Readit NewsIf the incidents that made the rounds here in the last few months are any indication, they'll start out insisting you pay no matter what. You'll then have to write a blog post about it, post it to Twitter, HN, and Reddit, get a couple hundred comments expressing anger at the provider, and wait for someone from their PR department to see it. Only then will they finally waive the costs.
Good on Fly.io for trying to handle such situations more sensibly.
So far we have gotten no concessions from AWS, and we have annual bills in the millions, just not for this application whose budget now has an awkward and obvious spike.
Please feel free to include adverts as a means to monetize your work, my first impulse was to disable uBlock on your page.
One key attribute to both companies is that it was dictated from on high that the QA team had final say whether the release went to production or not.
These days companies think having the developers write automated tests and spend an inordinate amount of time worrying over code coverage is better. I can't count how many products I've seen with 100% code coverage that objectively, quantifiably doesn't work.
I'm not saying automated testing is bad. I'm saying, just as the author does, that doing away with human QA testers is.
> This time there are massive technical gotchas (you have a link to a .jpg hosted on a server or servers, you don't own the copyright to anything).
It sounds like you've reconciled this, I'm curious how?
I'm stating in the first quote that there is an idea of artists selling their work, but that isn't what is driving the accelerated adoption.
In the second quote I point out some of the technical deficiencies, it is supposed to contrast the first. It doesn't reconcile.
The comment chain is on the topic of why these technical deficiencies are news to so many people, my opinion is that we skipped the scrutiny that BTC experienced and we experienced a gold rush.
Blockchain and cryptocurrencies are impressive novel technology, they suit how they are used and work as a fungible token/currency. The underlying tech is impressive, like cryptography, and cannot (backdoors excepted) be broken for its intended purpose. Smart people who understand it recognized the potential and validity of the technology, and so it grew organically and became the phenomenon it is today. There is no technical gotcha, scams are another topic.
The general public's exposure was much more surface level and occurred after the tech had grown organically among technical folks. Now you pay with your CC on a familiar looking website, to buy something everyone says has value. It seems normal, and although you don't understand the underlying tech, you trust it is valuable. Lots of people get rich, lots of people lose money, but BTC remains valuable and the market remains. My elderly mother who is not technically literate is asking me how to invest.
After that, the general public has been conditioned to expect blockchain adjacent tech to be legitimate, they are feeling like they missed the gold rush but there is a new gold rush! NFTs! This time we skip the organic growth of a novel technology, adopted by smart people who understand the underlying tech. Now it is inorganic growth exploiting the crypto hype and pushed by hustlers. There is a legitimate use case for artists but that isn't what is driving the new mania.
This time there are massive technical gotchas (you have a link to a .jpg hosted on a server or servers, you don't own the copyright to anything). People find this out after the hype and massive adoption, if BTC never worked for its purpose it wouldn't have grown organically. NFTs have skipped that. There are torrents with every NFT pulled from these servers to highlight the lack of ownership, of technical control, I can't torrent your Bitcoins but I can download your stoned apes.
This is a long opinion, but it's why I think you see people find out after the fact just how flaky NFTs are.
Yikes. One thing that's incredibly important about reaching the interview-stage of a job application has been that there is a parity, or even an imbalance favoring the candidate, in human time usage. The company's people (often multiple people at once) have to spend time with the candidate to conduct the interview, so there are stakes for scheduling an interview. The company is investing something into that interaction, so you as a candidate can have some faith that your time is being valued. In the very least, your 45 minute interview is valued at 45*n minutes of company labor for each interviewer.
Admitting right off the bat that you're going to waste the time of 90% of your applicants without these stakes is just wildly disrespectful.