Maybe 15 years ago multi-touch attribution was the big push but even that only adds minimal insights into how ad spend affects the behavior you're trying to measure. It helps with high-level channel attribution but it's still at best directional.

So once you reach a point when increasing spend at Meta/Google results in superlinear increases in CAC vs. spend, you eventually end up having to move those ad dollars elsewhere and over time (and a lot of money) you get an intuitive understanding of how these other mediums trickle down to the metrics that matter.

You're totally right about agencies and their perverse incentives and how that leads to sub-optimal spend allocation.

Baically protobuf, Cap’n Proto, msgpack, Avro, or every other serialization approach that versions schemas?

Postgres doesn't do "tiny writes" - it writes whole pages multiple times on every update even if you're only changing 4 bytes, combined with even more writes later on when vacuuming tables. This is one of the reasons why the historical advice was to not build high-volume queues on top of Postgres and why "oh look another post about queues on Postgres" keeps soliciting comments like this.

This ignores the fine print. It scales a very long way under specific circumstances with specific workloads. The more write-heavy your workload the less eloquently Postgres scales.

For OpenAI's use case you could swap Postgres with MySQL and it would scale just as well.

So in other words you're just vibing conspiracy theories and will believe whatever makes you feel better.

The only example of thin skin I see is the character assassination attempts and petty attacks by the Zig team.

This attitude is so precious to me - "Sorry guys, you can't criticize my criticism."

> What Bun did here is basically a sabotage of Zig's reputation

If Zig's reputation was so fragile that Bun migrating to Rust caused this kerfuffle, then Bun isn't the issue.

> unrequested fork

No such thing exists.

Can you point to even one such example?

> not having any morals

You don't agree with someone so you claim they have no morals. I don't have words for how stupid this is that anyone can so casually dehumanize someone over something so trivial.

And yet you follow this up by making assumptions about the motivations behind TS. Anders has mentioned that TS was purely motivated by internal MS teams struggling with huge JS codebases, nothing to do with C# but clearly his work on other languages would have influenced how he approached designing the language.

> our argument is basically "the law says so".

That's the only argument that matters, because monopoly is a legal matter.