Steve Jobs rare footage conducting a presentation on 1980 (Insanely Great)

What makes you think people understand URI bars? Often times they become fairly unintelligible as the number of resources go up. Even if we slugify titles into the URI, there are almost always other path hierarchies and parameters to handle paging, sorting states, or otherwise. The user has already clicked through, he can easily see the title in the tab; the rest of the URI is probably meaningless or not worth understanding for the 99%. 99% of the time, it is probably even a waste for the other 1%; it's not that URIs are going away. I'm not even sure what you mean by a "Web 3.0" revolution. The following is the future? * Youtube link off my Youtube homepage: [this video] * Twitter status link: [link] -- though I'd wager a majority of users simply hit retweet and never see the resource URI * Facebook photo off my wall: [link]

"Am I an affective programmer?" Does my code make people feel good? Does it automate some user task? Does it make some user task easier? Does it amplify users' powers? Does it create value, by my definition of "valuable"? Of course, these are outcomes/benefits, not the technical role of programming within an organization. But apt if you see yourself, fellow programmers and company members as "users" also. > I read a study that measured the efficiency of locomotion for various species on the planet. The condor used the least energy to move a kilometer. And, humans came in with a rather unimpressive showing, about a third of the way down the list. It was not too proud a showing for the crown of creation. So, that didn’t look so good. But, then somebody at Scientific American had the insight to test the efficiency of locomotion for a man on a bicycle. And, a man on a bicycle, a human on a bicycle, blew the condor away, completely off the top of the charts. [link] [this video] > ... There need be no real danger of it ever becoming a drudge, for any processes that are quite mechanical may be turned over to the machine itself. [link]

This is great that you can do that. An experimental environment must be of the same size. Ideally, absolutely the same physically, to keep the same physical layout as on prod – bloat, etc – though, sometimes it's not allowed. Another problem here is that for each experiment, you might need a new environment. Plus, in larger teams, many people might want to do this work at the same time – so you end up combining efforts, synchronizing them, sharing environments. It slows you down. Or increases your cloud spending a lot. This is a kind of problem Steve Jobs described in his famous 1980 speech [1] about Apple: if we give each person their own computer, something special happens compared to the case when 10 persons share a single computer. Here it is the same: if we can give each engineer their own full-size DB copy for experiments, something special happens. They start moving much, much faster. SQL quality improves. DB changes (DDL, massive DML) stop failing. Finally, engineers start learning SQL, it's an eye-opener – they now can see how it works on large volumes (because they didn't have good environments for experiments before!) This is what we (Postgres.ai) have learned over the last couple of years developing Database Lab Engine [2]. It's an open-source tool for superfast cloning of Postgres databases of any size, based on copy-on-write provided by ZFS or LVM. On a single machine, you can have dozens of full-size clones up and running, conduct a lot of experiments at the sa