You know, it makes sense to me that increasing supply should drive down demand and hence prices. But I frankly don't care.
The entire piece reads like an excuse to not do things for the poor. How about we actually do things FOR THE POOR instead of tossing them scraps from the tables of the rich?
You're absolutely correct. The cost of my AWS deployment in service of my personal email, and less than 5 other people comes in at ~$5.06/mo. The time, however, is the real cost. If/when I gain significant users, Fastmail would be at the top of my list of companies to consider.
I think it's important to note that, for the most part, both patriotism and religion need to be deeply ingrained in a person at a very young age for them to defend either so blindly.
US families take care of the religious aspect; US public school take care of the patriotism. If you weren't of the age where you simply don't question what you're told yet, I believe (perhaps hope?) both of these would die out in a few generations.
As with so many things in AWS, it's left up to the customer to inform AWS that a) you're running a mail server, b) what the purpose/use case is and c) request they configure the reverse lookup associated with the elastic IP you've allocated.
Source: I've been running public facing SMTP servers in EC2 for years with no issues.
> There's a reason that these alternatives are winning.
Yes, and that reason is that the current crop of up-and-coming developers have the same problem as past generations: They'd prefer to implement their own solutions vs. looking to the past.
Slack just happens to be the current darling in group communication. At some point, someone will make something that will change the fad-diet to The Next Big Thing.
Adults curse; sometimes too much. It makes them look stupid, too. But there's no need to be both annoyed and offended. Be annoyed, sure, but then perhaps consider that you're simply a better person. Consider, too, that going to HR over something like this _will_ make you enemies.
Finally, consider just how much care and feeding that moral high-horse costs you, in emotional and mental energy.
> it never had any deep emotional or cultural impact to those who saw it in the first place.
How could you possibly know what had a deep emotional impact on anyone other than yourself or possibly the people you interact with most closely in life?
Here's an alternate proposal for you: You've grown as a person, and all the deep emotional impacts that music might be able to make on you have been made. To those still growing, you aren't able to assess the impact, because you now view the world through the eyes of an adult.
Give it 30 years, and watch as all these things come back again into pop-culture because those kids from today will be in your shoes, as decision makers at TV/Internet/Whatever companies that push pop-culture -- being guided by their own sense of nostalgia about the things that impacted them as kids.
What do they fear? A public relations nightmare? Because they sure as hell aren't going to go to jail for any of this. Neither the Justice Dept. officials, nor the Judge authorizing this, nor the police carrying it out will have to deal with any negative consequences as a result. The USA is a nearly-complete police state, after all.
> I don't understand why the US allows it, and it screams of corruption/bribery/etc.
Seems to me like you understand it completely. The US is, like most countries, mired in a bit of corruption/bribery/etc. I am of the opinion this is simply part of the human condition, and is virtually impossible to eliminate.
I'd also like an answer to this question, as well as an answer to the question of what, in exacting detail please, was so wrong with the previous system it needed to be torn out and replaced?
I definitely tend toward the curmudgeonly, but to this grumpy old man, it seems like we're replacing things simply for the sake of change.
This is partly a side effect of the, at this point, long-running trend of employers not training people on anything, let alone proper management.
I've had some awful managers in my career. One was formerly an elementary school teacher. She, very predictably, treated everyone like they were in elementary school, going so far as to give people gold stars for things. When called out on it, she confessed she really had no idea how to manage adults.
I've only had two excellent managers in my career, people who had studied management, were also technical, and cared about being effective at their jobs so the people they managed could be effective as well. These folks had formal training, undertaken of their own initiative, and it absolutely showed in all facets of what they did. Top notch folks!
I suspect this lack of training is an American phenomenon, but have no data to back up the claim.
I believe you're misreading this. He isn't trying to imply Siracusa has autism, but rather is implying that the level of detail in his reviews is similar to what one might expect of someone who does have autism. This is a significant difference.
The entire piece reads like an excuse to not do things for the poor. How about we actually do things FOR THE POOR instead of tossing them scraps from the tables of the rich?