31–40 of 89 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Used Google Colabs for the last 8 months, will fully divest from them with this change...
If you used it in the last 8 months and didn’t get restricted you won’t be now. Reading comprehension and stuff.
I like the transparency, but this doesn't feel like the right way to do it. Computation should be free (or nearly free) if there's idle capacity, paid if Google is near capacity, and expensive/bidding if Google is above capacity. Flat compute units seem simple, but result in a lot of waste.
I like the transparency, but this doesn't feel like the right way to do it. Computation should be free (or nearly free) if there's idle capacity, paid if Google is near capacity, and expensive/bidding if Google is above capacity. Flat compute units seem simple, but result in a lot of waste.
How do you mean? Should GCS storage also be free, unless Google is nearing storage capacity?
Compute is dynamic. You might be above capacity for Christmas shopping, and below capacity at 4am in the middle of the weekend.
By varying pricing, you can be more efficient. People who can will smooth out that load. If I don't need to run something during peak hours, I might wait until off-peak. Google needs less capacity. Everyone comes out ahead.
For a profit-making project, dynamic pricing makes sense. I suggested free since the primary goal of co-lab isn't to make money (but they also don't want to subsidize it too much, so they do need to charge).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you used it in the last 8 months and didn’t get restricted you won’t be now. Reading comprehension and stuff.
We actually don't know. The email doesn't indicate if the available compute will stay the same.
I like the transparency, but this doesn't feel like the right way to do it. Computation should be free (or nearly free) if there's idle capacity, paid if Google is near capacity, and expensive/bidding if Google is above capacity. Flat compute units seem simple, but result in a lot of waste.
And if it does go idle, it saves energy, which costs money. At scale, compute isn't free.
You can really tell, in the comments sections of changes like these, who is speaking from the perspective of having a professional/business vs. a personal use-case. Individuals tend to be upset; while professionals are happy that individual free-riders will no longer be sucking up undue amounts of compute power, and so QoS on the system will improve for them.
I'd think anyone trying to run a business off a $10 or $49 tier is the one sucking up undue compute power.
I like the transparency, but this doesn't feel like the right way to do it. Computation should be free (or nearly free) if there's idle capacity, paid if Google is near capacity, and expensive/bidding if Google is above capacity. Flat compute units seem simple, but result in a lot of waste.
I guess nothing stops you from buying infra and offering it for "free (or nearly free)".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd think anyone trying to run a business off a $10 or $49 tier is the one sucking up undue compute power.
A business wants to pay (at least) what something costs, because 1. they’re making money themselves from the result, and 2. they don’t want the thing they depend on to stop being offered. You’re not a free rider per se if you want a cost-plus pricing model but it’s just not on offer. (In that case, it’s instead the provider’s fault for not capturing your value surplus.)l similar to how, in scalping, it’s the original…
I like the transparency, but this doesn't feel like the right way to do it. Computation should be free (or nearly free) if there's idle capacity, paid if Google is near capacity, and expensive/bidding if Google is above capacity. Flat compute units seem simple, but result in a lot of waste.
HN used to be a place for interesting discussions. Now it's a grievance forum for entitled freeloaders.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A business wants to pay (at least) what something costs, because 1. they’re making money themselves from the result, and 2. they don’t want the thing they depend on to stop being offered. You’re not a free rider per se if you want a cost-plus pricing model but it’s just not on offer. (In that case, it’s instead the provider’s fault for not capturing your value surplus.)l similar to how, in scalping, it’s the original…
Google's business model is exploiting people's data to sell advertising. If you use a google "product" that's not advertising, you're not paying what it costs, at least in money. In line with what you're saying, I want to compensate a cloud provider for their services in a way that makes me a customer instead of a vector for advertising or data exploitation.
(I should know; we are a GCP customer, and we pay them quite a lot, in fact. They pinch every single penny, as they should. Nothing costs less than it would to do it on bare metal ourselves; we only save in CapEx in that we don’t have to pay ourselves for as many servers as are required to run something like e.g. reliable object storage, or BigQuery’s hot-idled compute.)