Hell yeah it is. They've found some success with their cases, and I'm excited to switch to their new magnetic keyboard for horizontal portable work, but I do worry this is a moonshot that will sink them.
Dude why are you so determined to defend this pricing change? You're all over this thread arguing with people that it's not a big deal. If it's a big deal to them, why do you give a shit? It's not like it's your problem if people take their business elsewhere for a poor reason.
There's an RSS feed that is exposed in the standard manner (link tag in head), precisely what you're looking for. They do not offer a paid subscription, just the option to 'buy' individual issues, which is also linked under every issue.
That sort of friction is just enough to keep folks from giving money.
And that’s not me saying this, there’s an entire cottage industry devoted to pricing and buying decisions, and how friction reduces revenue.
If I take your suggestion to its logical conclusion, I would need to:
1. Get an RSS reader (I don’t have one, haven’t used one since google reader shut down)
2. Subscribe to their RSS feed.
3. Remember to check my RSS reader.
4. Each 3-4 months (just long enough for it not to be a habit forming exercise), click on the link.
5. Put in my credit card information each time.
6. buy the issue.
Or, I could use their “preferred” method:
1. Subscribe to their email list.
2. Click the link every 3-4 months when an issue drops.
3. Put in my credit card information every 3-4 months?
4. Buy the issue.
Each of these has far more friction in them than necessary, and hurts their overall goal, which is to make their magazine self-sustaining.
I think the magazine is not designed to be a product that is bought, but rather something that is given away for free. A lot of the verbiage on the website discusses various ways to get and reproduce the magazine for free. Most of the content is submitted with a creative content license.
> I would expect to see a “subscribe” page, which would take payment information, and I would get emailed new issues as they come out.
I can appreciate where you're coming from in general, but this article isn't that. All Headlines suck, by their nature they have to cater to the lowest common denominator in who they assume their audience is, so we're using the headline to place an unfamiliar country in a continent that is familiar enough, at least in name.
> this site is my attempt at creating something that’s dedicated to discovering the hidden gems of the online realm (whether they be in the form of academic discourse, cutting-edge technology, cultural commentary, or artistic expression) and sharing them with care and consideration.
How is treating a country in the second largest continent in the world - which contains more than 50 countries, most of which have very distinct cultures - as representative of that continent showing care and consideration? Ghana is not an unfamiliar country, and most people, at the very least, know it's in Africa. If I confused Mexico with Canada, or Germany with Albania, I'd be treated as a dimwit, but somehow it's totally fine if I don't know the difference between Ghana and Kenya.
I agree with the parent comment; this "unfamiliar country" business needs to stop.
This is spot on. The real reasons the headline is "Africa" and not "Ghana" are:
- To sensationalize the story by positioning it as a another manifestation of a supposed "African" nature/character.
- The idea that African countries by themselves are too insignificant to seek/need to know about, but an entire continents? OK, maybe. Many people are comfortable in ignorance, real or feigned.
Putting Ghana on the title would have been just fine. I'm Ghanaian btw.
How exactly is that clickbait? You might not like it, but that doesn't make it clickbait. That's like saying it's clickbait to say Europe in a headline instead of Austria.
A tour guide for the U.S. definitely implies that you are going to see a variety of places in the U.S. That's implied by the word "tour" which means something roughly akin to "a journey through several different places".
This is merely an example where the writer of the headline believes that the average reader may not be familiar with the country of Ghana. If the demographics include Americans, I'd have to guess they were spot on. (I'm American, I know how Americans are.)
Would it really be similarly offensive if a headline referred to something happening in "South America" when actually it happened in Guyana? Or, a headline about something happening in "Europe" when actually it happened in Andorra? None of these headlines are inaccurate. They're just not specific.
I can obviously see why this is frustrating but to me it's a complete misunderstanding to blame the person writing the headline.
> Would it really be similarly offensive if a headline referred to something happening in "South America" when actually it happened in Guyana?
Yes. It's like saying that the art and culture in Georgetown is very similar to the art and culture in Santiago. Especially when you claim to be an arts-and-culture website. Would a Texan like being stereotyped by a tourist who thinks all of America is just like New York City?
> Or, a headline about something happening in "Europe" when actually it happened in Andorra?
What many people here are trying to point out is that the chances of seeing such a line about a European country (even a relatively unknown one) is waaaay less than the chances of seeing such a line about African/South American countries.
> Yes. It's like saying that the art and culture in Georgetown is very similar to the art and culture in Santiago. Especially when you claim to be an arts-and-culture website. Would a Texan like being stereotyped by a tourist who thinks all of America is just like New York City?
That does happen, and I don't think very many people consider it grossly offensive, the vast majority of people would probably find it mildly amusing at worst. (It is not lost on me that people feel this way partly because American culture is well-known around the world, so people are less defensive of it.)
On the other hand though, I don't think that the headline being less specific means that the article is making generalizations about Africa. The article itself is pretty immediately clear on that matter.
If you were dependent upon a single distribution (region) of that Service, yes it would be a massive single point of failure in this case. If you weren't dependent upon a particular region, you'd be fine.
Of course lots of AWS services have hidden dependencies on us-east-1. During a previous outage we needed to update a Route53(DNS) record in us-west-2, but couldn't because of the outage in us-east-1.
So, AWS's redundant availability goes something like "Don't worry, if nothing is working in us-east-1, it will trigger failover to another regions" ... "Okay, where's that trigger located?" ... "In the us-east-1 region also" ... "Doens't that seem a problem to you?" ... "You'd think it might be! But our logs say it's never been used."
Relying on AWS is a single point of failure. Not as much as relying on a single AWS region, but it's still a single point.
It's fairly difficult to avoid single points of failure completely, and if you do it's likely your suppliers and customers haven't managed to.
It's about how much your risk level is.
AWS us-east-1 fails constantly, it has terrible uptime, and you should expect it to go. A cyberattack which destroyed AWSs entire infrastructure would be less likely. BGP hijacks across multiple AWS nodes are quite plausible though, but that can be mitigated to an extent with direct connects.
Sadly it seems people in charge of critical infrastructure don't even bother thinking about these things, because next quarters numbers are more important.
I can avoid London as a single point of failure, but the loss of Docklands would cause so much damage to the UK's infrastructure I can't confidently predict that my servers in Manchester connected to peering points such as IXman will be able to reach my customer in Norwich. I'm not even sure how much international connectivity I could rely on. In theory Starlink will continue to work, but in practice I'm not confident.
When we had power issues in Washington DC a couple of months ago, three of our four independent ISPS failed, as they all had undeclared requirements on active equipment in the area. That wasn't even a major outage, just a local substation failure. The one circuit which survived was clearly just fibre from our (UPS/generator backed) equipment room to a data centre towards Baltimore (not Ashburn).
And once on a video, suggestions cannot be seen in Cinema Mode, which can be made the default. Still have the ones at the end of the video I suppose, though they show up inconsistently for me, so might be a channel creator setting.
Other users want a secure design without the ability to shoot oneself in the foot, such is the reason for a market where you have the alternative choice in Android.
Which in many cases would break SOC2 compliance (co-mingling of development and customer resources), and even goes against the basic advice offered in the K8s manual. Beyond that, this limits your ability to test Control Plane upgrades against your stack, though that has generally been very stable in my experience.
To be clear I'm not defending the 47 Cluster setup of the OP, just the practice of separating Development/Production.
Why would you commingle development and customer resources? A k8s cluster is just a control plane, that specifically controls where things are running, and if you specify they can’t share resources, that’s the end of that.
If you say they share the same control plane is commingling… then what do you think a cloud console is? And if you are using different accounts there… then I hope you are using dedicated resources for absolutely everything in prod (can’t imagine what you’d pay for dedicated s3, sqs) because god forbid those two accounts end up on the same machine. Heh, you are probably violating compliance and didn’t even know it!
The frustrating thing with SOC2, or pretty much most compliance requirements, is that they are less about what’s “technically true”, and more about minimizing raised eyebrows.
It does make some sense though. People are not perfect, especially in large organizations, so there is value in just following the masses rather than doing everything your own way.
The problem is you need to be able to convince the auditor that your controls meet the requirement. That's a much easier discussion to have with robust logical or physical separation.
