What semantics do you expect when your spending limit is hit?
Turning off all compute resources (EC2, Lambda, Fargate, etc) seems obvious, but what about systems managing state like S3, EBS, and DynamoDB? Should buckets, volumes, and tables be deleted?
Allow users to configure storage to deduct the cost of keeping it until the end of the billing cycle from their spending limit. Then even when you hit your limit, you still actually have enough allowed spend left to pay for your storage. Actually the same principle could be used with compute or any other per-time service, and could just be an option when creating a resource. If you ask for a reservation, then failure to make it because it would exceed your spend limit results in failure to create the resource.
This is a basic problem that every adult needs to know how to solve, like "how can I make sure I don't run out of money to pay for food and shelter when I'm buying toys?" You set aside money to pay for the important things first, and what remains sets your limit for discretionary spending.
How about starting with the obvious? Doing nothing because you can't figure out how to do everything, is letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. Or maybe they don't have the incentives, as per the GP.
This is either a disingenuous argument or lack of basic positive creativity.
A simple way is for each created resource or rule that creates resources have a toggle to stop/delete the resource if spending limit is reached. I would use this by not enabling this on backups and enabling them on non-production critical resources.
I’ve seen this argument repeated a lot and I think it’s disingenuous. If AWS cared about simplifying billing they could figure out semantics that make sense. Just to throw out an example, they could allow account owners to either opt in or opt out of a hard cutoff. It’s clear they don’t have an incentive to fix this problem.
"Tunable spending limit" has consequences that can create other, equally real, problems.
Best effort: Turn off all compute resources, drop dynamically-adjustable persistent resources to their minimums (e.g. dynamo write and read capacity of 1 on every table), leave EBS volumes and S3 alone. In some cases, a user might find their business effectively offline while still racking up a massive AWS bill.
Hard cutoff: Very close to deleting an AWS account. In addition to compute and dynamically-adjustable resources to minimums, this means deleting S3 buckets, Dynamo tables, EBS volumes and snapshots, and everything else that racks up cost by the hour.
The best effort approach sounds reasonable to me. The hard cutoff solution sounds worse than the problem it purports to solve.
Agreed that AWS is poorly incentivized to fix the problem.
I agree the best effort approach seems sane. Storage cost is typically dwarfed by compute and network I/O anyway. Overall AWS has very few guardrails and it would be useful to ask the user if they want to opt in to guardrails when they open an account. I’m thinking there are a handful of use cases that would have different defaults:
- student, learning how to use AWS: set a maximum spend limit and hard cutoff
- small business, running a website: ddos protection and compute limits, pause compute and alert user if spend goes over, giving them the option to raise the limit and/or resume
"In 2003–05, Germany undertook extensive labor market reforms which were followed by a large and persistent decline in unemployment. Key elements of the reforms were a drastic cut in benefits for the long-term unemployed and tighter job search and acceptance obligations."
Yeah, the math on that is interesting. Either a huge proportion of women under 30 are in relationships with men over 30, or a lot of women under 30 are in relationships with men under 30 who are in simultaneous relationships with other women.
Based on the numbers from dating apps (only the top most attractive men being shown to and dated by women) it seems likely that it's women mostly having relations with those few men. And supposedly those men having simultaneous or just a rapid succession of relationships. This also seems to ring true to the experiences I've been told of by my male and female friends.
> It's them who want something so it's on them to change.
Do they want something? Nowhere in the article is there any survey of men in this age group showing a desire for something different . Instead the author states their opinion that men in the age group should want something else and change to get it.
When a woman figures out she doesn't need a man or a relationship to be happy and successful it is considered an empowering realization and choice. When a man comes to the same realization regarding women it is a problem originating with the man which requires him to change.
If the men are happy with the situation, then no, they don't need to change.
Are they happy with the situation? The "incel" movement leads me to say no (at least for a number of men).
But it's not that simple. There are a number of women who aren't happy with waiting until nearly 30 either. But what there seems to be is a mismatch between supply and demand. And in every case where the demand exceeds the supply, the price goes us. If you're 25, male, and want a relationship with a female, you may have to be a real catch.
>There are a number of women who aren't happy with waiting until nearly 30 either
It's natural that the relationship window for men closes slower than for women. A man intending to start a family can comfortably have his first child in his 40s or even 50s. A woman has to move into position within 10-15 years of adulthood or risk massive possible complications for her and the children.
I guess sex can be considered a human right in a certain way: no third party should be able to stop a consenting group of people to having sex.
While this is the wrong definition: another person should have sex with me. This latter definition often seems to be the taken meaning of "sex is a human right" and seems to be interpreted that way to advance the interest of that particular person saying it.
I think that kind of understanding of “sex is a human right” is one step away from “woman is an object/a service”. And also this “human right” is usually applied to men, but not women. What about woman’s right to have a very attractive sexual partner? Now if have two rights simultaneously, you have a contradiction.
I was quite taken aback by the "Does that logic work for Blacks for instance ?" that started this above but then thought that instead of getting angry why not attempt to get my argumentation straightened out instead :).
As you say, that way of thinking makes women literally into less than even a service: for a service you at least need to pay for; a human right on the other hand (right to live, express yourself, freedom of speech etc) is normatively free. The fact that these women who somehow must sleep with you have rights too doesn't seem to occur to these people at all..
Deciding who to have sex with is definitely a form of discrimination. For many, it can even be racial, religious, etc. We as a society have determined that it is okay to discriminate based on personal tastes when it comes to sex.
That's not obvious though. One could imagine a society where we deem it okay to discriminate on those things when providing employment, but not when having sex.
As much as we want to believe Human Rights are some fundamental property of nature, the reality is they are simply an agreed upon social construct.
> 1. the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of ethnicity, age, sex, or disability.
> 2. recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another.
> Deciding who to have sex with is definitely a form of discrimination.
It's definitely discrimination in the sense of (2). But that doesn't seem to have any ethical implications.
Arguing that selecting sexual partners is unjust because it is "discrimination" in the (1) sense already assume it is "unjust". It assumes what is to be shown.
In other words. The reason discrimination (1) is considered unjust is not "because it is discrimination" but because people have made arguments for why treating people differently in certain situations is unjust.
What's the argument for why it's unjust that young men can't have sex with people against their preference?
Just vs. unjust is what captures the social construct part. How do you decide what is just vs. unjust? You either poll society as whole, the elites of the society, or the monarchy, depending on the type of government.
The entire field of moral philosophy is dedicated to this question. There are many ideas of how to characterize justice. I can't tell you what idea of justice you should subscribe to. There are tons of texts doing that much better.
Im just pointing out that the argument that something is bad because it is discrimination is circular. Unless you also argue why that particular form of discrimination is unjust (in whatever sense you prefer).
Morality is subjective at its core, so you can't "argue" that something is unjust, and the fact that moral philosophers baselessly think they can doesn't change this fact.
Healthcare services are a right in many countries. Sex can be put in a similar category. Just like lacking access to healthcare can lower the quality of your life, so can being alone and sexless. Healthcare services are a very intimate activity as well.
It's like saying that healthcare access with attractive nurses is not a right. It's not, but healthcare in many countries is a right.
If having sex is a right, who are you proposing they have it with. How do we ensure that someone is available for that? What about their right to not participate?
> If having sex is a right, who are you proposing they have it with. How do we ensure that someone is available for that?
The easy answer is to direct them to Grindr or the nearest gloryhole. There is no shortage of prospective partners willing to relieve even the most undesirable men of their sexual tension.
It may not be exactly what they want, but at that point they're just being picky. Everyone's a girl when they're face-down.
If healthcare is a right, who are you proposing to provide those services? How do we ensure healthcare workers are available to provide the services? What about their right to not participate?
For what it's worth, legally mandated quotas for DEI that are externally imposed on private companies are also quite problematic. However, a lot of that trend these days comes internally, for a variety of reasons.
At the end of the day, companies, while people, are not humans, and they are ultimately owned by humans (call them slaves, if you will). Women, on the other hand, are not under the same sort of regulation, and, not being essentially livestock, are not and should not be subject to the same sort of regulation that may well at times be sensible when applied to companies. Companies, who, in turn, are given quite a few privileges to operate (such as limited liability for their owners, subsidies, privileged tax treatment for a variety of income sources, etc).
It's ridiculous that you needed this spelled out, but happy to oblige.
I think the difference here is that in case of a female (or a male for that matter) it is their personal choice of whether they want to have sex with someone or not; but racial non-discrimination is a norm you are expected to follow. I.e it is a norm that anyone can decide on their own sexual behavior, and it's also a norm to not be discriminatory.
It is about men being single and male sexual happiness. Otherwise said, it is about what men should do to make themselves more happy. The implied assumption is that women are happy with status quo or might even have opposite interests.
Single women, it turns out, are the happiest. And then single women with kids. Men have to change or we'll become obsolete. Our UX, in general, is bad.
I see this study brought up a lot, there's actually an interesting misconception that the researcher Paul Dolan failed to admit which corrupted the study. He cited the American Time Use Survey on the survey's data point of "Spouse absent", but he interpreted the meaning of the point as "spouse left the room and subject will be honest about their feelings" versus "subject is divorced or separated from the spouse". As you can imagine, this wildly changes the reason of why women are unhappy.
So I guess the comparison of 60% single young males vs. 30% single young females would be even more one-sided if we discount those who are willingly single and wouldn't want to change that status.
My comment was written based on what article said. It really does not mater what is on Instagram or wherever.
The article was about men being single and male sexual happiness. It was not about female happiness or fulfillment other then when their choices affect male coupling. That is not bad or anything, but simply not the focus of the article.
Author wrote write article about men without putting mini outrage over women-on-Instagram which is perfectly fine.
I think periodic off-sites (or on-sites in the era of remote) are incredibly valuable even without a specific business issue to address.
It's easy to say that strategic thinking and planning should be continuous, but in reality there's always a storm of immediate tactical tasks sucking up your attention. That's true for both software engineers (living in Jira tickets, sprints, and one-to-two quarter projects) and the c-suite.
These sessions can force you to make time, put aside the tactical noise, and think.
That is true! And I get it that calendar years are easier to get your head around (2023 plan rather than specific dates).
By continuous I mean end of year shouldn’t be to special, you could have a rolling plan and amend it every month with offsite when it is felt that brainpower is needed and especially more grassroots input is needed.
I recently noticed a collections agency sending emails that don't pass DKIM checks. Since the company's main business model is invoicing via email and their revenue is substantial, I'm positive it's malice, not incompetence. An intentional way of racking up late fees.
One big question is how long you have till you need the money. If you need to cash out within a year or two for a mortgage down payment, I would consider taking the inflation hit and plopping it in an FDIC insured savings account. If you have years or decades until you need it, I would either put it all in stocks or purchase a home that you plan to live in.
An asset tracking the S&P 500 is still a very reasonable bet. For my taxable accounts I use IVV with an expense ratio of 0.03%
Another good, diversified choice is Berkshire Hathaway class B shares (BRK.B). Lots of boring but money-making businesses in there. The downside is that both Buffet and Munger will be out of the picture within a few years, so there is a chance of a rocky leadership transition.
You could work your way through some of the "Linux Programming Interface" by Kerrisk.
Even if you only use high level languages, the LPI provides insight on what's happening under the hood. It also gives important context for when you do performance analysis and program optimization. Each chapter has a bunch of exercises at the end.
The questionnaire looks pretty reasonable, but I'd be concerned about the sketchy looking "Psychometric assessments" that's next in the list.
Also, at what point will the candidate be able to vet whether Canonical is a suitable match? Is that only after this questionnaire, psych test, and take-home assignment?
Turning off all compute resources (EC2, Lambda, Fargate, etc) seems obvious, but what about systems managing state like S3, EBS, and DynamoDB? Should buckets, volumes, and tables be deleted?