daenz

53 ms·

661.
by daenz 4y ago
It cost me like $3 a month to get benefit from it. For what it's worth I don't use it for synchronous web requests.
662.
by daenz 4y ago
Does this explain why followers have been fluctuating in a very unexpected way for high-profile accounts?
663.
by daenz 4y ago
I've considered writing a book on how to grow software through different evolutions, and using different software paradigms that make sense for the different stages of growth. I don't think there's an audience for it though,
664.
by daenz 4y ago
Now I want to see the secret databases that companies and governments have on people for comparison.
665.
by daenz 4y ago
They would be worse off in the same sense that a child who doesn't get to eat cookies for dinner is worse off: they didn't get a thing that they really wanted. And in the same way, a child isn't harmed by denying them cookies
666.
by daenz 4y ago
It's not actually harm, yes, that's what I have been saying. For the 3rd time, we disagree on the definition of harm. No, that doesn't mean I think you should be allowed to stab people.
667.
by daenz 4y ago
>is only applicable to certain kinds of changes which make the subject worse off Yes. It's not a difficult concept. Children often get upset about rules that are enforced on them, and feel "worse off." Doesn't mean it
668.
by daenz 4y ago
Yes, I believe the former is a less corrupt position in a democracy, because it has a natural balance: the opposing side will work to remove those special privileges. In the latter, there is no check to balance it, so it is more corruptible
669.
by daenz 5y ago
I'm not an expert in this area, but have you all considered using CRIU[0] (checkpoint restore in userspace) for container-based Lambdas to allow users to snapshot their containers after most of the a language's VM (like Python) ha
670.
by daenz 5y ago
Every one of the 50 states and the fed having provisions for special arrangements doesn't, to me, say that the arrangements themselves are common, only that corruption is common. I agree, if Florida attempted to kill all of the special
671.
by daenz 5y ago
They have a feature called "provisioned concurrency" where basically one "instance" of your lambda (or however many you want to configure) stays running warm, so that it can handle requests quickly. I know it defeats the
672.
by daenz 5y ago
>Disney is hardly the only business which has negotiated preferential treatment. Are you making the case that it's very common, and so it's not special nor unfair? I am very skeptical that more than %0.001 of businesses (1 in 1
673.
by daenz 5y ago
>if I stab you Puncturing someone's body with an edged weapon is clearly harm, but thanks for totally misrepresenting my position as a last minute jab to an otherwise civil conversation.
674.
by daenz 5y ago
Ok, we disagree on the definition of harm is all. Our different philosophies flow from our different perspectives of that definition.
675.
by daenz 5y ago
Kudos for answering, I think the person I was replying to is worried about making a similar response, although it is consistent with their other statements. I disagree that it is harm. >Put another way, would you really claim that someon
676.
by daenz 5y ago
>Retaliation is me doing B because of A. No, and you're twisting what you know retaliation to be, to pretend that is merely "cause and effect." That's very deceptive, because I think you know that it doesn't make
677.
by daenz 5y ago
The point I'm making is about harm, which has been the whole crux of my argument. In my example, are white people being harmed by having the 10% discount removed?
678.
by daenz 5y ago
If there was a law that said "white people get 10% off of every purchase." If it was being repealed for some politically motivated reason, and white people said "I am being harmed!" would you agree with them? Or would yo
679.
by daenz 5y ago
I think we've both made very clear points, we just continue to disagree. Thanks for being civil.
680.
by daenz 5y ago
I'd like to hear your answer to my white privilege example, since I think that make it very clear why you're against the actions against Disney, and why I am for them.
681.
by daenz 5y ago
What you just described absolutely has financial benefits, in time and opportunity costs.
682.
by daenz 5y ago
>adverse That's the key. I'm arguing that "adverse" doesn't mean "not receiving special unfair treatment."
683.
by daenz 5y ago
You're finally understanding my point. Removing an unfair privilege is only "harmful" to the person with the unfair privilege. Considering the full context makes it not actual harm. Put it another way: Imagine a law that said
684.
by daenz 5y ago
If it's not beneficial in any way for Disney, then why are they saying they are being retaliated against? You're attempting to paint the removal of these special corporate privileges as a positive thing for Disney. If that's
685.
by daenz 5y ago
>Motivations define retaliation. Disagree. Motivation plays a part, but it is ultimately the action that defines if it was retaliation. The action has to be harmful.
686.
by daenz 5y ago
I'm not sure I understand the hypothetical. I am against members of any political party receiving unfair privileges. And I would be 100% ok with the removal of those privileges, even if it was an explicit result of that person exercisi
687.
by daenz 5y ago
I make this point more thoroughly in another comment, but I don't view it as retaliation, and I think only the people who are fixated on the political motivations view it as retaliation. Retaliation implies harm, and I am making the ca
688.
by daenz 5y ago
That's where we disagree then: if exclude the political bend of the actions, only Disney views the action as "punishment", while to everyone else, it is "fair." Is it punishment to remove an unfair advantage? Certai
689.
by daenz 5y ago
From my perspective, Disney should not have had special corporate privileges in the first place, so it's fair game that those special privileges are targeted for any reason since they are not rights, and in fact give them unfair lega
690.
by daenz 5y ago
I have not been following the story as closely as others, but how is reversing special privileges for a corporate titan (Disney), that give it abilities that nobody else is allowed to have, authoritarianism? That only seems authoritarian re

More ›