risaacs99

This is classic libertarian thinking, and I used to subscribe to it, at least to some extent. The more you think about it, though, the more it doesn't hold up.

It's just undeniably true that individual freedoms exist only to the extent that society allows them to. To think that you can opt out of society is fantasy.

It's in everybody's best interest to make sure society works well for everyone, and that kind of thinking pushes you back to the political center.

A virus with a novel mutation favoring humans would be successful infecting humans, period. I can't imagine any respiratory virus that wouldn't spread more effectively indoors. This "factor" is not particularly compelling (to me).

What's been disappointing to me throughout this experience is the fact that a large percentage of people don't seem to understand contagion.

The idea that a young person is safe is convenient for young people, but irrelevant. We never seemed to communicate to a segment of the population that we are trying to keep them from spreading it, as well as keeping them from catching it.

There is no "buts" regarding freedom.

This is clearly not true. You are an intelligent person and can probably think of half a dozen counters to this without trying too hard. You may wish this were the case, but it just isn't. Not under any conceivable society that we could structure.

This is a regional outage, not a single AZ.

I always find it interesting how people can think completely differently about this topic depending on how they frame it in their mind. If you think about it from the perspective of personal risk, then young people bristle at being told what to do. If you think about it from the perspective of contagion and at risk people who want to be able to participate in society, you would have a different perspective.

Hopefully we can agree that years where we lose 100,000 people from influenza are tragic, even if we've become accustomed to it. The optimistic possible outcome from this pandemic is maybe that rapid, inexpensive in-home testing for common virus infections becomes widespread. That'd allow a responsible person to test themselves before they went to a sporting event.

It'd also be wonderful if we invested more in a universal influenza vaccination. That's been right around the corner for decades now.

Not sending kids to school is about keeping the teachers, administrators, and their dependents and contacts safe. It's about grandparents who care for the children and would be at risk. I don't think it's about your mom.

I keep reading people asserting this, and I assume it's because we believe that a virus that becomes less lethal would have an evolutionary advantage.

But, wouldn't lengthening the incubation period also be a successful evolutionary strategy regardless of lethality?

It seems to me that there are many possible strategies that a mutating virus might gain an advantage and we shouldn't just assume that the only one that they would use would be to become more mild.

Luckily, sars-cov-2 seems relatively stable.

On the other hand, the second and third order consequences to providing a stronger social safety net to people might be highly beneficial.

We can apply creativity to solving the world's problems without resorting to the slippery slope fallacy of the abandonment of capitalism completely.

Not every social experiment is a one-way door that cannot be tweaked, improved or abandoned. We need to be less cynical and be willing to experiment more without so much fear.

The longer I've worked in software development, the less I'm convinced that any of this matters, at all.

What has mattered more to me is choosing the right architecture, technologies and dependencies. Understanding the fundamentals, especially at least a vague understanding of what the computer is doing with the code I am writing. Basic understanding of algorithms and techniques like state machines.

I've grown almost disdainful of things like SOLID principles, after taking them more seriously in the past.

I don't disagree. I would love the option in the US for everyone to have basic health care through medicare or a public option insurance plan (with prices starting at zero).

My point was to compare it to pre ACA. Our system improved significantly when the ACA was passed.

Now, if you're sharing the cost of a treatment with someone, they're always going to have a say in the treatment you get, unfortunately.

That's true under any system.

Yeah the negativity struck me as well. After being in Afib for a month, he was at high risk for having a stroke. I guarantee you that insurance would have been appreciated then.

Just to add to the discussion, I've been self employed and on ACA plans for several years now (with my family). I'm grateful to have the option, and it's miles ahead of what we had prior to the ACA.

Well that's just like, your opinion, man.

In all seriousness, C and C++ are with us forever. Improving and moving these languages forward, and improving their safety with static and runtime analysis (and hardware support) has to be part of the plan moving forward.

If you take someone's money, you only have a duty to fulfill your promises. Plenty of for-profit companies exist partially for some social good, or exist to further some multifaceted goals. If you can convince someone to invest in those types of goals, nothing is stopping you.

I hope people don't take this kind of simplistic advice on such a complex topic. Actual fruit, although it tastes sweet, is impossible to eat in quantities that are as harmful as junk food. They also provide tons of fiber, vitamins, anti oxidants and other beneficial nutrients. Some fruits are sweeter than others (pineapple, for example), but for the most part the vast majority of people would be better off if they ate more fruit.

Vegetables are great, too.

Disagree. We've been running on ECS for years and it's a very economical and reliable way to run containers on AWS. The service itself is free, the agent over time has become very reliable, and the integrations with AWS services like ELB, and CloudMap are seamless.

It's significantly more complex to host kubernetes infrastructure, and EKS is significantly more expensive.

ECS would be a first choice, with EKS a second choice if my needs dictated it (perhaps a hybrid or milticloud scenario).

I can't see how an 80% plant based diet could lead to a low carb, high fat outcome. It in no way implies to me a one meal a day diet.

It sounds more to me like the DASH diet, or Mediterranean.

I do run such a service, one that must scale daily in response to traffic at multiples of off peak traffic and I can state unequivocally that this is false.

I can vaguely recall over the past several years single availability zones having short periods of time where single instance types were unavailable, but never the entire region... The idea that this happens "a lot in the past year" for the entire region isn't my experience at all.

AWS no longer recommends warming up the newer ALBs for the vast majority of customers and scenarios. Of course lambda isn't magic and has an initial start penalty. There are ways to mitigate it and as long as you are actively handling requests your functions will be reused. It's not magic, but it's capable of keeping up with normal traffic surges. If you have a special circumstance where you expect a large surge on a scheduled basis (say thousands of clients checking in at the stroke of midnight, you would have to arrange to be ready for that and there are a lot of ways to do it).

API gateway isn't alb or elb and there isn't any recommendation or expectation that customers warm anything up.

I never said "massive surge" but I stand by the idea that 2000 cores and 6 terabytes of memory is massive for most workloads. Of course, that's not the limit and you can request more if you need it.

Lambda isn't for all workloads but AWS (and everyone else) is always changing and improving. You have to check in occasionally to see if old assumptions (e.g. elb) still hold.

Well keep reading. Lambda supports python 3.6

This is just not true. A brand new account on AWS will come with a default lambda limit of 1000 concurrent invocations with up to 2 cores and 3gb per invocation. That is a massive amount of computing power. The load balancer (typically API gateway in front of lambda for a serverless app) will scale very quickly to any request volume and no one needs to be notified ahead of time.

Well I ask because reserved instances can significantly reduce the price of ec2 (up to something like 75%). Also just turning off idle instances can save a ton. If you invest the time in doing those things I think you can beat other options and so in that way, cloud infrastructure can be very economical.

It is like many other things involved in running a technology company. Investing in automation can pay off hugely.

The newer instance types are very reliable too (in my experience).

Did you reserve your instances? Were you using current generation instances (c3, m3, etc). Did you try to take advantage of traffic patterns to scale up and down the number of instances you were running?