Hi, I work on this team at Cloudflare. We've been sending email for years via our free email routing product and email sending is built on top of the same infrastructure, code and knowledge.
I do think that the degree of coordination needed is reduced with increased frequency of deployment.
Mentally, I imagine an airport and there's a number of planes that need to be landed in a week. What requires more coordination: an airport that is open 24/7 and planes land when they arrive (continuous deployment) or an airport that is only open 1 hour a week?
Congestion drives the need for coordination. Or, put another way, when there is low or no congestion, sequencing through time is a sufficient form of coordination.
I think the author is making the point that the simple act of buying the bonds is accomplishing their goal.
They don't care what the return is, they just want to offload dollars. If you don't care about the return, then something is not an investment - the quality of the borrower (based on their ability/history of repayment) is moot.
Even as an American, border patrol officers scare the crap out of me. I'm totally worried about stumbling on some dumb question and getting detained.
I'll never forget my return from Mexico on the day before 9/11 where I was greeted by a border patrol agent with piercing blue eyes, leather gloves with cut-off tips and a big nasty snot bubble protruding from his right nostril.
I don't understand why the methodology is flawed: the objective isn't to price N servers. The objective is to serve all the load at the best price. If you need 131 during peak and 20 during off-peak and can not pay for the delta- yay!
My company works in the media space and I love EC2- during the week our loads are low but when it's Superbowl Sunday or the GRAMMYs, the ability to spin up capacity is huge. But the fact that I'm _not_ paying for that capacity 24/7 is even bigger.
It's very interesting to think about cases where digital darlings have "killed jobs."
Before: Thousands of jobs all over the country working for the classified section of a newspaper. Marginally profitable business.
After: Craigslist destroys that whole market. Tons of jobs lost and the revenues shift to one company. Hugely profitable business, but probably a smaller total market than used to exist with just newspapers.
Should we feel bad about it? Hell no. Are we marginally worse off? Maybe?
Yeah, I like the premise of the article and feel that technological innovation does kill jobs (and it's not a bad thing).
That being said, I feel like I got a big build up to a solution and it's like "share and make things and distribute online" uhhhh ok? Etsy is the solution?
