231–240 of 275 posts
Why would Microsoft be disproportionately affected by this? Are we expecting similar decrees from AWS and GCP? Or was Microsoft operating with less runway before this began?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Econ 101: Today, masks are $500. Tomorrow, 100 companies in various industries begin to repurpose their factories to produce masks and arbitrage the price down until it isn't profitable anymore. Supply increases; thus, there are more masks than there were before the price increase. Even if you don't like who gets the first mask, you can't deny that supply increases, and therefore more people now have masks.
And in the next lecture, you learn that factories can't be retooled overnight, and people die in the meantime.
They should be in time to save a lot of lives.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We had started tentatively using teams before all this. Now it's a critical part of our day-to-day functioning and you know what? It's not bad, not bad at all. It's pretty well thought out, reliable, integrated with Outlook and Sharepoint. Even the few people who complained that they wouldn't use it because there wasn't a phone number to call for telecons were overcome when we told them to just install the app and jo…
I still absolutely loathe teams. There is no way to get it to show you have unread messages (the red dot of slack). Notifications do not work reliably. When I am in a Teams channel I miss notifications from the Chat channels, and vice versa. For me Teams has been a major downgrade from Slack
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Possibly Teams video chat which seems to work better more consistently than Zoom or Cisco Webex for small groups. At least in my organization, we've seen a lot of folks move to it in the last two-three weeks.
We now use Teams video chat at work. The results have been mixed. When the number of meeting participants is low (<5) the video seems to work well. Anything above that we start seeing random disconnects. We've had better experiences with Zoom for larger meetings (~25).
Due to there being a 250 participant limit we now switched to live events, and there also has been no issue with that.
Wow. First of all, I'm curious to what proportions this is driven primarily by remote office work (O365), videoconferencing streaming, recreational video streaming (does Disney+ run on Azure?), or what. But second... I'm fascinated by the concept of prioritization rules in place rather than simply raising prices. I wonder if it "looks bad" to raise prices, or if the vast majority of customers already have locked-in p…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don't seem to be responding to my comment. High prices cannot necessarily increase supply when the timeframe is strictly limited. This is a reality that a lot of people seem to not accept. So the effect of price is just to determine the distribution of a limited supply. That significantly reduces the utility of a market pricing system. Directing production is a fundamental reason why markets are useful in normal…
That stock in unaffected areas is allocated to the affected crisis area seems like an incredible benefit though. Seems to me that this is an example illustrates the opposite actually. Human demand might be infinite but supply is always limited Also, high prices sends information to producers that riskily ramping up or shifting production can be worth it. Might not be worth it at a lower price point.
Heartwarming international solidarity and the power of the market in action? Or capitalists selling the rope that will hang them?
Wow. First of all, I'm curious to what proportions this is driven primarily by remote office work (O365), videoconferencing streaming, recreational video streaming (does Disney+ run on Azure?), or what. But second... I'm fascinated by the concept of prioritization rules in place rather than simply raising prices. I wonder if it "looks bad" to raise prices, or if the vast majority of customers already have locked-in p…
Given the sudden need and the circumstances behind it putting prices up might not decrease demand enough to make any difference so while the system will be more profitable it won't be any less congested and now you have people paying more but feeling like they are getting less because they had to wait an hour before they could start that little herd of VMs they usually have available immediately on demand.
This could drive people off onto other services, or at least make previously entrenched users look up and scan the horizon.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We had started tentatively using teams before all this. Now it's a critical part of our day-to-day functioning and you know what? It's not bad, not bad at all. It's pretty well thought out, reliable, integrated with Outlook and Sharepoint. Even the few people who complained that they wouldn't use it because there wasn't a phone number to call for telecons were overcome when we told them to just install the app and jo…
I still absolutely loathe teams. There is no way to get it to show you have unread messages (the red dot of slack). Notifications do not work reliably. When I am in a Teams channel I miss notifications from the Chat channels, and vice versa. For me Teams has been a major downgrade from Slack
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My theory is that Amazon and Google are more prepared to handle surges because they run some of the largest web properties. This like every day is Black Friday for Amazon. It's rough, but not something they have never dealt with before.
GCP and GSuite had outages this week listed on their status pages. AWS has been rock solid for us in the 3 regions we operate in.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unfortunately these "delusional autocrats" run the government of, for example, Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, etc. and would absolutely punish such a baker.
I highly recommend that you read through the legislation. The legislation explicitly allows prices to increase due to actual increases in costs. The only thing that's banned is increases in price due to increased profit margins.