I don't just pay DO for servers, I'm paying them for a cohesive integrated UX, decent support (for the price), and nice hosted database and load balancer options. That's always been what separates DO from the rest of the market. Servers are cheaper elsewhere, that extra stuff is all pretty competitively priced.
All of those things are subject to the prices of people, which are nuts right now.
I also have deployments at hetzner and OVH and the management angle is day and night (although Hetzner is almost there now). Multiple different logins and dashboards by product, country, etc.
I'm sure some of it is just driven by being public as well. I'll keep paying them if they can keep those other factors great, but little things like wasting my time on the pricing table above are damaging the one thing that I really like about DO.
I’m not saying you don’t - but my experience has been different. In my experience Linode has customer service that is in a different league than DigitalOcean has ever provided. I’ve never gotten what I would call great, or perhaps memorably good, customer service from DigitalOcean. I haven’t gotten awful customer service either. It’s the kind I would expect from any turn key solution that doesn’t employ support agents who are already well versed in what they’re working on.
Because Digital Ocean is a company with employees and investors, not just an automated conglomeration of servers. A 20% increase in prices after 12 years of basically stable prices seems fair.
I just checked one of the node types and EC2 is about 20% more expensive, even after the price hikes. AWS may have more baked-in margin than DO.
Also, I didn’t include Transfer costs in the cross-check, so AWS may be much more expensive.
Depending on your needs, AWS is hands down one of the most expensive ways to put workloads into the cloud.
At the same time it’s a bit difficult to compare them apples-to-apples. In my experience EC2 instances aren’t designed for reliability as much as they are designed to meet exactly what AWS can put on the invoice as being the value exchanged for money. I’m not bashing their design goals, they’re just different from “traditionally VPS-first” firms.
If you’re running not-huge On Demand instances you can definitely get much better performance for your dollar on something like Linode or DigitalOcean, OVH, Hetzner, etc. And then you can still some of the AWS services where they have much less comprehensive competition. IMHO, you can beat EC2 all day but feature-wise it’s extremely difficult to beat S3.
Seems like AWS has really only gone down in price on the pre-provisioned EC2 instances, not the on-demand. On-demand is more inline with what Digital Ocean provides.
I disagree, CPU performance per $ is getting cheaper. Increasing pricing on the $5 droplets by 20% is significant and their deceptive email is also an issue. I'm going to cancel my droplets.
One of the upsides of only being 50% cloud is that I get some perspective.
The cheaper, better, faster assumption is being challenged in most segments. Shipping costs have been crazy and eating margins for just-in-time delivery for some time. Containers are 5x-10x from China vs 2018, a tractor trailer costs $1400 to fill with diesel today in my region.
Also, commodities like storage aren’t getting cheaper.
It is not like hardware costs are the only costs. My electricity costs are going to be nearly doubling shortly. They could be seeing the same thing. I wouldn't be surprised if employee retention/turnover is another issue they are facing.
Yes, the price of computation is going down, but the prices for real estate and electricity are going up, often way up. Computers use lots of electricity and sometimes the price of electricity over the lifetime is more than the cost of the machine. Gasoline prices don't track electricity prices in the short term, but eventually the prices of energy catch up with each other. They can't escape inflation.
Computation needs electricity, computers need maintenance, and the maintenance is done by people with salaries. People have to drive to work which uses gas. Parts of computers have to be shipped, which also needs gas.
Gas and electricity are going up.
You have no clue what you're talking about. Computation prices are not going down.
Considering the entire premise of the show, even in 1967, was rooted in diversity, I'm happy to see that.
Many of the black actors that starred in it grew up drinking from separate water fountains through segregation, etc, which was only legally banned a mere 3 years before the show started. I don't find it unlikely that there would have been many people at the time making comments like yours about the mere fact that Uhura was on the bridge - or even being outright angry about it.
Unless he put the promise in the sell contract, in which case he can sue Facebook and stop them from doing this nasty move, he should be getting all the blowback he's getting and more.
Even if it is in the contract the court would not necessarily side with you unless you can show that you were somehow wronged because of this. "They made me look bad" may not be sufficient.
IANAL but I don't think that's the test. If a person commits to not doing something as part of a valid contract that's all that matters.
The point you make may be relevant for deciding damages, but even here there is a concept of Liquidated Damages [0] which is essentially the damages amount set at day 1 so the question of ascertaining the extent of wrong does not arise.
As this very thread has made clear, Palmer Luckey's reputation has been damaged by Facebook's choice to renege on their statements regarding requiring a Facebook login. That's an injury. If it had been part of the contract he would absolutely be in a position to enforce it in court. It was NOT in the contract.
The great-great-grandparent post from this one (by
jacquesm) already raised your point and doubted that it is enough. I'm not claiming an opinion on whether this claimed reputational damage qualifies as an injury.
I'm just saying that an injury is required in principle (with an appropriate citation), because the great-grandparent (by vijayr02) didn't think that was the case.
If he got it just verbally then I can't see him having a case, they can claim they didn't say it and that will be hard to prove, it might still work but that's very thin ice.
If he got it written into the contract then it is clear that he does not intend to pursue it.
If it was written into the contract and he pursues it then he will need to show that he has suffered because the contract was not executed and I fail to see how he could make that case and do so with enough teeth that it would matter to FB enough to reverse course.
As someone who used to practice law, any discussion about contractual obligations is nothing more than speculation until you have read the specific contract in question.
IANAL so would definitely appreciate someone with more background correcting me - my understanding from lawyers is that the test is of disproportionality and penalty.
The example of UK bank overdraft charges in the Wikipedia article for instance can be seen as small powerless individuals vs large corporate.
In the Oculus case, a good lawyer should have been able to set out in the contract why this specific point is important to the seller (Palmer) and why significant damages are in order (damages credibility on future projects, which clearly could be multi-billion in scope).
You are right. Some of the sibling replies argue the contrary by using a sleight of hand; stating the desire to associate from only one of the two parties.
Take for example the relationship between a man and woman.
If both want to live with each other, everything is fine.
What if the man wants to associate with the woman, but she doesn't? Do we force her to accept the man? Does he have a right to access her?
Obviously that's silly. We all know that the relationship is only valid if BOTH parties consent.
And yet in regards to neighborhoods the sibling replies act as if only the man's opinion mattered. "That Jew wanted to come in but was refused! People were not free to associate!" They ignore that refusing someone is also part of the freedom of association.
The desire to prevent a Jewish person from being your neighbor is unethical and Bad. Such a "freedom" should not be encoded into law (as what happened in San Francisco with Chinese populations), or allowed to encode implicitly into societal norms.
People shouldn't be imprisoned or killed for being racist - but they should be scorned, shamed, and cause disgust when their viewpoints are aired.
> They ignore that refusing someone is also part of the freedom of association.
And this is undesirable with no restrictions which is why societies constrain the freedom of association, in particular, in the US, via various "Civil Rights" acts.
Yeah, that's a good point about artistic license. We can't take one artist's representation as gospel. Imagine a future where only cubist paintings survive. Will future humans think we looked like that going only by the paintings? I hope not...
I hope they would consider multiple credible sources corroborating the same thing. Is there a newspaper article from the time that describes watermelons as they are painted by Stanchi? Ads showing them as such? Is there a diary from a farmer that talks about how watermelons look and how they ripen, etc.?
Maybe there is, but the article sure isn't letting us know about it...
The update also notes that -- contrary to the major theme of the piece -- watermelons as depicted in the painting have not been lost. We don't grow them because we don't want them, not because we can't grow them anymore.
> "Museum paintings are an interesting method for studying old cultivars [varieties], and the one you indicated certainly shows the sort of watermelons that Europeans had to eat in the Middle Ages during their summer harvest season," Wehner says. "We have cultivars like that one in the painting available to us now from our germplasm collections [a sort of genetic sample library that includes many different varieties]."
> He notes that those samples, when grown today, have "large white areas, low sugar content, [and] frequent hollow heart." Hollow heart can cause a starring appearance somewhat similar to an unripe or underwatered melon.
So no, we don't need further corroboration from the 17th century, because we still have watermelons that look like that today.
I think you missed the point the parent comment was making.
Obviously "finance guy" would not only breed other "finance guys". However if the society consumes a majority of its productive members without insuring their reproduction, then they'll be selected against.
> Ah, this is pretty close to the same claim that "JayMan" made once when explaining to me how "gay people shouldn't exist, evolutionarily speaking" (because, of course, the gays would be outcompeted genetically by non-gays, and the identity wouldn't persist, right?)
That's such a weird position and obviously made by someone who doesn't understand evolution, so I'm not sure why you're bringing it here. It's the equivalent of saying that diseases/cancer/handicaps couldn't exist because "evolution". That is not what parent is talking about when underlying the risks of hindering reproduction for a whole class of citizens.
> if the society consumes a majority of its productive members without insuring their reproduction, then they'll be selected against.
This assumes both that productivity is heritable and that the nature of productivity is fixed. The former seems contingently true (assuming the latter), but the latter seems false, as the forms of work considered "productive" tend to shift over time.
The other Problem is the implicit assumption that "[economic] productivity is good", which is an entirely different class of argument than above.
