I guess the question then becomes, what problem does a multi-tenancy setup solve that an isolated database setup doesn't? Are they really not solving the same problem for a user perspective, or is it only from their own engineering perspective? And how do those decisions ultimately impact the product they can surface to users?

Off the top of my head, managing 100 different database instances takes a lot more work from the business standpoint than managing 1 database with 100 users.

The article also mentioned that they isolate by project_id. That implies one customer (assume a business) can isolate permissions more granulary.

Yes it’s exactly this. There’s not a neat permission boundary when you have users, orgs, projects, environments. Let alone when you add RBAC too.

With multi-tenant vs multi-database decision one driver would be the level of legal/compliance/risk/cost/resource drivers around how segregated users really are.

Multi-database is more expensive generally but is a more brain dead guaranteed way to ensure the users are properly segregated, resilient across cloud/database/etc software releases that may regress something in a multi-tenant setup.

Multi-tenant you always run the risk of a software update, misconfiguration or operational error exposing existence of other users / their metadata / their data / their usage / etc. You also have a lot more of a challenge engineering for resource contention.

Agreed, in Multi-tenant, where the user/customer owns the data, I always reach for SQLite first. Each user/customer gets their own SQLite DB. Then you have a common PG/SQLite DB for any common metadata, billing, etc.

That way when a customer leaves or they want a backup copy of their data, it's a rm <customer>.sqlite3 or .backup away.

Sometimes you can't do that for various (almost always non-technical) reason(s), but it's always my 1st choice.

I've had maybe one bean burger in a restaurant that was any good.

Sorry for your loss

It's definitely the "least-worst option", most of the time, but I'd rather be able to eat _something_ with my friends when we go out to do something. At burger joints the burgers are usually otherwise dressed to impress, dripping with cheese and some awesome sauce; those are quite good with an Impossible patty subbed in. But American restaurants in my experience offer a selection of very, very sad foods, because they simply don't know how to make food taste good without meat. Vegan and vegetarian restaurants and many ethnic restaurants make excellent food. It's a cultural problem.

Which bums me out, because I like Beyond stuff. It has a distinctive taste that is obviously not real meat but very good in its own right IMO.

Surely none of that is actually more expensive than just following the actual health regulations or they wouldn't bother to do any of it.

> And at most restaurants, I've never noticed a "premium" for it, it usually costs the same as a beef patty; it just provides another option, for the days I want to skip meat

I'm a vegetarian. I have never _not_ paid at least $2 premium to sub in an Impossible or Beyond patty. I've had tons of them, there are some in my freezer.

Sounds like they were right to not want it in their back yard? I wouldn't want that shit near my house, I need to sleep at night.

Extra issues? Or "different" issues? The jury is still out on whether ICEVs or EVs are better overall, but despite being a less mature technology my EV is the best car I've owned so far. Seems to me that EVs win pretty easily in the long run.

They add an entire layer of make work and waste just for existing.

I think resigning in protest does more harm than good in the long run. They just replace you with a loyalist or an incompetent. Don't do their job for them. Make them fire you.

I think there is some benefit to resigning because you can see the DOJ is already suffering in court from sub-par lawyering. Every departure of a competent DOJ lawyer puts even more pressure on the remaining ones and there's only 24 hours in a day.

> resigning in protest does more harm than good in the long run. They just replace you with a loyalist or an incompetent

We’re seeing measurable effects from these resignations. A competent prosecutor could have indicted Comey. They resigned. And Halligan dropped the ball. Same as the other make-up obsessed idiots behind them.

Indicted Comey?? For what? Getting Trump elected? The only thing I think was questionable that he did was swing an election by choosing to reopen those emails.

He was actually indicted for "false statements and obstruction in congressional testimony".

> He was actually indicted

Technically, he wasn’t “actually indicted.” The indictment was thrown out on procedural grounds. That means it never actually was.

I suspect 'resigning in protest' is a news media term and that attorneys are resigning because that is what ethics require when confronted with demands to conduct themselves in illegal or improper ways.

> suspect 'resigning in protest' is a news media term and that attorneys are resigning because that is what ethics require when confronted with demands to conduct themselves in illegal or improper ways

So an accurate term. What does “news media term” mean for you?

The fact that so many DOJ employees are now incompetent is working against the fascists. Rumeysa Ozturk is free and living in the US because DOJ employees failed to provide the required documentation to the court to demonstrate that Rubio had cancelled her visa.

If you are going to stay at DOJ the only ethical thing would be to be as incompetent as possible. Staying and actually working causes harm.