain about is the spike protein being the ideal binding target for MRNA vaccines. This article is indicating that they are searching for other targets to create a vaccine that functions, in effect, like what this initial one was SUPPOSED to do: Not be leaky. My suspicion is that the second generation COVID vaccine will be a one and done shot, with no boosters needed. At least I hope so.
For me Vue 3 with <script setup> get's pretty close to pure JavaScript/TypeScript. 90% of the code will be exactly like JS code, the only difference being the use of computed(), ref() and reactive() to achieve (something JS simply doesn't provide but is necessary for every non-trivial application). Your HTML code and CSS code are not mixed with JS and look and feel like the real thing as well.
Other than the reactivity indication and the occasional onMounted(), etc. Vue 3 with <script setup> does away with all boilerplate and unidiomatic parts of Vue 2 and imo is the framework that most closely resembles pure HTML/CSS/JS while allowing for far greater productivity.
Are we still taking about vue <template>? I don‘t see how that is any way close to html when it has: custom conditional and loop syntax and semantics, arbitrary js expressions and a unique concept of scope?
Yeah I never really understood this benefit. The file structure is irrelevant to me after 15 minutes, the nitty-gritty semantics of my code are causing me headaches and bugs forever.
(I like working with all 3 current frontend frameworks btw, not trying to start a flamewar)
I wouldn’t add python to that list as it supports decent typing (even though it’s not forced one you by default). When you disallow untyped methods and functions with mypy, the resulting code is quite clean and maintainable imo. And I wouldn’t call a language that’s used by probably the majority of all large web projects, including Instagram for example, in some way or other “not well suited for any complex project”.
At least half of the gains can probably achieved by just rolling a distributed redis setup and not distributing the PostgreSQL database. This should cover most non-personalized read operations which on this type of site should be most of them. It also seems like the database distribution is an attempt to solve a problem of his own making. He states that each blog posts page view needs 30 database queries in the background. This to me suggests an inefficient data structure or complexity for complexity’s sake. Heck, he could probably even achieve 80% of what he’s trying to do by delivering selected slow but static queries from edge computing KV stores without having any further distributed backend or database servers. But ofc this whole project is a sales pitch and he would get the attention he’s receiving with a simple Django+Postgres+Redis setup in a single region with just basic CI/CD.
I don't know if this applies to the States but at least in some European countries if you ever move to another country you are taxed for what you would have been expected to pay in taxes based on the profit the company made in the last years.
Paying yourself a high salary (as long as it's reasonable,
so as not to arouse suspicion of hidden profit distributions) allows the business entity to not make any profit on paper and therefore allows you to move to another country without having to pay this "exit tax".
Disclaimer: This is my understanding of the situation, I'm neither a lawyer nor a tax professional and this is not financial advice.
In early 2020 it was still a common opinion that SARS-CoV2 mainly spread through droplets, in that case surgical masks would have been sufficient to offer the wearer some protection. However by late Spring/early Summer (northern hemisphere) it became apparent that it was airborne which is why all medical personal switched to FFP2 masks (long before the CDC and the WHO officially recognized it as being airborne). Confusion only arose because many actors were reluctant in accepting airborne transmission and thus kept recommending the wrong type of mask for personal protection. But nowadays there’s no doubt about airborne transmission and you can get good quality FFP2 masks for around 2$ and studies show that even exercising with them is not a problem.
The DANMASK study did NOT find that masks are not effective. It’s conclusion was that a recommendation for surgical masks in certain settings does not prevent more than 50% of infections in the wearer in a country with low case load and before any variants but that there even was a tendency towards a protective effect. So not at all meaningful in any way. What does this say about the ability of N95/FFP2 masks when all parties are wearing them to reduce the R of delta sufficiently to contain spread in communities that are seeing surges? Exactly nothing.
Furthermore, designing an RCT for mask use might not really be doable in a fashion we’re used to from drug interventions. And should the vast amount of other non-RCT evidence that does exist and that shows a protective effect of masks as well as the precautionary principle not lead us all to mask up in the face of a new disease that is proven to cause serious harm, short and long term?
For anybody interested in the topic, this thread by an Oxford professor and co-author of the recent Lancet letter advising against the plans of the British government might be worthwhile reading: https://twitter.com/trishgreenhalgh/status/14142940034790891...
