> What cash back do you get on your credit card? 2.625%? High yield savings account? Money market fund? 4.6%?
None of these actions by me directly result in the loss of livelihood or uprooting of lives of other people.
If you told me that by moving my money to a high yield savings account, it would result in my friends or family members losing their jobs, you bet your ass I wouldn't do it, "personal profit" be damned, and that isn't a hard decision to make in the slightest.
Twitch's leader are making a conscious decision: profits over people.
Wow. After reading about the FB tracking I was wary about Backblaze but teetering on the edge of willing to give it a pass if they fixed it. But after reading brianwski's comments in that thread, the arrogance and unprofessionalism (especially in his last comment) just completely turned me off. That attitude goes beyond a technical fuckup or bad marketing move. I'm moving my backups out of Backblaze today and won't be looking back.
Being a public utility or not has nothing to do with commoditization. You keep saying you're against commoditization but then make arguments in favor of it.
In fact, commoditization of healthcare is probably one of the best steps towards making it a public utility. So if that's what you want, then you probably do want healthcare to be commoditized.
There are definitely parts of healthcare that are unreasonable to expect to be commoditized. A heart transplant or brain surgery are probably things where centers specialized in those areas will be higher quality.
But for more common things like an annual wellness exam, or blood tests, mending a broken arm, treating the flu, or even doing surgery on a burst appendix, those are things that I think can reasonable be commoditized across any healthcare providers.
Exactly, which is why you want it to be a commodity, so that there isn't even the need to do something like shop around. If healthcare was a commodity, you just go to the nearest hospital and can rest assured that you're getting the same care you would get anywhere else.
I think you're misunderstanding the word "commodity". If healthcare were commoditized, then "what's the closest ER" would be the only thing that matters. You are actually advocating for commoditization.
Water, for example, is a commodity. It doesn't matter where you get it, because water from one tap is mostly indistinguishable to water from a different tap. When you need water, you simply just go to the closest tap and you can be happy that you're getting the same quality water as anywhere else. That's exactly what you want with healthcare, too.
>I’m sure they know though and this is a deliberate obfuscation technique, a dark pattern by marketing people.
I don't think so. AWS is still very much in "we want to get as many people onto our platform as possible" mode, not "milk every cent possible out of existing customers" mode (yet). AWS account managers and solutions architects will go to great lengths to help you reduce your costs (and are actually incentivized to do so), because making you happy with AWS and recommend it to others is their top priority above all else. The docs may be confusing, but if you ever have any interaction with their enterprise account teams, you'll find that obfuscation could not be farther from their intentions.
The fact that S3 pricing isn't simple is just an unfortunate side effect of market segmentation taken to an extreme. And in some ways, it's a good thing. The current pricing structure allows people that have different use cases to only pay for what they need: someone using S3 for storage but not making a lot of requests will only pay for storage, while someone using S3 to store relatively little but accessing it often will only pay for accessing it, etc. If pricing were to be simplified, you would lose that ability to segment, which would be a huge loss.
I do think there is room for something like a Lightsail version of S3, where you just pay a flat fee per month for a certain GB and bandwidth allocation. But I think that should be a separate product or S3 storage class, not replace the current pricing.
If at any point I see any evidence or warning that the products I purchase from Amazon cause any material amount of risk to my person or property, I'll reevaluate. In fact, there definitely are some things that I prefer to buy outside of Amazon for such reasons, like climbing gear or medicine.
But as for stuff like chargers, I've had more experience that the easily-frayed genuine Apple Lightning cables, or the classic exploding Samsung phones, are more of an electrical fire risk than anything I've bought from Amazon, counterfeit or not.
This is probably true, but such a laughably small number of people use Workmail that I doubt it has any material difference to AWS's reported numbers, so while they might not reflect the true AWS marketshare sans-Workmail, it's probably still in the same ballpark. The reason people bring it up in regards to Azure is because it does likely artificially inflate Azure's reported numbers a material amount and makes them harder to trust.
Like I said, if any of the chargers or cords I have received from Amazon are counterfeit, they're good enough counterfeits that I don't care. My iPhone, iPad, and MBP all charge just fine, still have perfectly fine working batteries, have never had any issues with the electronics, and nothing has caught on fire after years of use. The headphones I've bought from Amazon sound great and have given me no issues. The lightbulbs I bought from Amazon light up my room just fine and last a long time. The SSD I bought is blazing fast and has plenty of space (confirmed by multiple diagnostic checks). The clothes I have bought are comfortable and fit well... And if any of these things weren't true, I am confident it would take me extremely minimal effort to return the item to Amazon and buy a replacement.
Obviously counterfeiting is a problem and in an ideal world there would be no counterfeiting at all, but I remain unconvinced that it's something I have to worry about materially affecting my experience as a customer buying stuff from Amazon.
I see the commingling thing brought up in every thread like this, but I've never personally, nor has anyone I know IRL, received anything from Amazon that are even suspect of being counterfeit. If they are counterfeit, then they are such high quality counterfeits that I'm not sure I even care.
It's obviously a problem to some extent, but I can't help but think news articles like that blow it way out of proportion.
As for returns, I've notice the opposite: it takes me considerably less time and effort to return an Amazon purchase than, for example, a Target purchase. I actually did both this weekend: for Amazon, I walked into a UPS store, handed them the unpackaged product, they scanned a barcode from my Amazon app, and I walked out. The whole thing took no more than 30 seconds. At Target, I had to wait in a line for 20 minutes at the Returns counter, had to show them the receipt, also had to show them the card I used to purchase, and then the system wasn't refunding the correct amount so a manager had to be called over and re-do the entire process with some sort of override. The entire process took, at minimum, 30 minutes.
I hate Amazon's bullshit union tactics like in the OP, but they are still the undisputed king when it comes to overall shopping experience, IMO. And it's not necessarily because Amazon is actually great, it's more because the other companies are still really far behind.
There are legitimate use cases for technology like facial recognition, and I see nothing wrong with using it in that way. Of course society should be cautious about unwarranted uses of such technology. But decrying all uses of it, even legitimate ones, because of a hypothetical "what if someone in the future uses facial recognition to start another holocaust?" is just a slippery slope fallacy.
I don't really see how selling facial recognition tech is "rather creepy". Facial recognition has legitimate uses, and the CIA/FBI using it to track criminals seems to be a legitimate use case to me. The article you linked seems to be making a hypothetical leap to "well what if they choose to use it nefariously in the future??" And to their credit, Amazon at least seems to be interested in trying to limit its use to good causes: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/10/amazon-bans-police-use-of-fa...
And of course, Microsoft, Google, and others have their own facial recognition software and they all have large contracts with government entities, too. This article mentions the CIA using AWS, but the CIA also has multi-billion dollar contracts with GCP, Azure, and even IBM and Oracle: https://www.datacenterdynamics.com/en/news/cia-awards-multib...
I have no idea who you're addressing. If it's me, that's quite a nice strawman you've built. Next time perhaps try to actually address the words written in my comment rather than inventing some boogeyman that nobody brought up except you.
Here, I'll demonstrate:
>high-speed Internet access for the entire planet
Musk himself has said that only a tiny, tiny fraction of the world will ever be able to use Starlink. It is not anywhere close to "internet access for the entire planet", and certainly isn't providing any more internet access than is already provided by existing satellite internet providers.
>or professional astronomers not being able to see into space as easily as they did 20 years ago?
In case you weren't aware, astronomy is responsible for some of the most significant scientific advancements since for literally millennia. If you really want an answer to your questions, it's this: professional astronomers being prevented from doing research is significantly more of a negative impact to humanity's advancement than the positive impact from 0.001% of the world having access to lower ping internet. It's not even close.
>or... Or... OR... Launching massive powerful telescopes into space using SpaceX rockets for professional astronomers to use?
Even with something the size of Starship, it's physically impossible to launch anything even remotely close to the size of telescopes needed by professional astronomers.
It would only take blowing up one satellite to let the world know they're serious about it, at which point SpaceX would almost certainly be forced to comply with China's demands, if only because SpaceX would have to acknowledge that the debris from even a handful of destroyed satellites would cause serious danger to the operations of the rest of the constellation.
1) 1200 is a small percentage of the tens of thousands of satellites that the full system, plus the other similar systems will eventually consist of.
2) Being able to go outside and point out a satellite has absolutely no relevance on the satellite's impact on professional astronomy.
3) It did not "seem to have worked". SpaceX experimented with reducing the reflectivity of their satellites, but only some satellites have that reduced reflectivity, and astronomers found them to be only marginally better.
That's not what "directly" means.