This will eventually destroy them

When I was at AWS, I watched SAs get promoted for saving customers money all the time.

AWS wants happy customers to stick around for a long time, not one month of goosed income

Yep. Pay us less every month and stick around for a long time. Getting low prices makes it really difficult to move away.

If you still decided to move away, and want to take data with you, yeah... there is a cost. Heck there is a cost to delete the data you have with them (like S3 content).

Its a good way to do business.

I can't say the same of the reserved instance team which is genuinely running a protection racket business.

Especially for something handling data. I want an old, battle tested solution that won't disappear when the VC capital dries up

She's advocating for something more like complete shunning for having the non-progressive opinions, which is ... something.

Progressives are like 8% of the electorate, she probably wouldn't like what would happen if there were more censorship of political opinions

Holy shit, this is actually Eich. Comment deserves more attention

Huge fan, you were pushed out unfairly - it's wild that you were fired for donating money to a vote that passed. It was a normal and popular opinion at the time.

Source? And what do you mean by America, USA? Wikipedia says something else:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_in_the_United_St...

The article shows evidence for the opposite of this

I'm not sure I like the way these types of articles frame things, because they tend to create strawmen arguments.

I absolutely do not believe that "nice people finish last" as a rule, and I know people who have been very successful in part because they are good people.

However, I have also absolutely seen many cases where people do get ahead because they are jerks, or corrupt.

There are still third cases where I don't think the people are bad people, but I think the system rewards bad behavior, which they take advantage of without necessarily even being aware of the consequences. Or they benefit from a broken or random system, and then don't recognize how they got to where they did, or something.

I guess as I've become older I've become more upset at systems that reward bad behavior than the persons doing it. It's not that I don't care about them, it's more so that I think a well-functioning system should have checks and balances and structures to prevent it, and in every case where a "jerk" got ahead, I've come to realize I was more upset with the people around them who condoned it, rewarded it, or took advantage of it. There's also cases like the third case, were I don't know anyone should be punished, and they're not meaning to do harm, but they do it anyway, and should be prevented from being in that situation.

I think there's some corollary or something to "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely" that's along the lines of "corruption seeks power". People who are corrupt, or who do corrupt things, don't do things that aren't in their self interest, or are self-sacrificing, almost by definition. They might fail, but they still move in the direction of power or money. So on average, even if there are good deeds that are rewarded, if the system isn't tight enough, corruption or unnecessary harm will slip in. It's like some gas or thermodynamic law or something: sure you can find enough of one moiety somewhere, but the flow goes one way and not the other.

There's an open question about that - apparently it was N=1

Thanks. I wasn't aware that it was only a single patient who developed MTC.

What are some expat neighborhoods in Berlin? I was just trying to find American expat enclaves like Chinatown in NY - couldn't really, outside of Antigua in Guatemala