When a company is small and young, work is often done in a seemingly ad hoc fashion. People briefly discuss and then do what appears to be the best solution for the task at hand. As the company is small and most people in the company have a good idea what is important and what is not, this approach tends to work quite well. Sometimes, a wrong decision may be made but in general, this sort of ad hoc approach works quite well.
In the previous post we discussed what eventual consistency actually means and why we sometimes need to favor eventual consistency over strong consistency. We also saw that most of the time we will not perceive any differences between eventual and strong consistency if set up properly. The differences only become apparent if the system encounters adverse conditions like, e.g., a network partition, loss of a node, or alike.
Recently I saw a skeet on Bluesky:
In the previous post, we completed our analysis of the projection Steve made by looking at some unresolved side effects and questions that would come with such a future.
In the previous post, we looked at the likely short- and mid-term consequences if Steve’s projection should become reality. We saw a bit disturbed that most likely the only winners of that projection would be the providers of agentic AI solutions and their investors while everyone else would be on the loser side of the game.
