Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Reliability: It’s not great

community.fly.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

391–400 of 476 posts

Re: Reliability: It’s not great

#391

Post by SZJX »

ricardobeat wrote: post #302
alex_sf wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not exactly related to the OP, but: I think I speak for a large number of folks when I say that we don't care. The EU keeps passing all sorts of absurd laws that require dedicated auditors to comply with. It's just not going to happen. If they decide to actively enforce these things, they'll just isolate themselves from the rest of the world.

As an EEUU resident, we also don't care. We can survive without youtube and instagram and the whole surveillance industry. Some of the laws place a heavy burden on giant tech companies, but for good reason.

Interesting that "EEUU" from my knowledge mostly refers to the US (Estados Unidos) in a Spanish context. The abbreviation for European Union would be UE (Unión Europea) right.

Re: Reliability: It’s not great

#392

Post by fmajid »

speedgoose wrote: post #386
LunaSea wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've talked with companies like that as well and they start with strict rules and end up allowing clouds because no solution is compliant anyway.

I guess it works when you don't have any compliant competitor.

Hetzner or OVH would be compliant.

Re: Reliability: It’s not great

#393

Post by fmajid »

e12e wrote: post #347
cavisne wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Companies have to guess what is PII and what is not, the EU have no idea (other than they know which companies they want to punish)

The GDPR is quite clear on defining PII, I don't understand why you would claim otherwise?

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” — Upton Sinclair

Re: Reliability: It’s not great

#394

Post by xorcist »

LunaSea wrote: post #74
fmajid wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US CLOUD Act means a EU customer cannot use a US cloud provider to host PII, even if the server itself is physically in the EU, because US law will still compel the provider to yield the data to US authorities. The European Commission is trying to paper over the cracks with a fig leaf of judicial review, but it's only a matter of time until a Schrems III decision from the CJEU invalidates that polite fiction.

The amount of EU companies following this law is exactly 0.

Defense and government is a huge sector. You can live very well off it.

They are not going to skimp on the rules. A large part of banking won't, either.

Re: Reliability: It’s not great

#395

Post by nprateem »

nu11ptr wrote: post #16

Not a client of fly.io, but dang impressive for the company to be this open and honest. Definite respect - wish more companies were like this. It puts them on my short list almost immediately for future needs.

Why would you shortlist a company that admits to reliability issues?

Re: Reliability: It’s not great

#396

Post by nprateem »

emschwartz wrote: post #2

One of my colleagues keeps repeating “reliability is our number one feature”. I’m not sure it is for 100% of early stage startups, but I guess it is once you exceed some minimum usage threshold. That said, definitely appreciate the detailed explanation.

That's what crossing the chasm is about. Before the chasm are tinkerers who don't mind things failing as much, but after it, people want reliable things that Just Work.

Re: Reliability: It’s not great

#397

Post by fmajid »

wbl wrote: post #253
fmajid wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US CLOUD Act means a EU customer cannot use a US cloud provider to host PII, even if the server itself is physically in the EU, because US law will still compel the provider to yield the data to US authorities. The European Commission is trying to paper over the cracks with a fig leaf of judicial review, but it's only a matter of time until a Schrems III decision from the CJEU invalidates that polite fiction.

You're assuming that the US doesn't respond to political pressure and come up with an agreement with the EC to enable the flows. The wiretap act already goes beyond the fourth amendment in protection.

The problem is the European Commission is not applying political pressure because it rolls over for every fig leaf the US offers. It then takes Max Schrems to sue and several years before the CJEU overturns the "compromise".

That said, the Biden administration's latest proposal might pass muster if the proposed redress mechanism were truly independent as part of the Judicial Branch of the United States as opposed to the current proposal which is still part of the Executive and thus conflicted in ruling against surveillance decisions of the Executive Branch and its agencies:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases...

https://noyb.eu/en/open-letter-future-eu-us-data-transfers

That said, even US citizens don't enjoy meaningful protection against warrantless wiretapping that clearly violates the Fourth Amendment due to the deference the judiciary has given to the executive, so I am not optimistic.

Re: Reliability: It’s not great

#398

Post by ricardobeat »

SZJX wrote: post #391
ricardobeat wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As an EEUU resident, we also don't care. We can survive without youtube and instagram and the whole surveillance industry. Some of the laws place a heavy burden on giant tech companies, but for good reason.

Interesting that "EEUU" from my knowledge mostly refers to the US (Estados Unidos) in a Spanish context. The abbreviation for European Union would be UE (Unión Europea) right.

Oops. Late-night brainfart, I'm a portuguese speaker and got things a bit mixed up :)

Re: Reliability: It’s not great

#399

Post by di4na »

speedgoose wrote: post #386
LunaSea wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've talked with companies like that as well and they start with strict rules and end up allowing clouds because no solution is compliant anyway.

I guess it works when you don't have any compliant competitor.

Yep. The real question is how long until we get one.

Scaleway seems to go in the right direction but still a bit of work needed

Re: Reliability: It’s not great

#400

Post by 8organicbits »

jrochkind1 wrote: post #35

I remain kind of amazed about how heroku managed to pull off what they pulled off, in the first case. Also: > The Heroku exodus broke our assumptions. Pre-Heroku, most of the apps we were running were spread across regions. And: we were growing about 15% per month. But post-Heroku, we got a huge influx of apps in just a few hot spots — and at 30% per month. I hadn't before seen anyone with a big picture view confirm…

Do they unpack what the 30% includes? Is that revenue, VMs, accounts?
Post reply on HN