Maybe it’s because a behemoth ipo is coming and investment bankers are at work.

I think there is a distinction to draw there between stochasticity in the use and in the evolution of language (which is not clean as they are not independent). The language evolves stochastically, as it does so by being used in exchanges. But the use could be deterministic with the exchanges being random and the function of update based on exchange. I still think there is stochasticity in the use itself, I choose my words, go back and delete and rewrite, explain again in a different way when the audience looks at me unimpressed etc. I just don’t see fluidity as a proof of stochasticity of evolution or the other way around and in fact think the interaction is a quite interesting domain.

I present this as by-no-means a complete argument, but a very salient point imo is the notion of the 'accent'. It is the most prominent etymology mutation in language (driving inter-language variance between adjacent cultures), and exists not only in the human but in the animal kingdom. Its basis? The maxillofacial expression of the most dominant speaker(s) within a group, which shapes their vocal inflection and passes to the wider culture by social effect.

Regardless, the fluidity of language is self-evident to an extent : it is partly embodied in the entire concept we call figures-of-speech (a linguistic phrasing can be literal, or sarcastic, or described by metaphor, ...). Partly in the common reality that our dictionaries list multiple possible definitions for many words. Partly in the fact that (many) synonyms exist. Partly in sheer human individuality.

Durable execution and orchestration are essential in some specialised uses, such as regulatory reporting for financial institutions, or other snapshot based data pipelines. The transition is happening, and temporal and conductor are the usual tools there, but good tools are not always behind good solutions to put it lightly.

I like this one, as in the context of workloads like these, going with anything more complex than a Postgres is overkill.

They always find something. I am at the level where in a review I allow the reviewer to give me the most important item only and explain its impact.

That’s where I was lost too. Maybe very young and has no memories?

Not that I don’t think there’s amazing things that can be built easier, but designing and building a product is more than writing the code. Look at where you spent effort for your own examples. There’s a skill there which goes further than just reverse engineering an existing solution, and that skill is obviously of value to Meta. People were going crazy for the price they paid for instagram some years ago I remember.

I am romantic, I would actually love to move into a house that carries the mannerisms, tics, and aesthetic of the previous inhabitants like a permanent ghost, and add mine on top. It feels like a world that was and will be without me, where I struggle to leave a trace by respecting and appreciating the traces of others. When I saw some minor graffiti from a child in the wardrobe of a house I rented, I loved it.

They are so custom anyway that auditors need to audit them. Auditor familiarity is a point though. Audit is almost never about numbers, that’s the easy part, it’s about controls. Numbers will almost always come out right, the challenge is how they come in.

Arguably if you consciously choose to invest on a stock there should be no protection or obstacle other than regulated controls. For indices I see the point of extra protection. Where it gets murky is when you look at retirement funds, where you still have no control, but that should be regulation on the funds themselves rather than the stock.

The winner of the “Mansion Games”!