451–460 of 684 posts
And because we have fallen for the convenience we have lost a lot of alternatives. The old rack/cage way was less convenient, but it came with a respect for our anatomy to run our stuff that I really miss.
Autonomy?
[autocorrect strikes again! :-)]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We used DynamoDB pretty much exclusively at Tinder, cause it was the founders choice early on. Horrible horrible choice and after 4 years working on it I dont see why you would. 1. you have a limited number of global supported indexes, 5 iirc, which means your queries are very limited. If your use case ever expands beyond that you're pretty screwed. 2. You will have race conditions. Strong consistency is 2x the cost,…
IMO if you've got a use case that requires querying in so many ways that you need several indexes, then DynamoDB is probably the wrong choice. It excels at stuff like user specific histories that are well partitioned, read back in one way, and ideally can be written asynchronously by a separate writer process.
If you need high scale globally distributed persistent data, uniform distribution of hash reads/writes, dont care for schema, and know your query will remain simple yeah its a fine choice.
I just wouldn't consider it outside of enterprise level
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here’s a cool fact: in America only 35% of DV survivors retain full custody of their children and only 45% retain primary custody. If you flee domestic violence you are more likely than not to lose custody of your children to your abuser.
> Here’s a cool fact: in America only 35% of DV survivors retain full custody of their children and only 45% retain primary custody. That's because joint custody is the default and you need to have really good evidence when you want to restrict a kids access to their father. > If you flee domestic violence you are more likely than not to lose custody of your children to your abuser. "Being forced to allow kids to see…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you let it go that far then you were going to blow it one way or another - it’s not an excuse to totally ignore the cloud spend but it’s a n excuse to defer it to a later date. If your successful, fix it, if your not then AWS aren’t getting paid anyway!
Yeah, they had an impossible to use number of credits (YC) until they expired, so every problem became a AWS solution. As an example, they needed a lot of proxy servers. Instead of just using a proxy service, there was a fleet of ec2 instances.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Even setting up an ec2 instance, a really basic use case that has a fixed cost based on size, you have to go Google it and find their ec2 pricing table This is the "Comparison Table" from the EC2 launch wizard: https://imgur.com/a/YjFhkzb The pricing is right there, along with filtering and sorting.
For the record, my original complaint that ec2 did not have pricing in the dropdown seems to be untrue right now, which is great! For the sake of UX discussion, I want to talk about your picture as if that were the only way to get this info. So let me explain why that's bad. The main reason is this is only true for ec2 and every other resource has its own slightly different way of getting the cost, making it really e…
So they just added a default table widget, and they didn't even bother with customizing it. You can enable the context menu for the table's rows, which works and is empty.
I worked at AWS around 6 years ago, and we had a great win with just getting access to a service that provided the full list of available instance types and base prices.
This kind of disjointness is both good and bad. It's good in the sense that individual services stay within reasonable complexity, and usually all the functionality is available through the public APIs because the UI console is just another consumer of these APIs. AWS is also very careful with permissions, internal services try to avoid escalating privileges and try to perform everything using the user-visible access policies.
But it's bad because integration just sucks, and the UI layer is the ultimate example of this. AWS console _is_ really messy.
Years ago, I joined a company, took over a dev team and was asked to launch the product in 3 months. They were using AWS, so I logged in the account to add a few more machines. Right there, in front of my eyes, were the signs of an adversarial, abusive relationship. The UI to fire up a new machine did not show me the price. I had to look up the price in another table that did not have the specs. I had to have the two…
if you see the signs of an abusive relationship, you have the option to walk out, and you don't, all that follows is your own fault. This is needlessly victim blaming and reductive. You're ignoring the dynamics of a relationship and how victims of abuse are often financially dependent on their abuser.
Anyone considering leaving AWS and thinking they'll transfer all their data for free [1], I've got news for you: It's a lie. AWS takes as long as possible (for me it was a month) to respond to the initial DTO request, then require you to submit a multi-page form answering a barrage of questions about why you're leaving, where you're going to, what services you used, and estimated data egress. A week or so later, if t…
Do you have proof of this? That is not disclosed in their policy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No but they have the power to remove themselves from the situation and should have a prudence to do so. We have places for women and children to go to escape abuse, so find your hideout and escape the abusive relationship.
[flagged]