So it's AWS Fargate with a different name? That's cool for cloud hosted stuff. But if you're on prem, or manage your own VPS' then you need SSH access.
Except you've replaced something good with something worse. IPMI really isn't an improvement over having SSH to the system. It definitely has more security holes.
Can you SSH into broken grub? Can you change BIOS settings?
Also giving access like that outside your home network is not a good idea. So security issues does not matter that much.
Telling someone they're biased must be the most low-effort comment there is. Everyone is biased about any subject where they have even a nuanced self interest in. And in your case, you didn't even specify which part of their comment was allegedly being affected by bias. Nor did you acknowledge your own bias.
"which cost almost nothing for low traffic" you invented the retort "what about high traffic" within your own message. I don't even necessarily mean user traffic either. But if you constantly have to sync new records over (as could be the case in any kind of timeseries use-case) the internal traffic could rack up costs quickly.
"vastly superior to self hosting regarding observability" I'd suggest looking into the cnpg operator for Postgres on Kubernetes. The builtin metrics and official dashboard is vastly superior to what I get from Cloudwatch for my RDS clusters. And the backup mechanism using Barman for database snapshots and WAL backups is vastly superior to AWS DMS or AWS's disk snapshots which aren't portable to a system outside of AWS if you care about avoiding vendor lock-in.
Not the person you asked, but I think it comes down to past experiences/family environment/etc. Theres poking fun at someone to signal "i like you anyway"... that is real. There's also people who cross the line with their words, and use "i was just joking" as an excuse to be cruel.
If someone has experienced a lot of the later, it makes sense that they don't really trust the former.
Not OP. It's not about the words or the intentions, it's about the fact that we can talk about anything in the world, do any activity together, and you want to do something I'm not comfortable with.
That said, I understand relationships are about give and take. I couldn't be in a romantic relationship like this, but I'll indulge my friends or my cousins. I have a friend who engages in "countersignaling" often. Our connection is generally worth the uncomfortableness, but sometimes it is unbearable.
With age Ive found myself much more comfortable with folks "being mean, but in a friendly way" as they intend it. When I was younger though, I never understood why folks didn't instead just "say the nice part." Like, if your friends are always glad you join them even if you're always late, making fun of you for being late with a big smile can still feel pretty bad for you. Much better to say "hey please don't be late" and also "we really enjoy you spending time with us."
With age Ive come to see that for reasons I don't understand, lots of folks have a massive aversion to saying clearly the things they appreciate about the people around them directly. Eh, their loss.
I think there's a bit more to it than that. Being mean in a friendly way is sort of a sport, for some people finding a good quip is about the mental challenge of wordsmithing. It's easy, and not all that creative, to say "don't be late" and also with certain people can come across more negatively than just jokingly berating them, believe it or not. It sounds more serious. Something like, "glad you made it, Leland! We were just posting a GoFundMe to buy you a watch." Said in the right way with people you are very familiar with keeps a lighter tone, and less like I'm actually upset (even if I may be.) Not that I'd ever say something like that in a professional setting or to people I'm not actually strong friends with; those people just get a "glad you made it, Leland!"
It's also sort of the same reason shows like It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia are funny. When you're jokingly mean to a friend, you're being a bit of a caricature, an exaggeration. That's part of the fun of it, too. And why it can get a point across while keeping it light.
They're always more common in metro areas of the US. You must be from a relatively rural area and don't get out of it much.
That said, uh, the use of getting a taxi to drive you to or from the airport was just not having to park at the airport which generally costs a lot of money, and in certain areas is a little sketchy on whether or not your car will get cracked open while you're away.
That's a little reductive. I grew up in San Diego and went to school in LA and had the same experience with taxis - never took them. But now I use ubers in those cities whenever I'm there.
The US has tons of cities like this that I imagine would have issues with taxis - all parts of the bay area peninsula / east bay, cities in Texas, Denver, etc. Most cities are not like the NYC/Boston and even in places in Chicago, unless you lived downtown likely didn't see taxis driving around.
I think everyone knows and silently understands that the people responding/emoji-ing in those channels all day every day are doing so at the cost of work output, and that there are a lot of people working that aren't typing away about the last audiobook they listened to. I think you've created a stressful situation out of something that isn't inherently stressing.
Generating business value is not your only responsibility, though. Most companies expect you to be a team player, to stay in touch, to communicate across departments, and so on.
So depending on your work environment, communicating and responding quickly may be implicitly expected and not conforming may lead to stagnation in your career.
The opening story is about how the narrator was replaced by AI, but trades workers cannot. And that doesn't strike you as setting up AI to be central to the article?
USA has Visa, Mastercard, Discover, and AmEx. Each of which try to entice their customers by offering better rewards programs. Though AmEx isn't taken everywhere (notably Costco) and Discover is hit and miss as well.
It's funny, because the Costco credit card used to be AmEx. IIRC Costco Canada only takes Mastercard, which is funny since the US Costco credit card is Visa, so you can't use the US Costco CC to pay in a Canadian Costco.
You actually can use the Costco US Visa at Canadian Costco, they’ve got a special exemption for it. (And vice-versa, you can use the Canadian Costco Mastercard at American Costco.)
The rewards programs are the anti-competitive lock-in.
Visa and Mastercard charge high fees because their dominant market position forces merchants to accept them. Then they use part of the fees to bribe customers with rewards programs.
A new payment network doesn't have leverage against merchants so can't charge the same high fees and therefore can't offer the same rewards programs, but then they can't get consumers to use their card, which is what they would need in order to get any leverage.
The rewards programs are a grift. The price of everything goes up by 3% and if you get a rewards card you get 1-2% of it back, therefore you get one. Then you're still out the other 1-2% you wouldn't have been if the market was competitive, the people who don't get one get punished by being out the entire 3% (which inhibits competitors with lower fees), and Visa and Mastercard suck billions of dollars out of the economy into their Scrooge McDuck money bin because consumers have been defrauded into thinking this arrangement is to their advantage.
Even being aware of all that, I don't feel I've been defrauded. I don't have to carry around a wad of cash that can be lost or stolen, and on the rare occasions that I need to I can get the help of the credit card company in recovering money when I actually get defrauded.
This is a great argument for forcing network interop. Akin to net neutrality, allow card companies to transit over the network for reasonable rates. This removes any networks ability to squeeze things like this
It depends where the division is, I guess. It always feels a bit heavy-handed to force private companies to interoperate within their infrastructure. That being said, I don't really know a better way to do it.
Having terminals be more universal would be good, but good luck replacing old ones and convincing entrenched market participants to offer them..
The newer generation of products like BNPL are even worse; they often contractually prevent merchants from charging a surcharge commensurate with the cost of accepting that payment method.
It's the card network using their excessive leverage as a result of a lack of competition that allows the issuing bank to charge such high fees. Because if you accept Visa, you have to accept every Visa.
reply