thethirdwheel

The big thing here is that its analytical framework allows the authors to clearly analyze Paxos and some important variants and identify performance improvements (e.g. steps in the algorithm you can elide) that don't undermine the guarantees provided.

My background is in bioinformatics, so this naturally caught my eye. I came away disappointed. The mappings are no easier to understand than simplistic descriptions in biology textbooks. The only thing they add is the mistaken impression of intent in the genetic code, and the expectation the analogy will continue to hold outside the scope of the enumerated mappings. Kind of ironic to run into that issue with so many Dawkins references at the end...

Any article that takes a body of peer reviewed scientific research, points out some procedural problems, and then--without any supporting evidence--claims that their competing perspective is correct is bullshit. Scientific claims demand scientific refutals, not the agglomerated opinions of the twitter-sphere. This is exactly the same tactic used by climate deniers.

Seems like flurry only gives age and gender data: http://www.flurry.com/flurry analytics.html#insight