- There used to be more children per family, so the burden was shared. The parents in question had fewer children, and now a single person is often responsible for both parents.
  - There are fewer and fewer middle class families. The younger generation is more and more barely able to foot their own bills, let alone take on additional for additional care for another dependent. 
  - The expected life span has risen, so parents are spending additional years alive, often long past when they simply would have passed previously.
  - Rates of dementia and Alzheimer's continue to rise, and require an entirely different level of care than someone who simply can't drive or get around and needs check ins once a day. Round the clock caregiving is an entirely different animal. 

Regardless of whether you morally want to take care of your parents, the bottom line is people can only do so much and be so strong. It's really difficult.

I've not used it, so I can't endorse it one way or the other, but the author was interviewed on a podcast I listen to [1] and it seems like exactly what you are asking for. He went through a situation similar to what you are describing and created the project when he couldn't find software like what you are looking for.

Good luck.

[1] Changelog, Ep #345.

Apple has their own issues, but they've claimed that their business is selling you a device and software and media to run on it, and making their money from that as opposed to reselling your data. Everything they've been doing lately supports that stance, and they've already recognized it as a differentiation, hence the way they have been up-playing the privacy features of their devices lately. Since they aren't selling you as much after the fact, they are going to charge you more up-front, and since they make their money selling software, they're obsessed with controlling the marketplace.

Google gives away software and media, and sells your personal data and advertising. They're showing increasingly that they don't care about your privacy if it affects their bottom line.

You have to decide which of those business models you support, and then support it. There's no third model where a business gives everything away and cares about your privacy. That's inconsistent with a bottom line of making money, and at the end of the day that is what the business is trying to do.

For a while Google gave the impression that they cared, until they established a large enough market, and now you're seeing them make the natural transition. They've grew their cash cow by giving away stuff, now they are milking it.

Any rational company with their business model is going to do the same thing though, so if you jump ship to another ecosystem now selling you a business model that is too good to be true, don't be surprised down the line when that proves to be the case.

I don't really understand anyone who would even care that much about this change. I can barely find time to go to the theater 3 times a month let alone more. The changes that limit the most popular movies were much worse, honestly.

I don't think they are going to last, because even with this reduced offering I don't see how an outlay of $33 for a $10 subscription works. As long as I see at least one movie a month using the service I more than break even though, so I'll stay subscribed month to month until they go under.

If you have to charge money, your chance to overcome the network effect of FB or an established site is difficult, because en masse migration of users to a new service typically goes hand in hand with that new service being offered freely.

Conversely if you don't charge money, your ability to fund the development of a competitor is based on reduced ad income since you can't offer targeted ads, which is going to shorten your runway by a significant amount.

These two things seem to indicate that the likelihood of building something that replaces one of the existing social services goes down. I don't think it makes it impossible, but the law seems to make it less likely that the social app incumbents get replaced (if that was at all possible).

As far as those in other regulated fields having done this for some time, I can't think of many regulated fields where the network effect is so high as social apps, so it is probably a bit apples to oranges. Presumably it is not as large a deal in those markets where social network dynamic is not as strong.

At some point, someone is going to need to change your code. When that happens, it is easier to 'surgically' modify a single method that does one simple thing, than adjust one tiny piece of a much larger function. Even though the change might be exactly the same, it will be easier to understand which callers are affected by the change so you can detect the impact of your modification.

It is a guideline, not a rule. You'll (probably frequently) have methods that logically make sense to keep longer, but if you're writing and find yourself creeping past that, it is a good indicator you might want to review the function and make sure you're not inlining something that might make sense as its own function.

I would think that would allow Rethink to analyze the structure of the query and perform appropriate optimizations.

In a normal UI, the user makes some action, which would update the db, clear the cache for the affected key(s), and display the updated page to the user. In the event stream processing way, if the front end events are what is being logged and the cache refresh for example is running via Samza or some other processor, how does the UI get refreshed appropriately since the processing of the stream is decoupled? Or does the main app cache remain coupled to the form submission and there are just 'other' uncoupled caches, etc?

It just sucks to be in the position you are with essentially no leverage in the relationship, and dependence on a single source of advertising. I think the other comments offer some insights on how to try to diversify. I don't think you have a real alternative beyond that.

Good luck!

The following default rules apply to all Apps:

Advertising. No advertising or sponsorship of any kind may appear on or be associated with any App (unless included in the Content made available by Marvel).

No Charge. All Apps must be offered free of charge to download or otherwise access and may not contain any in-App purchase features or any other method of monetization, unless approved in writing by Marvel pursuant to a separate written agreement as described below.

...

NO PRESS RELEASES. You may not issue any press release or make any public statement about the Marvel API (and related Content), Tools, the inclusion of any of the foregoing in any Apps (yours or others') or these API Terms of Use without Marvel's prior written approval.

...

Use of our Content. You may not change or edit the Content (e.g., modify, augment).

...

You understand and acknowledge that Marvel may be independently creating applications, content and other products or services that may be similar to or competitive with your App, and nothing in these API Terms of Use will be construed as restricting or preventing Marvel from creating and fully exploiting such applications, content and other products or services now or in the future, without any obligation to you.

Not that anyone is going to win his money, but this one game doesn't change anything.