Julio Biason
5 years ago
2 changed files with 78 additions and 0 deletions
@ -0,0 +1,41 @@
|
||||
+++ |
||||
title = "88 Days to Any Goal - Rolland Roberts" |
||||
date = 2020-02-20 |
||||
|
||||
[taxonomies] |
||||
tags = ["books", "reviews", "self-help", "rolland roberts"] |
||||
+++ |
||||
|
||||
[GoodReads Summary](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/40597273-the-90-day-promise): |
||||
No summary. |
||||
|
||||
<!-- more --> |
||||
|
||||
{{ stars(stars=1) }} |
||||
|
||||
A whole "book" for something that is 5 (badly explained) bullet points. And a |
||||
lot of "THIS THING IS GREAT!" |
||||
|
||||
Want to lose weight? If you do the 88 day promise, you'll become weightless! |
||||
|
||||
Want to make more money? With the 88 day promise, you'll be richer than Jeff |
||||
Bezos! |
||||
|
||||
I did the 88 day promise for my campaign and almost got elected as king of the |
||||
world. |
||||
|
||||
Want to get impervious to bullets? All you need is the 88 day promise! |
||||
|
||||
A young Kal-El once decided to become stronger and, in 88 days, he was |
||||
Superman! |
||||
|
||||
Jokes apart, there is very little information about what the heck the 88 day |
||||
promise is. Just focusing on something for 88 day is enough? Can I focus on |
||||
becoming impervious to bullets? Any goal is valid? How to proceed, just set a |
||||
goal and that's it? |
||||
|
||||
No, it's not. There is a "first week, you take a time out". Suuuuure, I'll |
||||
stop working for a whole week to recover my energies and then I'll focus for 2 |
||||
weeks and take another week out for recharging. |
||||
|
||||
Honestly, I felt like reading some very long ad for snake oil. |
@ -0,0 +1,37 @@
|
||||
+++ |
||||
title = "Reactive Microservices Architecture - Jonas Bonér" |
||||
date = 2020-02-20 |
||||
|
||||
[taxonomies] |
||||
tags = ["books", "reviews", "it", "microservices", "jonas boner"] |
||||
+++ |
||||
|
||||
[GoodReads Summary](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/29630482-reactive-microservices-architecture): |
||||
Still chugging along with a monolithic enterprise system that’s difficult to |
||||
scale and maintain, and even harder to understand? In this concise report, |
||||
Lightbend CTO Jonas Bonér explains why microservice-based architecture that |
||||
consists of small, independent services is far more flexible than the |
||||
traditional all-in-one systems that continue to dominate today’s enterprise |
||||
landscape. |
||||
|
||||
<!-- more --> |
||||
|
||||
{{ stars(stars=1) }} |
||||
|
||||
Not actually a "book" per se, but more like a paper -- the author even |
||||
mentions it is a paper. |
||||
|
||||
Now, is it a good paper? Well... Thing is, easy-to-explain concepts, like |
||||
"Sagas", take a long discussion about them, but hard-to-explain, like the CAP |
||||
theorem, make just some short explanations. And this is bad; things that |
||||
really need more explanation do not and are just glossed over; things that you |
||||
can get right out of the bad, do not. Also, some parts put a lot of footnotes |
||||
and assume the reader will read the footnote, which is bad, 'cause if you let |
||||
it to read later, you won't totally grasp what it means. |
||||
|
||||
Also, there is one serious problem: Although it does a good discussion about |
||||
microservices, there is is very little explanation on what the reactive |
||||
microservice differs from normal microservices. |
||||
|
||||
It's more interesting for the footnotes, which have links to the real content, |
||||
than the content of the paper. |
Loading…
Reference in new issue