> Due to the specific source code used for App Maker, you can’t directly migrate your apps to another platform. We recommend that you explore these options
I couldn't help but recall the song, "There she goes again" [1], when I saw this. Google propose partial alternatives, but I wonder how long until those are also shuttered. Is it even worth migrating to another Google product? if you have to do the work yourself, migrate to a different (or open source) vendor.
No, any reasonable user would start completely removing themselves from Google (really any corporate SaaS environment that they don't completely own the source code of). This seems like killing the goose that laid the golden egg, I'm sure on a balance sheet these products are loosing money, but that basically tells any client who wants to build a service that you aren't trustworthy in the long term.
That's what is funny about all these cloud services, especially Amazon. You no longer get to think about the common sense way of doing things, but instead you have to use the AWS way. You're better off investing your time into building your own agnostic solution.
Why especially Amazon, I haven't seen them shutter any major service?
I've seen lots of companies throw away their V1 and start over (hopefully with the knowledge learned), so my opinion is that it's okay to vendor lock-in and leverage stuff like AWS Load Balancers, ECS, etc. You're going to end up having to rewrite it when you finally scope out your real challenges, so it doesn't matter if V1 was agnostic or vendor-based.
> You're better off investing your time into building your own agnostic solution.
This sounds suspiciously like 'not invented here.'
I'd love to see a service-guarantee of a core Google Product like Youtube, GMail, maybe even something further down the trough like Google music, buying into Cloud DataStore, Cloud Functions, etc. before I trust it fully.
As far as memes go I'm more reminded of the fade-to-black-wake-up-in-skyrim-for-a-200hr-session where instead of a 200 hour game session its a 200 hours of needless migration work.
It is moderately atypical, but not unheard of. It especially makes sense (to the government bodies) if there's less overlap than expected between state and federal document production requests.
Coordinating a 50-state+DOJ memorandum of understanding is not the easiest thing in the world. The news of a meeting suggests that someone important thinks the juice is probably worth the squeeze.
Typically, these posts get flagged by users because they realize that they violate HN's guidelines [0]. It's interesting, just off-topic. Not sure what the threshold is for getting flagged vs upvotes, but I suspect it takes far fewer flags that votes.
> If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.
Yes, it's completely and exceptionally awesome that we can just sign on the Internet and gain this genome sequence. But it's also important to weigh the value. As the article states:
> but there is insufficient epidemiological information for it to be useful here
So the authors are using that in a particular manner that might be missed by the general HN audience.
By "insufficient epidemiological information", they mean that the genome cannot, itself, be used to assemble a transmission tree, which is sort of the brass ring of sequence data.
That is not to say that the genome data isn't useful for epidemiology.
It looks to me like that quote is talking about one particular sequence that they've left out of their list (it's explaining why they did that), not about the 13 sequences that they have listed.
If you're getting over a million hits I might add some incentive to donate, but mainly I take this as my payback to the developer community. I'm launching another product in a different domain at the moment and hoping that can compensate.
At the end of the day, if anything goes wrong, I'll always be happy to open source the whole thing.
