Unhelpfully he switches analogies in midstream to avoid the problem of the "two customers buy tickets when one seat is available" originally posited. Additiona

Unhelpfully he switches analogies in midstream to avoid the problem of the "two customers buy tickets when one seat is available" originally posited. Additionally, "eventually consistent" begs the question of what is "consistent?" How do you know that there is an outstanding commit that would affect the system without a final arbiter of truth? In the comments there is mention of air traffic control and the fact that two 747s cannot occupy the same spacetime safely. Both planes can express "intent" with regards to flight paths, but either these intents are resolved by a single arbiter of truth operating in a timely fashion, the flight controller, or they are not and result in a collision which is also resolved by a single arbiter of truth, being reality. One arbiter is far more preferable than the other. There are large numbers of problems that are easily amenable to casual consistency, but there are other that simply are not. The possible solutions to the former are many and varied but the latter requires a solution far more in tune with the "database community."