Readit NewsIf you ever ask Racket-lang folks about threads they will lecture you about concurrency vs parallelism endlessly, it's like a mantra they repeat to avoid realizing there is a problem.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler%E2%80%93Feynman_absorb...
The amount of friction you add to the development velocity has to be proportioned to the potential downsides. A system that shows doctors xray images in the ER cant go down or people might die. A site like twitter can go down and slightly improve the life of its users. It sounds like you are recommending big company super risk averse solutions at a startup, which is just silly. Besides, staging environments never work, for a long list of reasons. You should be recommending continuous integration and a focus on proper unit tests.
The article said that the layoff letter claimed Q3 revenue was $27mm, or an order of magnitude higher than what you're claiming here.
Well, I'm not sure about wood, indeed, but I guess specials species can cost a lot. But I definitely saw $300MM of metal in a single stocking rack, not even speaking in terms of machines and buildings.
> I specifically said the owner had pumped a huge amount of money in the company.
Yes, I read that but I put it apart a bit too quickly, apologies. I would love to be pointed to real cases where huge amount of cash were invested in finished-good producing plants with no sales whatsoever. Off the top of my head I can think that Tesla's industrial activity can come close to the description for the investment story, however they do sell - their problem is more of meeting the production target.
I've seen with my eyes plants coming out of nowhere [0] with banks backed cash, but they definitely had customers commands already passed.
[0] https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&pr...
If you're the head of a plant where nothing produced is sold for a price that cover your expanses, then no, sorry, the system [0] will soon have your company closed down, depending on your amount of emergency cash. And if you're part of a group then you are in for a very rough time with the group's C[E/O/F]Os, and odds are that this will ends up with the plant being shut down (machines/peoples may be rebased at other plants).
> Nobody ever buys any of it. It's not sold in any stores. No hotels buy it. No businesses buy it. Lots of people are lined up as far as you can see to pick furniture out of the pile for free.
This is something that can't realistically happen for a furniture plant. You can't pile up furniture up to the sky without paying your wood suppliers.
[0] suppliers, banks, state - what I maybe shouldn't have called "free market" in order to avoid epidermic reactions
Have you ever seen $300MM worth of wood? I specifically said the owner had pumped a huge amount of money in the company.
What they don't realize is that if you put nontechnical people in charge of programmers, nothing will get done.
Being super careful about 'parallel' and 'concurrent' is super, super pedantic and pointless. They are synonyms. If two things are running concurrently, they are running in parallel. If two things are running in parallel, they are running concurrently. These are terrible words to overload with very careful definitions.
When people talk about 'concurrency' using the super careful pedantic definition, they just mean that it's possible to execute code while at the same time blocking on system calls. This isn't some kind of great feat and any language that can't do it is a toy. There is absolutely no reason to act like 'concurrency' using this definition is in any way special or worth even mentioning.
But that's not the point, is it? People get defensive about their favorite languages, so when faced with valid criticisms like "the GIL prevents you from running Python code in parallel" (which is a completely valid and actually pretty huge defect when modern computers have many cores on average) instead of just admitting the deficiency a person can be defensive and respond with stupid lectures about 'concurrency' and 'parallelism'.