What about, "treat AWS workers better"? Pay your people for their on call hours! Let them work on side projects and games in their spare time! Give them more than seven paid holidays. Give them more than two weeks vacation!
Only six weeks of paid parental leave?
I would absolutely be willing to pay more for AWS if I knew that amount was going to treating the poor folks who built it all better.
The actual reason is that long running invocations run synchronous workflows, typically requiring holding threads and sockets open for the entire duration of execution.
Lambda is a complex system, and holding those sockets for long times across many services could cause resource starvation issues. You've got load balancers, data plane, control plane, tenant vms, and a whole bunch of caches, and support services that all need to be ready to roll over the lifetime of the invocation.
And you have to consider the use case for draining and patching lambda pools. If someone is running a two hour function and you need to take down any server that's currently holding a thread or socket for it, you need to wait for the function to complete. You can't start a new load, so you are really inefficiently using resources until the function completes.
Yeah, I tend to agree, though I come down on "everything is political; but not everything needs to be strife".
Like, sports, long considered the go to water cooler talk, have LOADS of politics. From how the players are treated, to who can afford to see a game, to how we treat uninterested or rival fans.
Posting video of the Christchurch massacre is illegal.
And if you don't think the London police department didn't put out a fact based narrative about three swatting, you are straight up unwilling to engage in any sort of reasoned discussion, and are appealing purely to your emotional attachments to your ideals.
It's not new speak. It's a more accurate set of words to describe what we used to call "lone wolves". Stochastic means random, statistically measurable but not predictable.
The term "stochastic terrorism" means terror attacks like school shootings, swattings, and driving trucks into protestors that happen with a certain statistical likelihood, but whose individual events cannot be predicted.
So there, three different citations that, themselves link out to other news and reputable primary sources showing the site, including the owner of the site, are involved in stochastic terrorism and, quote, "the exploitation of the mentally handicapped for amusement".
You realize the fallacy here, right? Terminating commercial agreements with three origins of stochastic terrorism is not some ratchet towards new speak. It's just three cases where Cloudflare decided that sheltering terrorism wasn't in their best interest.
I'm not trying to encourage ddos, I'm saying only that Cloudflare doesn't need to protect them from ddos. You might argue that those things are a distinction without a difference, but I would disagree.
Imo, kiwi farms will be the target of ddos no matter what, that's table stakes. So to me, the only thing I see is "is Cloudflare stepping in to help kiwi farms (at their own expense) or not".
Kiwi Farms has killed and swatted people and had resulted in many direct threats of violence to individuals. It's not really a slippery slope at all. All three sites are way, way beyond the pale.
Calling it harassment is like calling the moon a "space rock" - technically true I guess, but missing the magnitude.
There's a discussion that could be had about whether it's appropriate for ISPs to block sites that are strongly associated with terrorism.
I don't think that discussion can reasonably happen on this forum, but I think there are interesting philosophical positions that are valid that we should put against one another.