In the context of the article, instead of your parent comment, this sounds like a weak excuse. Is driving to the Huascarán mountains (and it's ilk) more dangerous than climbing it?
I'm almost sure this is a pretty common Zoom feature, I have run into this at least once a month the last 6-7 years.
IMO, it's less a Zoom problem, and more a setting on the host's side problem. Same category as "guest cannot move a meeting invite unless explicitly allowed to" on google calendar.
We took a Turkish Airlines flight in September (IST-SFO), and the seats were teeming with bedbugs (as in, multiple passengers were able to visually point them out when we were still boarding).
Some passengers were able to switch to other seats, while multiple others broke out in hives (including my wife). The cabin staff were polite and understanding, but once we landed, escalating to Turkish airlines was pretty useless. We've filed a case with the DOT which got the airline to respond.
Glad the media is covering this, we heard from multiple folks that this has been a problem.
Wow, did you consider requesting to deplane? I would at least seriously consider it, considering the notoriously difficult to get rid of nature of bed bugs.
Also, my search brought up this final response from Turkish, which infuriated me enough that I wanted to share:
"Thank you for your feedback.
At Turkish Airlines, we strive to provide all our passengers with the best flying experience possible and to make them feel valued at every stage of their journey. As giving our passengers who choose us on their travels the service they deserve and delivering this excellently are among our priority targets, we again have experienced how important your feedback is.
Through your feedback, we’re able to improve the services we provide. We’d like to thank you again for your support.
We kindly submit for your information and wish to host you better in your future travels.
If you do any software engineering all, you would know that a 1k LoC reduction to achieve the same functionality at the same/better performance is non-trivial.
Thats what most journalists do these days. I was even told straight to my face that "creative writing" was necessary as the mediaoutlet already knows what their readers like, and therefore facricate paragraphs which they know will be well received. Facts are unwanted, especially if they lead to complicated explanations. JOurnalisms is dead. Its only kept alive by the false claim that it (not in its current state) is necessary to keep democracy alive, which is also a self-surving lie at this point.
I’m open to this cynical perspective but what do you think the journalists feel about their profession? Are they simply doing this to survive and earn a living? Or are they aware of its corruption? Or do they somehow think they’re still performing the job of defending democracy? What about people like professors who teach journalism? It’s hard to imagine that everyone is totally corrupt as to not want facts, although I do agree that news outlets have biases…
It's likely just a selection process similar to politics. Are you willing to lie, mislead, deceive, and sell yourself to the highest bidder? No, well then good luck beating your opponent who is doing all that, going to have more funding, more widespread appeal, and never a single inconvenient position because his positions on everything are whatever polling tells him the voter wants to hear.
Newspapers (and employers in general) can now do similar filtering, if they want to, thanks to social media. If you're not committed to pushing a desired narrative, and willing to spin anything to fit it, then you're not getting hired. And given the state of society today, it's unclear if a newspaper with objective or diverse reporting would be able to compete against the current batch of confirmation bias delivery services.
The first half of your comment provides a sufficient reason why something resembling journalism stays alive: readers want these stories.
What does this have to do with democracy, and what's the causal chain that goes from democracy (or the zombie of democracy, I guess) to keeping journalism in suspended animation?
Journalists claim their work is necessary for the democratic process. Which they use as a reason why their work is supposedly important, even though they are not really reporting anymore, just making up things.
I'm not sure if this answers your question but the last 2 companies I worked at (~7 years) both had very clear traffic spikes 9a-5p US east coast hours on weekdays. My current place actually sees more than 20-30% drop sunday nights compared to monday morning, and it's constantly going up because we have a lot of American enterprise customers.
Maybe I misunderstood your question but is there a case where you can keep your entire capacity running for free? I'd assume you pay AWS/other cloud or your electricity provider.
> is there a case where you can keep your entire capacity running for free? I'd assume you pay AWS/other cloud or your electricity provider.
Colo providers charge by the [rack with given network port size and power delivery], so unless you literally host on premises which almost nobody does even when they talk about on prem, once you get outside of a cloud environment it is rare for it to pay to shut down servers unless they'll be down for a long time. Maybe there'd be a business there for colo providers to offer pricing that incentivises powering down machines (almost all modern servers have IPMI, and so as long as you provide the trickle - relatively speaking - of power for the IPMI board you an power the servers down/up over the network on demand), but it's not the norm.
The problem with these traffic spikes you mention is that "everybody" has them, and the overlap is significant, and so they're priced in because the cloud providers needs capacity to handle the worst overlap in spikes, plus margin. 20%-30% drop is way too low to cover the cost gap between even managed servers with a huge capacity margin and most cloud providers. I've worked for a lot of different companies where we've forecast our capacity requirements, and the graphs look almost identical. Sometimes shifted n hours to account for different in timezones, but for a lot of companies the graph is near identical globally because of similar distributions of userbase.
(If you do think you can do scaling up/down for daily spikes cost effectively, you can typically do it even more cost effectively by putting your base load in a colo'ed environment, and scale into a cloud environment if you hit large enough spikes; the irony is that in environments where I've done that, we've ended up cutting the cost of the colo'ed environment by cutting closer to the margin and end up almost never end up scaling into the cloud, but it gives peace of mind, and so being prepared to use cloud has made actually using cloud services even less cost attractive).
In practice, most places - there are exceptions that makes good use of it - just set up autoscaling so they don't need to pay attention to creeping resource use. Which is rarely a good use of it.
There are good uses for autoscaling, but it's very rare for day/night or weekend/weekday cycles to be significant enough that it isn't still cheaper to buy enough capacity to take all or most of the spikes (but having the ability to scale into a cloud service might mean you only buy just enough for the "usual" weekday cycles, or even shave a little bit of the top, instead of buying enough for unexpected surges on top).
If it's any solace, I've had something very similar happen. An idiot was jogging near 4th and King, and a car jumped the light after the left turn was red and the walk lights came on. I had trained myself to wait and look, but he went on till I blocked him. He was annoyed at first (reasonable), saw the car go by, but never said sorry or thank you.
I never put on headphones till I was inside the train, as a rule of thumb.
