I was using small Asian people as my reference. Using "American sized" people and the number goes below 2000.
Even accounting for the human body not occupying all of the space in the rectangle/box he uses (thus allowing for more people to fit a la fitting people in a phone both), his math is simply wrong.
> Two dozen of largest enterprises and unicorns and so on. Nobody wanted the billing department "inline" of systems controls.
And of course, two dozen enterprises trump hundreds if not thousands of other small businesses right? Did AWS think of, oh I don't know, a 'feature flag' or somesuch thing that enterprises and unicorns are so fond of to provide this feature to those who don't have VC money to flush?
Again, they give you the tools for this. You can understand your usage by API, you can set threshold actions on it, you can switch things on and off, and applyable templates exist, all of which are under your control and "out of band" from the systems delivering traffic or compute to your paying customers.
Using these tools can you switch everything off immediately (or at least within a minute) of total billing going over $X? Because if not, you're being disingenuous
Not to mention that one of the things people want a hard limit for is to limit the financial blast radius of misconfiguration. Saying "oh sure, you can cobble that together yourself" is super missing the point.
Pet peeve - luddites had never been against technology. They had been against using low paid inexperienced grunt workers to displace well paid experts.
As the Industrial Revolution began, workers naturally worried about being displaced by increasingly efficient machines. But the Luddites themselves “were totally fine with machines,” says Kevin Binfield, editor of the 2004 collection Writings of the Luddites. They confined their attacks to manufacturers who used machines in what they called “a fraudulent and deceitful manner” to get around standard labor practices. “They just wanted machines that made high-quality goods,” says Binfield, “and they wanted these machines to be run by workers who had gone through an apprenticeship and got paid decent wages. Those were their only concerns.”
The definition you're using is not the definition that people nowadays understand the word for.
You don't go to a magazine website for the current common meaning or understanding of a word, you go to the dictionary And in a dictionary you'll read that a luddite is someone who is opposed to new technology, automation, or industrial change.
There are countless examples where people resist new technology for various reasons other than "using low paid inexperienced grunt workers to displace well paid experts". And this is what we call luddites, not the historical original definition of the word.
Well, it's practically impossible to get a person to do something when their paycheck depends on their not doing it.
reply