The "streaming systems" book answers your question and more: https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/streaming-systems/97814.... It gives you a history of how batch processing started with MapReduce, and how attempts at scaling by moving towards streaming systems gave us all the subsequent frameworks (Spark, Beam, etc.).
As for the framework called MapReduce, it isn't used much, but its descendant https://beam.apache.org very much is. Nowadays people often use "map reduce" as a shorthand for whatever batch processing system they're building on top of.
This book looks interesting, should I buy it or does anyone else have newer recommendations? I have Designing Data-Intensive Applications which is a fantastic overview and still holds up well.
That was one of "the" books in the space prior to DDIA. In my opinion Akidao mixes the logic for processing events with the stream infrastructure implementation because he was writing from the context of his particular use cases. The time that I spoke with him it seemed that his influence had driven to the design of Google's systems and GCP such that they didn't properly prioritize ordering/linearity/consistency requirements. At this point my copy is of historic interest to me.
It has the most interesting/conceptual/detailed discussion of the streaming system semantics (e.g. interplay of windows and stateful stream operations) I'm aware of to this day. At least as far as Manning/O'Reilly-level books go. So I'd put it on the same bookshelf as DDIA.
It's a little biased towards Beam and away from Spark/Flink though. Which makes it less practical and more conceptual. So as long as it's your cup of tea go for it.
If anything, the origin of the 5th republic under its founding president used referendums to validate the president's actions. He literally resigned after losing a referendum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_de_Gaulle#Retirement.
I don't understand this point, and it's one we see very often. What would have happened if they'd been civilised?
1. We had a convention citoyenne pour le climat. Macron then mostly ignored it.
2. We have elected representatives who can vote on the laws for us. Macron then used article 49.3 to mostly ignore them.
3. Vote? For which candidate? None of them would cover all of the GJs' demands.
If you disqualify protests as a valid form of democratic expression, you also disqualify our famous revolution, the feminist protests that earned women the right to vote, the union strikes that earned us many worker rights, etc.
> I'll never trust people who think that violence is justifiable
Ah, that explains it. You only see violence in protesters who break windows, not in governments who enact laws on their people. Am I correct in assuming that you're ok with making people work 20 hours/week for the RSA as well?
> 1. We had a convention citoyenne pour le climat. Macron then mostly ignored it.
The reality is: talking about CO2 emissions is talking about economy. That is the main job of the government.
> 2. We have elected representatives who can vote on the laws for us. Macron then used article 49.3 to mostly ignore them.
Macron did not ignore them. 49.3 means: "I'm ready to go on this point; are you ready, too?". And, by the way, you do remember that Macron was elected, too, do you?
> 3. Vote? For which candidate? None of them would cover all of the GJs' demands.
So what? This is democracy! If you can't, or don't want to, found your political movement, then you have to choose among the available candidates. Do you think Macron's program matched exactly my desires?
The revolution, the feminism and the union strikes were expressions of people who were oppressed and on the receiving side of violence. Gilets Jaunes was none of this.
- peaceful protest or "convention citoyenne" are not and should not be efficient
- We don't care what the vast majority of people want, and we don't care about the parliament.
- The only thing we should care is what think the President. The one who got the support of barely 20% of the French population on the first round, and them got elected on the second round because people voted against the far right... In a "presidential Monarchy"
> You only see violence in protesters who break windows, not in governments who enact laws on their people.
A government trying to manage a country has a ton of compromises to make every day; I do not expect to be happy with every one of their choices, but I think the current government is doing OK.
On the other side, I fail to see how breaking a window can solve the problem of the protester.
> If you disqualify protests as a valid form of democratic expression
I'm afraid you confuse protest with violence. The ability to protest is fundamental for a democracy to stay a democracy, but protest must not imply violence and, especially, expressing your point does not make it automatically right.
So when your grandma wait hours in her shit and piss in a corridor of an hospital because their are not enough bed and enough nurses, and then suffer bad after effects because of this waiting time, this is not some sort of violence according to you ?
When even journalists from le Figaro (right wing newspaper) have to protest brutality against journalists.... the violence is only coming from the protester ?
Other variables could have been adjusted (pensions, contributions...). Independent studies showed that our retirement system is very much affordable for our government and will still be 50 years from now. Just today it's also been revealed that the government's plan overestimated its savings by 4B euros...
Are you just repeating a common cliche while not knowing much about the situation?
So yes, unilaterally deciding to raise the retirement age, which doesn't actually fix anything, without having a vote, without listening to the protests, is neither mild nor democratic.
I’m sure everyone would agree it’s a bit of both? We’re responsible for not intentionally hurting others, and we’re responsible for not being excessively controlling or sensitive about others’ behaviours?
Precisely. And weaponizing the ambiguity - whether by hurting others with words and saying "but it's up to their reaction", or being excessively controlling and justifying it by saying words can hurt more than physical attacks - that's abusive behavior. Intent matters.
> Having one neutral platform, controlled by no one, with standardized API's and immutable open programs that anyone can permissionlessly build on - is amazing.
For sure, it's the same principles as the internet, and that unfortunately is why there are so many bad actors in the space.
There are companies and technologies being created to mitigate them just like how the internet spawned anti-(virus/spam/malware) companies. On the early internet with ActiveX, Flash, and few firewalls it was so easy to get exploited and this is the phase of DeFi we're in now, but it will get better over time.
Nope, HN doesn't show parent comments in threaded discussions and I'm on mobile with noprocrast. I'm sorry I missed one word, although it doesn't really affect my point at all.
> Nope, HN doesn't show parent comments in threaded discussions and I'm on mobile with noprocrast.
I haven’t used the noprocrast feature. But there is a “parent” link to see further up a thread when checking discussion replies. The description of norpocrast doesn’t seem to describe removing that.
You're posting this on HN, a platform that has moderators and doesn't allow certain things to be said. So you implicitly agree that there is a trade-off between free speech and ability to live in a community.
Unlike the people in this comic, I'm actually making a point, which you seem to have missed: community, by necessity, doesn't work with absolute freedom. What matters is what we agree to compromise over and why we do so.
No, not really. I’ll put up with draconian and biased moderation to skim curated tech articles in the morning before I start my day. Don’t confuse that with how exist in society.
As for the framework called MapReduce, it isn't used much, but its descendant https://beam.apache.org very much is. Nowadays people often use "map reduce" as a shorthand for whatever batch processing system they're building on top of.