hhw (u/hhw) - Readit News

hhw commented on British Columbia declares a state of emergency amid devastating wildfires washingtonpost.com/world/... · Posted by u/MinimalAction

goatlover · 3 years ago

The climate doesn't care about per capita, also nuclear power could have been used to reduce carbon footprint.

hhw · 3 years ago

There's far more room for improvement when per capita is high than there is when per capita is low.

And the climate certainly does care about cumulative CO2.

Would have, could have, should have. But didn't. Trying to hold others accountable without getting one's own house in order just comes off as the blatant hypocrisy it actually is. Until we do better ourselves, we are in no position to call others out.

hhw commented on British Columbia declares a state of emergency amid devastating wildfires washingtonpost.com/world/... · Posted by u/MinimalAction

systemvoltage · 3 years ago

I don’t see that as a problem. The problem is brainwashing (mostly well meaning progressives) into doom culture, it’s an easy way to justify extremely totalitarianism.

We already went through that in the 70’s with nuclear power. Humanity would be far better off if it weren’t for 70’s progressives and their anti-nuclear agenda. It’s the same but worse this time: welcome our new climate tyrants.

Climate change is a cult with religious qualities. I haven’t seen anyone rebutting that.

I don’t give a shit if people use private jets for whatever reason.

hhw · 3 years ago

Maybe it has to do with the US having double the per capita carbon footprint, and double the cumulative total amount of CO2 of China, and many multiples of India:

https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-pe...

https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-which-countries-are-his....

hhw commented on DigitalOcean Region Information snapshooter.com/learn/dat... · Posted by u/mtmail

EwanToo · 4 years ago

The major providers use buildings owned by Equinix and others where they need to.

Check out Amazon Atlas on wikileaks for some more information

https://wikileaks.org/amazon-atlas/document/

hhw · 4 years ago

Equinix doesn't own many of the buildings they have facilities in. Aside from Dallas Infomart, I don't really know of any where they do, but I do know many buildings they have facilities in that they don't own. Digital Realty much more commonly owns carrier hotel buildings.

hhw commented on Switch to VPC Endpoints from Nat Gateways to Reduce Bandwidth Charges vantage.sh/blog/nat-gatew... · Posted by u/todsacerdoti

hermitdev · 4 years ago

At $0.07/MB, your talking over $70K to transfer a TB. Am I missing something here? Because I'd say $70k is quite a bit more than "a couple of dollars" the GP mentions. (No, I dont deal with cloud pricing at all, so I'm a little perplexed here)

hhw · 4 years ago

Network at the wholesale level is always measured in Mbps using 95th percentile, not in data transferred (average sustained, equivalent to 50th percentile because we're talking about 5 minute samples of interface counters over the course of a month). Note I used a small b in Mb. Depending on the variability of traffic patterns, that usually works out to be on average ~200GB* transferred per Mbps of 95th percentile over a period of a month. Meaning a TB would work out to about $0.35.

*A long, long time ago, I looked at about 1000 co-location customers' MRTG stats and compared their monthly 95th percentile Mbps to their average sustained data transfer in GB, and something like 90% of them were between 150GB-250GB per Mb and 98% of them were between 180GB-220GB. Many people assume 324GB which would require their traffic to be perfectly flatlined throughout the month, which obviously rarely ever happens.

hhw commented on Switch to VPC Endpoints from Nat Gateways to Reduce Bandwidth Charges vantage.sh/blog/nat-gatew... · Posted by u/todsacerdoti

victor106 · 4 years ago

Which providers are these?

hhw · 4 years ago

Pretty much any colo or dedicated/bare metal provider. $0.07 to $0.12 per Mb is the going rate for most carriers at any appreciable volume, and even the higher end carriers are less than 3x that.

To be fair, big tech despite their massive volume pay much higher rates than small networks because the carriers charge them enough to fully cover their costs to build out their networKs, while they make all their profits from selling their excess capacity to the little guys for pennies on the dollar.

hhw commented on Study claims Amazon, Apple, Google, Meta, Microsoft work to derail data rules theregister.com/2022/05/2... · Posted by u/Bender

DANK_YACHT · 4 years ago

> Privacy regulations can make it very difficult for competitors to gain traction for incumbents

This is an oft repeated argument that makes no sense. The point of privacy legislation is not to increase competition. The point is to increase privacy. The government has other legislative tools to increase competition should it wish to do so.

hhw · 4 years ago

I think the point he was trying to make is that big tech can use privacy regulations to keep out new competitors, rather than encourage them, as compliance with privacy regulations can create a higher barrier to entry

hhw commented on Internet drama in Canada nytimes.com/2022/05/26/te... · Posted by u/ChrisArchitect

jamal-kumar · 4 years ago

I mean my phone bill isn't 200$ and massively data capped with bad coverage anymore so if it's to get a better deal on your phone bill then that's my advice yes

hhw · 4 years ago

I think financially literate people in Canada don't pay anywhere near $200. I've always paid around $50/mo for the last 20 years, without ever going out of my way to shop for promotions, and have been able to have all the data usage I could reasonably use (previously excluded watching videos when not on Wi-Fi, but the most recent plan of a few years has enough data that I no longer need to), plus extra bells and whistles like free roaming in the US. This is with both a corporate plan with Bell the last 6-7 years, and a regular single individual plan with Rogers all the years before that, so wasn't even with a lower cost provider.

There are huge promotions multiple times a year because the competition is fierce between the top providers. When long-term contracts that subsidized phones were still around up to a few years ago, the buyouts to switch providers were so aggressive that you could end up with an extra few hundred dollars in your pocket on top of a new phone every 2 years when switching providers, or staying with the same provider and getting the loyalty/retention department to match offers. Yes, there may be better deals to be found down south sometimes, but not by enough of a margin to deal with cross-border banking, currency conversion, and much worse consumer protection laws for most people.

Yes, additional competition might potentially help drive prices down, but the low ROI on the huge amount of infrastructure required for such a small population might also result in worse economies of scale for all players resulting in the need to cut corners on coverage or service quality to remain competitive.

Also, I'm not convinced coverage is better down south. Anecdotally, I seem to hit way more deadspots driving down I5 through Washington and Oregon than I do on Highway 1 across BC to Alberta despite having much larger swathes of populated areas. I'm also shocked everytime I go to New York and get zero cell signal in every subway station including near Wall Street, when every underground transit station in Vancouver has coverage (admittedly Toronto does not have this though).

hhw commented on Comparing Nginx performance in bare metal and virtual environments nginx.com/blog/comparing-... · Posted by u/el_duderino

duskwuff · 4 years ago

Canadian dollars, so ~$160 USD. But that's still extremely high for a quad-core CPU from 2013, 8 GB RAM, no solid-state storage, and capped bandwidth.

hhw · 4 years ago

Sorry, the website is pretty outdated. We're almost exclusively rolling out AMD EPYC3's these days, and we'd price any of those older configurations much lower than what the website lists them at. Nobody, other than spammers, ever orders through our website (although to be fair, our website may be to blame for that also). We get all of our business through word of mouth, and keep busy enough on that alone, so the website hasn't been a priority.

hhw commented on Comparing Nginx performance in bare metal and virtual environments nginx.com/blog/comparing-... · Posted by u/el_duderino

grepfru_it · 4 years ago

>Starting at $199/mo

Sounds pricey :)

hhw · 4 years ago

From our experience, if we price too low we get people who expect the world for bottom dollar. $199 is more the minimum price point at which we’re generally willing to take someone on a customer, than a reflection of the price of a base configuration server. Anyone e-mailing us for a quote, if they seem like they’re on the up and up and we like what they're about, we will usually give a pretty good discount. Most business nowadays are for people ordering several servers at a time and they will always request a custom quotation anyhow, and we're pretty aggressive with larger volume orders.

hhw commented on Comparing Nginx performance in bare metal and virtual environments nginx.com/blog/comparing-... · Posted by u/el_duderino

blowski · 4 years ago

I recently moved a smallish business application from two bare-metal servers onto Azure VMs. It's a standard PHP 7.4 application, MySQL, Redis, nginx. Despite the VMs costing more and having twice the spec of the bare-metal servers, it has consistently performed slower and less reliably throughout the stack. The client's budget is too small to spend much time looking into it. Instead, they upped the spec even further, and what used to cost £600 per month now costs £2000.

hhw · 4 years ago

(Disclaimer) As a bare metal provider, I hope more people become aware what I've been saying for years: cloud is great for scaling down, but not that great for scaling up. If you want to have lots of VM's that don't warrant their own hardware that you can conveniently turn up and down, then cloud is fantastic. If you have a big application that needs to scale, you can get further vertically with bare metal, and if you need to scale horizontally, you need to optimize better higher up in the stack anyway, and the much lower cost for equivalent resources (without even taking any virtualization performance hit into account), more flexibility and thus more/better fitted performance of bare metal should have the clear advantage.