Also it's a really well trodden path. You aren't likely to run into an OpenBSD firewall problem that hasn't been seen before.

Regarding any BSD used for any purpose, BSD has a more consistent logic to how everything works. That said, if you're used to Linux then you're going to be annoyed that everything is very slightly different. I am always glad that multiple BSD projects have survived and still have some real users, I think that's good for computing in general.

Well, that's why people still have jobs but I appreciate the idea of the post that the neat demo was a coherent paragraph or silly poem. The silly poems were all kind of similar, not very funny, and the paragraphs were a good start but I wouldn't use them for anything important.

Now the tightrope is a whole application or a 14 page paper and the short pieces of code and prose are now professional quality more often than not. That's some serious progress.

Every time software has gotten cheaper to create the end result has been we create a lot more software.

There are still so many businesses running on pen and paper or excel spreadsheets or off the shelf software that doesn't do what they need.

Hard to say what the future holds but I'm beginning to see the happy path get closer than it looked a year or two ago.

Of course, on an individual basis it will be possible to end up in a spot where your hard earned skills are no longer in demand in your physical location, but that was always a possibility.

It's poor timing for this article.

The CrowdStrike incident has demonstrated that no matter what you do it is possible for any distributed system to be partitioned in such a way that you have to choose between consistency and availability and if the system is important then that choice is important.

You're ignoring that a system is temporarily partitioned for the duration of the time it takes to retrieve information from all nodes.

Partition intolerance means you can only proceed when all nodes have been reached. This means partition intolerance not only deals with availability in the yes or no sense, but also in terms of latency.

That's true, but I think the catch is that most customers likely didn't view it as an investment that could decrease availability.

Is Platonic realism valid? I need to know before I plug in this toaster.

A bit like for Marxism, so many schools tried to claim that name, with a messy history, it's hard to even know what you mean by that :

https://samzdat.com/2018/01/26/platonism-without-plato/

> we can digitize them

We can, but will we? And will we maintain those collections?

There is some resilience in having collections scattered here, there, and everywhere in addition to having a substantial chunk of history reliant on one charity that is constantly under threat due to copyright law.

History suggests that at some point the Internet Archive will be lost.

Additionally, a digital copy doesn't preserve the physical artifact. The ink, paper, and glue contains information about trade, printing technology, and perhaps the environment as well. We don't know what questions people will ask in the future.

Sure, shit will happen, but it's much easier to preserve digital media than it is for physical media, especially when shit happens. Disk space is cheaper and cheaper while physical space is getting more and more expensive for the most of us. Also, physical media can't be duplicated (noone will actually print out copies of those old magazines, and even if they did, it wouldn't be the same).

I know you lose the experience of paper, but that experience is limited to the few that have the actual copies. Digital is available to everyone. I see more issues with more modern media, where eg. videogames cannot be played at all anymore, due to always-online drm and requiring backend servers that the publishers are shutting down (so even pirate cracks cannot help). For comparison, you can fit the whole NES and SNES library on a usb stick with space left over.

Collecting usually occurs in a niche community, so who is selling matters.

A well known collector finally parting with their prize pieces everyone has been drooling over for 40 years is going to yield a greater return than a stranger walking in with the same items looking for quick cash.

> serialised in a version of JS that the receiver understands

I don't think the use case for this is as general as most RPC systems.

The linked site envisions a situation where you had an app running on one server, now you want to break that workload up while making the absolute minimum number of code changes.

All the clients and code would still be controlled by the same team.

that's still not something I'd want to inflict to myself. That means you need to somehow ensure the functions you pass are pure, and that upgrading Node or changing the compilation target could break the app if the release rollout is progressive.

Using function serialisation for applicative purposes is always going to be a hack that will come back to bite the team at one time or another.

It's especially true because of this line that could have easily come out of a Marquez novel:

> "And we decided, yes, it was a betrayal. But that's what children are for."

The institutional preservation instinct can cause perverse incentives but it is useful and allows large organizations to be trusted to do things that can't be addressed by startups.

If you have work that requires something to exist in more or less its present form for years or decades at a time it would be a disaster if one of your key vendors pivoted or went bankrupt halfway through.