You can get a spinning disk of 18TB (not need for SSD if you can parallel write) for 224€. Let's round that to $300 for easy calculations.
To store 100 petabytes of data by purchasing disks yourself, you would need approximately 5556 18TB hard drives totaling $1,666,800.
Of course, you'll pay more than the disks.
Let's add the cost of 93 enclosures at $3,000 each ($279,000), and accounting for controllers, network equipment ($100,000), and power and cooling infrastructure ($50,000, although it's probably already cool where they will host the thing), that would be a about $2.1 M.
That's total, and that's for the uncompressed data.
You would need 3 times that for redundancy, but it would still be 40% cheaper over 5 years, not to mention I used retail price. With their purchasing power they can get a big discount.
Now, you do have the cost of having a team to maintain the whole thing but they likely have their own data center anyway if they go that route.
> disk of 18TB (not need for SSD if you can parallel write)
Do note that you can put, like, at most?, 1TB of hot/warm data on this 18TB drive.
Imagine you do a query, and 100GB of the data to be searched are on 1 HDD. You will wait 500s-1000s just for this hard drive. Imagine a bit higher concurrency with searching on this HDD, like 3 or 5 queries.
You can't fill these drives full with hot or warm data.
> To store 100 petabytes of data by purchasing disks yourself, you would need approximately 5556 18TB hard drives totaling $1,666,800.
You want to have 1000x more drives and only fill 1/1000 of them. Now you can do a parallel read!
For this purpose you would likely not buy ordinary consumer disks but rather bullet proof enterprise HDDs. Otherwise a signifcant amount of the 5556 disks would not survive the first year, assuming the are under constant load.
quickwit's big advantage is that you can target it at something that speaks S3 and it will be happy. so ideally you delegate the whole storage story by hiring someone who knows their way around Ceph (erasure coding, load distribution) and call a few DC/colo/hosting providers (initial setup and the regular HW replacements).
When I was a kid, it dawned on me that to be among the best, you had to be the one willing to sacrifice the most. Because there are diminishing returns up there, and when everything is equal (talent, biology, etc), then what you cut of to dedicate to the craft is one of the last differentiators.
So really, did I want to be among the best that bad?
There are self-reinforcing effects. For example, you work hard to become a top 50 player. At that point you don't have to work as hard to remain in the top because now you have certain advantages.
So you can also look at these "sacrifices" as "investments".
Being in top 50 of anything seriously competetive requires monk-like existence. You can't just coast, many atlethes who don't have the true monk mindset tried to coast a bit after a couple years of ruthless grind that got them to the top. It always results in decline of performance.
I think people have watched or read a lot about those old school or fictional competitors, arriving wasted at the event or with a messed up life because that's what the medias sell.
Even if it could have happen at a certain time, today's competitions are such high-level precision things that everybody is at the top of their game, every parameter is taken in consideration.
If you are not, you don't even get at the top.
I was surprised to chat with a few e-sport competitors a few years ago and learn that they are using drugs to maintain focus.
But everything is non-equal. Best of the best have everything aligned in the same direction (family, wealth, genetics...). Even the "sacrifice" does not hurt, because that is just the way they do it.
Believe in "Great sacrifice" does not work in long term, and just builds resentment over time. People who promote it are usually drug addicts and broken in their personal lives!
Modern companies are a lot like we expect AGIs to be.
It's an interesting thought that I keep coming across, I'm not sure if I necessarily agree with it.
In a sense, companies are super-human intelligent autonomous beings, with much more power to act on the world than any individual. We are able to partially control them within a complex incentive and enforcement structure, but it is difficult to fully align them with what society needs.
It's good news in a sense, we can control AGIs with similar systems, they have the same resource constraints as any other entity if they want to have an impact in the real world.
I hear this claim a lot but is it really true? Corporations in most countries are „legal persons“ in the sense that they can act like a person. This is what limited liability is all about. In fact the very name „incorporation“ comes from giving a sort of „body“ to an entity that otherwise doesn‘t have one in order to shield the owners from liability as it should be.
I do not think that a corporation is considered to be a person beyond that. It‘s merely a way to establish limited liability for shareholders which requires a mechanism for the corporation to sign contracts without an owner signing on it‘s behalf.
Can you explain why that matters? Yes a company can have a bank account. A company also has a name, like a person. An age, like a person. But what does that matter?
We moved the power from the human to something we said is "human enough" to have them. But this thing is a concept, it doesn't exist. It can't die. It can change forms until it doesn't pay taxes. It can't experience pain or go to prison.
Basically, we gave the power to the company without the responsibilities to the humans behind it because there is less consequences, less skin in the game.
The power of having a bank account, of moving funds around, of signing contracts, etc.
Before that, companies had to have everything attached to a human, not the company. So the human was responsible.
You are so used to it that you think it's normal, but it's not.
It's a concept we have created: that companies can act in their own name, like they are actually something concrete.
But when we did that, we failed to give companies expiration date, something like inheritance tax, the equivalent of prison and so forth.
Something that doesn't exist, a concept, enjoy many things a concrete human can do, but won't pay nearly the same consequences.
In fact, it's sometimes in the title: limited liability company. It's by design.
And of course, it allowed humans to do a lot of things without risking to lose all their life if they failed. But we went to far and now, we have companies that can enjoy all those benefits but with much less limitations than the humans counterpart.
> The power of having a bank account, of moving funds around, of signing contracts, etc.
I don't think companies can sign contracts. What is the power of having a bank account and moving funds around? It's still people deciding to do this, and doing it, just under a group name. What power?
> Something that doesn't exist, a concept, enjoy many things a concrete human can do, but won't pay nearly the same consequences
People are still doing it. You seem to have totally mis-framed this. If you say "people can get away with doing things inside a company" you'd have a point, perhaps, but you're talking as though companies are sentient.
Of course it matters. What does it meant to punish something that isn't sentient? It's like bemoaning the fact that you can't punish the car that was driven into someone.
Depends on if you care about outcome or morality. Already now we use terms like punishment, reward and adverserial competition between neural networks.
If the entity (be it a corporation or AGI-driven corporation) learns from the punishment (or its peers learn by observation) it doesn't matter if the entity is sentient, the outcome is less of the unwanted behaviour. I didn't mean anything more complicated than that.
The corporation cannot learn. Why anthropomorphise when you can actually think about the real problem: how to incentivise the people who own and direct companies to behave well.
Certain laws apply to any person, which includes companies. A company can own things like you own things, and has similar protections. A company is accountable to its promises (contracts, fraud...), like you would be, although punishments might be different.
It's like a union type: `type Person = Human | Company`. Or like inheritance: `class Human(Person)`, `class Company(Person)`. Or a typeclass/trait/interface...
It allows you to reuse many laws for both humans and companies, without having to specify them or define special cases every time it is mentioned.
I think the point of OP was that in many ways companies have many of the same rights and privileges as individuals, but cannot be punished in the same ways.
I don't really understand that as a point, though. What would punishing a company look like? Why wouldn't we want to figure out how to punish (or hold accountable) individuals, instead of focusing on the fact that we can't punish legal entities?
We can't punish countries either, even though they can also do these things. We can only punish people. So what?
You can definitely punish countries as an independent entity: with trading sanctions, refusal to give in on certain diplomatic compromises, or different degrees of military retaliation.
Same with companies: mostly fines, but also limits on how they can operate, additional oversight...
Of course, the consequences trickle down to people, but these punishments are not meant to target any given individual, and if the individuals in charge change, the ones that leave don't necessarily carry the punishment with them.
This makes sense, legal entities like companies are guided by incentives. And it sometimes makes more sense to punish the legal entity to change its behaviour, by imposing disincentives, rather than punishing whichever people are running it at the time.
For example, people within a company might pressure an individual to commit a crime, because even if that individual might get punished, the company may benefit as a whole. But if the company's (financial) survival is at stake, everyone is more likely to collaborate to prevent that situation, including the shareholders, if the punishments are big enough.
The point here is, that for issues like negligence and fraud, the current punishments are not significant enough to act as a real deterrent. The punishment on the companies is too lenient (they can absorb the fines, they are rarely an existential threat), and the punishment on the individuals responsible is too lenient (difficult to attribute culpability, limited liability...).
We do want to figure out how to hold individuals more accountable, as you said, we are just having a conversation about why it works like that right now and what could be changed to improve it.
We are currently trying to punish entities (with fines), and it's ineffective.
We should move back to punishing people more, and moving back the responsibility to people, instead of pretending companies are people, and therefore responsible.
Quite the opposite, since they have bank accounts, let's:
- Make them more liable.
- Make the people behind them more liable.
- Give companies limitations. What would be the equivalent of jail for a company ? Unable to sale for x years ? How long a company should be able to exist ?
Right now there is way too much power and shielding at the same time.
> What would be the equivalent of jail for a company ? Unable to sale for x years ? How long a company should be able to exist ?
If they can't sell then they don't have money, and everyone is fired. Is that what you mean? Why are you trying to make companies into physical people who can be punished separately to their employees/shareholders, instead of thinking of the actual outcome you want and coming up with something to achieve that?
> Why wouldn't we want to figure out how to punish (or hold accountable) individuals, instead of focusing on the fact that we can't punish legal entities?
Because limited liability means exactly that the owners are shielded to a degree. That‘s my point. That‘s why corporations were created as a concept.
This concept is necessary because the company represents collective decisions and if each and every one of those would be individually accountable then less business would be done.
As someone else pointed out it‘s a union type. Instead of person you could call it „entity“ and rewrite all the laws. Happy now?
They deliberately hindered the release of Starcraft 2 by releasing the online experience completely unfinished. No clans, no chat (at all), no PMing, no custom games. Nothing. It was like that for several years.
At that point, with 3 years of hype for the game, people came, played a bit of 1v1 then left. It was a botched job. Blizzard died with the release of SC2.
To be fair to the team, Tor (from PirateSoftware fame) reported that Blizzard made more money selling one horse in WoW than with the entire Wing of Liberty:
Well, the horse costs only 4x less than the game. WoW has an insanely larger market cap.
It's not crazy that people bought the horse in more $ amounts than SC2's first release. It's crazy that people spent $15 on a single cosmetic.
I don't fully trust piratesoftware guy, since he does do a lot of clickbait, and isn't exactly a well known body from Blizzard. But I do reckon that micro transactions for a larger game would well outsell an old purchase model on a smaller game.
And yeah. We can only blame gamers for the way video games are now. The good games rarely get acknowledged, but the bad games proliferate continuously.
Dota, and so LOL, is often thought of as something coming from Warcraft 3 Defense of the Ancient, but the concept really started as a starcraft mod as well.
Of lot of the gaming culture is born on the original Battle.net.
SC 1 was one of the most influential game ever created.
I remember the map “V-TEC paintball” as a forerunner of the DotA and LOL styles - endless waves with you the (battlecruiser | marine | ghost) running around making the difference. HotS, LOL, DotA all seem to trace back to those “paintball” custom maps and the creators who made terrific use of the tools on offer.
Came here to comment the same. I was making fun of my housemates for being addicted to DOTA (a MOBA game), then during a "Use Map Settings" game of Starcraft I discovered and enjoyed playing a mod called "Aeon of Strife" and shared it with my housemates.
DOTA is a direct descendant of Aeon of Strife.
I had discovered the original DOTA, inside Starcraft.
