Thanks, looking into it. I agree and I hope we're able fix this. We're moving all of the Apollo docs to the same system. It's built on Gatsby, which uses GraphQL under the hood.
Cheers. I get really cranky about my keyboard not working (twitter's web UI manages to break it under a bunch of circumstances, which aggravates me at least once a week) but I'm well aware that there's always a billion things that need doing :)
> So assuming what we did wasn't good, what is a way you might make this work? Do you have a single code base like we did and just be more disciplined? Do you have a project whose job is to stitch together other schemas and pull in submodules? A monorepo for the entire company? Do you actually limit what the idea of the company is at some point to limit what the scope is that this should cover?
I think these are great questions. One approach that looks promising is the idea of modular schemas that can be stitched together into a larger graph. Quite a few large organizations are doing this now. I recommend watching a recent talk by Martijn Walraven for more on this idea: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFT9bSv3aYA
Yup, we see this pattern a lot. You get the benefits of fewer bytes on the wire, typed APIs, elimination of data fetching code, etc.
But it leaves a lot on the table. The bigger wins come when new features can draw from all your data (in unanticipated combinations) without new API or services development, when you can make new data available for every team's use just by plugging it into the central graph, and when you have a birds-eye view of exactly how all your data is being used so you know where to make further investments.
That's kind of a stretch for Netflix. A few teams recently started an evaluation pilot, and even that is only for internal tools (i.e. not Netflix.com). There are no current plans to use GraphQL for anything customer facing at Netflix. Nothing against Apollo, but I'd hate for people to get the wrong idea.
Meteor has been a bit of an afterthought at MDG the past 2 years because of apollo. Currently only developed by 1 member of MDG. However it has opened more towards the community and aligned with the rest of the JS ecosystem. The awesome work of Benjamn has made it the best dev experience around IMO, but it seems to have lost a bit of momentum. I hope they could put some focus back on it with the money that Apollo brings, but that's probably naive. They have to answer to their investors...
> I am thinking a major reason for the longevity of the Cessna training line is more to do with cost for budget conscious training schools, rather than being a better aircraft that any other trainer.
Yeah, budget and familiarity. I doubt Cessna is selling many 172s to anything other than flight schools.
Your average flight school doesn't buy new 172s. Suckers with a lot of money do. (A new 172 costs over $350k last I checked. One a few years old can go for half.)
What flight schools do buy are the 172P, N and M, in that order. A low time 172P, being the last made before production stopped in the 1980s, commands a premium.
Cirrus just certified the SF-50 Vision, a new single-engine VLJ.
Cessna doesn't call it this, but the Mustang is pretty close to VLJ sizes. (Not many being made though, as their M2 pretty much took over that space of the market.) The Embraer Phenom 100 is similar. Both have been reasonably successful.
Yes, the lead raises the effective octane, preventing detonation. The other tool for preventing detonation is running extremely rich fuel/air ratios, the typical setup for the airplane at full takeoff power.
You target an appropriately rich mixture at sea level when tuning the carb or adjusting fuel flow for injected engines. The pilot manually leans the mixture as the aircraft climbs to maintain a reasonable fuel/air ratio.
Owners sometimes call that mixture lever the money lever because it governs fuel flow, aka "dollars spent per minute".
Engine manufacturers typically specify a TBO -- Time Before Overhaul, which is the number of hours in service an engine can run before it needs to be torn down, inspected, and overhauled according to the manufacturer's procedure.
For the most part, commercial operators must adhere to these recommended times, but aircraft operated under FAR Part 91 (roughly, those that aren't used for commercial transportation) aren't required to follow the TBO recommendation. You can run it as long as you want.
In practice, most operators do follow those guidelines. I've never heard of any engine doing much more than 2x the TBO before requiring major overhaul. And you'll often need various repairs to cylinders and engine accessories along the way.
Interestingly, manufacturers also specify calendar time limits on TBO, but private operators commonly ignore these. Lots of airplanes only fly 25 hours or so a year.
the suggestion was “orthocode”.