Sellers and buyers can now use eBay Authenticate to get independent confirmation that goods are as authentic. It’s starting out just focused on certain types of handbags and luxury items but expected to expand over time. https://www.google.com/amp/s/techcrunch.com/2017/10/16/ebay-...
Consider fashion or home goods. Frequently you see something you like based on pattern, texture etc that cannot be easily described in words. Image search is the perfect fit for these kinds of purchases.
The idea is that you'd probably trust the guy who actually sold 1,000 dresses to Macys more than the guy who just says they're a great dress manufacturer.
In the name of completeness, there are also great packages like OpenMPI and OpenMP.
At least for my particular applications, though, there's either 1) a steep learning curve for programmers 2) language support issues 3) they're designed for batch processing.
Personally, I find shared memory interfaces the easiest to program when there're complicated data access patterns. But that just might be personal preference.
Shared memory interfaces are easy to use, but they don't support the same platform as Hadoop and MapReduce because you can't efficiently split them up across machines. With a distribute system like Hadoop you can build a cluster of cheap machines and spread the computation across them. With a shared memory architecture you have to scale up with multi-million dollar machines like SGI's altix line. So if you want to be able to use a cloud of cheap computers you need something like MPI or Hadoop.
memcached is a poor-man's distributed shared memory system for clusters. We've been layering on top of it to try and fix deficiencies with things like client-side caching, persistence in case memcached drops objects etc.
But I was curious if other people had similar problems and how they were solving them.
If you're trying to "fix" memcached's dropping of objects after a time, you shouldn't be using memcached. You should be using something actually designed to persist things. Turning a cache into a persistent store, or vice versa, is a dangerous game, and of the two cache -> persistent store is the worse.
Sounds like your life would be simpler with Redis if you are using memcached to take state about a computation. Atomic operations on lists and persistence are two good points about it in this context.
I think we'd have to add some sort of client side caching on top of it so that we're not fetching the same objects over and over. Tend to saturate our network if we don't do that.
The other thing is that I think we'd have to add some sort of object migration so that when redis servers come up or go down we could re-balance where things are stored.
I have tried to use hadoop at lizten.in, but it seems overkill specially for small deployments like the basic slicehost option.
I tried memcached and sure, it is a good fix for some page rendering issues, but for elements that you want to cache forever (or a relatively long time), I prefer to create a blob table in mysql and store the entries as if it was a key/value pair. I am sure there are more sophisticated persistent datastores, but I guess the idea is the same.
Maybe with some high performance storage, such as SSD's and something like berkeleydb it would be feasible to keep a relatively big cache.
I vowed after my first startup never again to build an enterprise product for this reason. Plus I don't like golfing and drinking with some random guy in Omaha trying to convince him my product solves one of this top three problems.
During my 3 years doing enterprise sales at Akamai, I learnt a ton of things from my customers and met some really interesting people. Not all enterprise sales involves golf and drinking and schmoozing.
Edit: I would also add that you tend to learn a lot more about your product from your customers. In addition, once you target a certain industry and speak to all the major players, you get some insight that helps with product, sales, marketing.
Yeah I didn't mean to sound like that's ALL there is. But I was time and again surprised how often buying decisions had nothing to do with the product, company's need etc. I guess I was perhaps a little naive :)
I like psyco simply because all you have to do is import the module and do `psyco.full()` to get an idea how well it's going to work with your code. Once I feel like I've gotten the most I can possibly get out of algorithmic and data structure optimization, psyco is almost always my next stop for further speed. Often, importing and activating psyco is all the optimization I end up needing.
I would like to note though, that psyco development has been stopped for a couple years, and probably won't continue (unless a new developer thinks there's a future and takes it over). Further development is going into pypy.
Also, it can't run on 64-bit machines. If you want to run it on OS/X 10.6, you need to build your own 32 bit python.
Definitely want to second the advice to use EXPLAIN.
MySQL has a lot of very specific limitations about when it will and will not use the available indices. It also matters how you created the indices (one index on multiple columns vs multiple indices on individual columns).
For example, if you created a single index with the columns (date_added, device_id) MySQL would not be able to use the index since device_id is the second part of the index, not the first and thus not available for use in the WHERE clause.
someone needs to build a web app that asks a few basic questions, gives you some check boxes to click and then generates all the standard PDFs you need for seed funding, employee agreements, etc.
You probably don't want it totally turnkey - I mean, you can - LegalZoom is the most well-known, but Wilson will incorporate you and give you the whole kit and caboodle for just $5k. Plus, if they like you, they'll make intros to angels and VCs for you when you're ready.
That said, there are some reputable forms and sample documents; here are some:
The incorporation docs for Founders Fund companies were once available on TheFunded.com, but I can't seem to find them in my thirty seconds of poking around.
I guess I just object to paying Wilson $5k to run search-and-replace for me. And I certainly wouldn't trust LegalZoom to actually have documents written by people who understand startups.
And the other sources don't seem to provide offer letters, NDA/invention rights docs, board motions, option grants and all the other boiler plate stuff that's needed.
That all said, I suppose making it too turn-key risks entrepreneurs not really understanding the legal issues involved and getting nasty surprises later on.
I'm pretty sure Wilson's $5K includes all those other docs you list. At least that was my understanding when I spoke to Yokum a while ago.
I did request that Wilson make a full list of what you get as part of an incorporation "package" and post the list and plain vanilla price publicly on their site. The non-transparency of legal fees is only matched by the non-transparency of health care prices.
Points also to the issue that thinking about security from a perimeter point of view (everything outside firewall is bad, everything inside is good) is outdated. There is no inside vs outside anymore.
That always was a stupid strategy. Trusting stuff on one side of the firewall just because it is on the other side is not good enough, that means that after any breach at all your whole network is wide open.
Security should be applied at the lowest possible level, just like you would in a physical installation.
It's not like when you work in a bank once you are allowed 'backstage' that that automatically gives you the right to visit the tellers cage or the vault.
My bank takes a different approach, an old one, to security. Here are three things that happened to me at their main bank office over the last 6 months.
1 - I sat down with a mid-level manager asking about a debit card in my wife's name for one of my accounts. The manager pulled up my account and says "I see you were in Wilmington last week. My family is from there." And we chatted about Wilmington for a bit.
2 - I walked up to the teller desk and said "Please move $500 from account A to account B." I filled out no forms, showed no id, didn't even know the account numbers. The teller said "No problem Mr. Hancock, have a nice day."
3 - I needed to change my phone number linked to all my accounts. I walked into the teller and told her I have 5 accounts and wanted to change the phone number on all of them but didn't have my account numbers at hand. She handed me a post-it note and asked me to write down the new phone number: "No problem Mr. Hancock, we'll see it gets done."
The approach this bank takes is oriented around trust and liability, not IT security. Some may be upset that a bank manager would/could scan my transactions and openly acknowledge they see where I was last week. But I see this as openness in acknowledging that they can see the data. All banks can see this data and many credit data warehouses have this data. My bank simply doesn't pretend they can't see it.
In response to your post, jacquesm, I completely agree with your point of view from an IT perspective. However, I do not expect a bank, large or small, to get things perfect internally. So I choose to do business with one I trust to uphold their end of liability. I take this approach with most business partners, as I'm sure many do. When I buy a $50 item on ebay, I expect less of the supplier and pay accordingly.
If you were to walk in to say the New York city branch of a major bank that you have an account with in the countryside then you'd be looking at a completely different situation.
I once borrowed E100K from my bank just on my promise that I would pay it back within 7 days. That would have been a lot harder if I had not been a very good customer of theirs for more than a decade.
But I still doubt they'd let me past the 'no customers beyond this sign', simply because they have a duty to safeguard the privacy of their other customers, even if we'd have a higher than normal level of trust between ourselves as people.
Your right; that's why I don't do much business with large banks ;).
I have one account with a large bank. I have not had any problems, but I limit my transactions with them to well documented transfers and have standing orders to not allow any other type of transactions.
I have no expectation that a large bank will cover my liability better than they cover theirs. I engage with them accordingly.
The best way to spread your risk with banks is to make sure you never have more than your federally insured cap with any one bank. (that's a luxury problem though). Over that and you're up the creek without a paddle if anything should happen to that bank.
The funny thing here is that the people that the bank owes money over that amount are ruthlessly culled, but the people that owe the bank are not.
I think that should cut both ways, in other words if a bank folds then both the debts and the deposits should be capped or none. But it seems to be completely asymmetrical to keep the people that owe the bank on the hook while capping those with whom the bank is in debt.
I agree, but I don't think there ever really was an inside versus and outside. Flash drives, or even floppy disks for that matter, can bring worms into a company even if the firewall blocks them.
Companies have always needed to put security measures on each individual computer, or in this case, each individual person.
