The point is not if the Cloud can defend against a very sophisticated attack, the point is whether they can at least do a better job than what those big companies are doing.
And the answer is really easy: Fortune 500 are at the Stone Age of security (among a lot of other computer science topics) so of course the Cloud is doing better. It’s not even the same world or the same order of magnitude.
And the abyss will become bigger and bigger because it’s becoming more complex. There is no way a Fortune 500 company can keep up with the complexity of what AWS, Google or Azure is dealing with, and the new tech world we live in. And it’s also quite stupid, that’s not your job nor where you will be making money. Just concentrate on the app/code that is indeed your core job, on top of solid and proven Cloud services.
Also, you talk about centralisation and the issue of a single provider, well, here’s the actual joke: the level of centralization and concentration is way, way bigger internally than if it was on the Cloud. Most of those Fortune 500 companies have only a few datacenters. Although they are international, some even have datacenters only in their local region of origin, with zero region/local hub of some sort, as crazy as it may sound.
And most of those Fortune 500 companies have only one provider for each of their key component.
If they were on the Cloud (and they will be, eventually), reversibility and transferability is « built-in » almost, because it is an actual feature, or because everything is way more standardized, or just because moving into the Cloud, you will think from the start about how to move back or to a different provider. And in any case is much much better than the state there’s in.
Let’s say you are a big airline company, there is absolutely not a single reason you should manage your email system. Your job is to fly airplanes not to manage some goddam emails.
The really fun part in that is that most of the big airlines actually outsourced some key part of their core job (IT wise I mean), like how they manage seats and load, this kind of stuff, while keeping some absolute non-core IT services internal, like an internal Exchange system with dozens and dozens of people to manage it.
The state where big companies are make the second option impossible. That may be unfortunate, I don’t know, but that’s really where we’re at.
There is absolutely no way to cure big companies from all the shit they have accumulated. For them, the actual restart is to go to Cloud. Hopefully they will not go simply bare metal, because then they can recreate the exact same shit but in the Cloud.
I am not disagreeing with you. I don’t know all the numbers for your case and I don’t want to compute everything for your specific scenario.
But I’m just saying that there is a general assumption in most discussions around buying versus renting that buying is always better. It’s not.
It’s the general argument « when you buy you don’t throw your money out the window ».
In reality you do throw money out the window when you buy, only differently, and I’m highlighting the numbers people usually do not take into account when they make their comparison.
Comparing mortgage payments and rents is usually not the good way to do that, because the costs when you buy are only partially monthly based.
One other number I didn’t mention above: real estate agency fees.
You certainly paid a tax when you bought your home. I don’t know how it’s called or how much is it in your area, but you have to add that to the cost of what you bought, or deduce it from what you will sell (assuming the home value stays the same).
Then you also have to deduce all the real estate yearly taxes. And then all the costs associated with the real estate property itself (the ones you wouldn’t have to pay as a renter). Then you’ll have to deduce the real estate agency fees.
Then and only then you can start making some comparisons between buying and renting.
« in the end the landlord will have to come out ahead when you are paying rent » is way too simplistic I’m afraid. He doesn’t have to « come ahead », or at least not in the way you think he has to.
You don’t know how your landlord got the property you’re renting. He may purely and simply never bought it. Or he bought it when it was costing nothing for him, or on the reverse a lot which prevents him to sell. Or selling it would generate massive tax for him. Or it is a diversification strategy. Etc.
And to say « renting is roughly as expensive as my mortgage payment » to justify to buy is a very common and very bad argument that is built on a misconception of what is at stake.
When you buy a property, being a flat or a house, you have costs associated with it. A lot of them. Costs associated with the purchase and costs associated with the property.
First of all, you’ll have to pay some sort of one-off real estate tax when you buy. Then you will pay all the interests of your bank credit (which are higher the longer is your credit). Then you will pay all on the on-going real estate taxes. Then you will pay all the costs of the property itself (all the on-going things a renter do not have to pay, all the big 5-10 years maintenance tasks like frontage restauration).
So renting is bad only if it is costing more than all those costs during the period, minus the real estate price increase during the period.
I don’t know where you live but in a lot of big cities, it is actually way way cheaper to rent than to buy.
The truth is most people do not really look at the proper numbers when they want to justify to buy a property because there is a lot more involved in being the owner of the place than what people want to admit.
I’m not really a pro Google analytics, mainly because it is a performance mess, you can’t load it async, even their own PageSpeed insight doesn’t like it, etc. (except if they corrected this), but to say that absolutely everything they do is in order to make more ad revenue feels like a very narrow view.
Google is not an ad company only, right? I don’t want to go on each item this company is doing, I’m sure there are a ton lot but they made $13 billions on the Cloud division alone last year. This is a super young service and it will explode in the next decades. They are also selling a ton lot of smartphones and I’m pretty sure they don’t do that at loss only to get some more ad revenues?
Even YouTube, which is definitely a platform to run ad at first, will surely generate a ton of pure non-ad profit when millions of people will get YouTube premium.
More generally, is it just me or this kind of anti big Corp speech is becoming more and more boring? Or maybe it’s because I’m too old and I want to defend the little search engine that has transformed into a monster?
> This isn't an argument against vegetarian weaning, it's an argument for educating pediatricians so they're not shrugging their shoulders when people ask them how to keep their kids healthy.
No, it’s an argument that people should probably listen more to their pediatrician.
If you’re into vegetables, as-in you’re against meat, you just eat vegetables and you don’t eat meat anymore. You don’t need that to be called « plant-based meat ».
Only the people who are actually so nostalgic of the good meat they had want something called « plant-based meat ».
I’m sorry for being condescending but I wasn’t referring to you in particular. It is indeed currently very trendy to be vegan.
I chose the other direction which is to eat very very good meat, but way way less, because that’s goddamn expensive and because we can’t produce it that much. Just like good wine.
The very big issue with meat is that you have a shit ton of farm raising some thousands animals in very precarious conditions for people eating garbage. That’s harsh, but that’s the sad truth.
The conclusion to this should not be to stop meat but to stop garbage. Just like everything in food by the way, you can eat 100% vegan 100% garbage 100% detrimental for the environment.
The issue with studies is that it’s basically impossible to just prove that we « could support at least a few more billion humans ». It’s just too big of a study. I’m actually pretty sure that with the way we live (independently of the question of meat) we should already be way less than we are. It’s quite obvious but I don’t have any « studies » at end, because it’s way easier for everywhere to just « prove » we can continue as we do (if we all become vegan of course, because that’s really the heart of our issue).
I’m not saying it’s a population problem and not a consumption problem. I think it’s both. And I think the vegan trend is absolutely part of the consumption problem because it’s hiding the source of the issue. You just have to look at how it’s so easier for people to tackle The source of the issue is that we should seek good instead of quantity or easiness.
We have replaced the supposedly old problem of meat by the new supposedly non-problem of food in a plastic bag with a vegan sticker on it.
Do I really have to find another source that somehow « counter » your post and give a « definition » of what meat is or how it is generally employed for?
I mean, we really are there?
If you make a barbecue party, do you discuss the new meaning of « meat » by the « I don’t know what the fuck I’m talking about website »?
By the amount of words I’m sure I’ve lost indeed. In « many many » languages and countries, everywhere around the world, and particularly in our very small new extremism world.
I have one question: why do people trying to eat only vegetables (is « vegetables » still ok?) insist so much to call that « plant-based » food « meat »?