The EU leaders falsely assume that US cloud services are essential and let themselves be blackmailed over and over again.
If you want to do your part as a consumer, boycott all American products:
If you want to do your part as a consumer, boycott all American products:
Do you have plans to overcome those sort of challenges and sustain this initiative ?
Yeah, EU is super fucked too since it outsourced its energy dependence to Russia, consumer manufacturing to China, defence and tech services to US, and only just woke up in the last 3 or so years that it was all a huge mistake that's now costing us dearly since we're at the whims of all 3 belligerents who know that now is the time they can squeeze us.
Trying to undo just one dependency is a slow and painful process, but fighting all 3 at the same time is a suicide mission.
The US outsourced its manufacturing too, but unlike EU, it has a strong enough economy and military that they can just snap their fingers and the likes of Taiwan and Korea will immediately onshore manufacturing of their high end chips and ships to the US, but EU doesn't have this kind leverage.
If only! We just outsourced all our agriculture to Latin America (MERCOSUR free trade agreement).
The EU policies makes sense if the goal is peace and prosperity. You can't reach that goal without collaboration and trade. If you're going to blame someone, blame the Great Powers, the US, China and Russia, in order of importance, who have suddendly gone ballistic and can only talk of war, War, WAR, and nothing else.
Oh, sorry, President Trump is all about trade... tariffs.
I mean if the world has gone mad, don't blame the EU for trying to be sane.
How can EU maintain peace and prosperity with no military? With hugs and kisses?
Because if that was their goal, then they really fucked up because they delivered the exact opposite: war next door and lowest purchasing power of the working class in years/decades.
You see, people like this are so detached from reality, they don't understand that peace and prosperity comes from strength, not from weakness. When you don't have military strength you invite conflict, since everyone else now sees you as an easy target and wants your slice of the global GDP.
The world leadership is composed of competitors and bullies fighting for dominance of land and resources, not of nice guys who bend over to your demands just because you're nice and peaceful. If you don't have any leverage, you get run over and colonized. It's wild this hasn't sunk in yet, especially given Europe's colonial past.
>If you're going to blame someone, blame the Great Powers
Ah yes, it's always everyone else's fault that the EU kicked its military, IT, energy, economy, manufacturing industry (and now farming too) in the balls for the past 20-30 years, allowing the US, China and Russia the opportunity to exploit this self inflicted weakness for their own benefits.
All countries are economic competitors to each other. Every fuckup you make is an opportunity for the rest to enrich themselves from your stupidity. They aren't obliged to save you from your mistakes when they can profit from it. It's how Europe got rich in the first place during colonialism.
>who have suddendly gone ballistic and can only talk of war, War, WAR, and nothing else.
Doesn't matter what other sovereign countries choose to do on the global stage, they're not accountable to you. But it's your job to have a strong military to deter others from having chimp-outs with you or in your backyard. Unless you live in a fairytale, you would know that world peace was never the default state in human history, but only a temporary state created by wielding orders of magnitude more force than everyone else who will then have to follow your rules and ideologies creating a state of compliance which you interpreted as peace. You should prepare for the worst even, or especially in times of peace, as other countries won't keep world peace for you or in your favor, but will try to free themselves from compliance to your game and try to enforce their own rules that benefit them. It's the EU's fault it slept at the wheel in terms of defence and lets itself get bullied around.
>Oh, sorry, President Trump is all about trade... tariffs.
For all Trump's problems, the US still got TSMC to build a cutting edge fab there, they're getting south Korea to build new ships there, and attract cutting edge tech companies like Infinera to close shop in EU and move everything to the US. What did EU get from being nice and generous with others? Other than illegal welfare scammers.
>don't blame the EU for trying to be sane.
I CAN blame the EU since that's where my taxes go so they're accountable to me. Being weak and powerless is not being sane. There's no virtue in letting everyone walk over you and exploit you. "Turn the other cheek" does not work in competitive international politics. Your weakness and complacency will always be used against you. I know what I wrote above isn't popular to hear but it's how the world works. Ignoring it doesn't help anyone.
Another one is that war doesn't work anymore and if we keep at it, we'll just mess everything up to a point of no return.
Is removing the dependence on US tech easy for the EU? No, it's tough and takes a lot of work and time. It's still a piece of cake compared to the dependence on Chinese manufacturing. They're incomparable.
Massive endeavor for a lot of setups.
Not depending on Chinese manufacturing is borderline impossible even if you are starting from scratch. Not only it will be way more expensive, with potentially longer delays and lesser capacities, but just finding some company that can and wants to do the job can be a nightmare. From what I have seen, many local manufacturers in the US and Europe are really there to fulfill government contracts that requires local production.
Most hardware kickstarter-like projects rely on Chinese manufacturing as if it was obvious. It is not "find a manufacturer", it is "go to China". Projects that instead rely on local (US/Europe) manufacturing in order to make a political statement have to to though a lot of trouble, and the result is often an overpriced product that may still have some parts made in China.
A large corporation just migrating from everything hosted on VMs can take years.
And if you are responsible for an ETL implementation and working with AWS and have your files stored on S3 (every provider big and small has S3 compatible storage) and your data is hosted on Aurora Postgres, are you going to spend time creating a complicated ETL process or are you going to just schedule a cron job to run “select outfile into S3”?
And “most” of the services on AWS aren’t based on open source software and you still have to provision your resources using IAC and your architecture. No Terraform doesn’t give you “cloud agnosticism” any more than using Python when using AWS services.
Are you going to tell your developers to spend weeks writing ETL code that could literally be done in an hour using SQL extensions to AWS?
Are you going to tell them not to use any AWS native services? What are you going to do about your infrastructure as code? Are you going to tell them to set up a VM to host a simple cron job instead of just using a Lambda + Event Bridge?
And what business value does this theoretical “cloud agnosticism” bring - that never is once you get to scale.
It took Amazon years to move off of Oracle and much of its infrastructure still doesn’t run on AWS and still uses its older infrastructure (CDO? It’s been a while and I was on the AWS side)
I have yet to hear anyone who worries about cloud agnosticism even think about the complexity of migrations bring at scale, the risk of regressions, etc.
While I personally stay the hell away from lift and shifts and I come in at the “modernization” phase, it’s because I know the complexity and drudgery of it. I worked at AWS ProServe for 3.5 years and I now work as a staff consultant at a 3rd party consulting company.
This isn’t me rah rahing about AWS. I would say the same about GCP, Azure, the choice of database you use, or any other infrastructure decision.
>And what business value does this theoretical “cloud agnosticism” bring - that never is once you get to scale.
The "business value" here is not being beholden to an increasingly hostile "ally" who owns the land these servers operate on. If you aren't worried about that, then there is no point in doing any of this.
But if things do escalate to war, there's a very obvious attack vector to cripple your company with. Even if you're only 20% into the migration, that's better than 0%.
I of course don't know the scale of your company and how much they even wanted to migrate. Those are all variable in this.
How often has been replacing Chinese tech manufacturing dependency at scale done before? About 0.
As long as mobile os and adjacent services like the store etc are controlled there is no true path to digital independence especially in a highly digitalized region like the EU.
One example is if EU allows the Android developer verification to pass this year in its current or even in more relaxed form, that just means EU is still open for some hard lessons in the future.
While a massive endeavor, it's absolutely doable to create the EU's own OS and store. It's not doable to create the manufacturing capacity needed to produce all the hardware that goes into smartphones at scale.
China itself ironically serves as a great example - they have their own Android store, mostly run on Chinese phones, some on non-Android OS. Yet they still haven't been able to get rid of the dependency on TSMC/ASML. They're working on it and will get there, but it's taking many years longer than the software part. And not for lack of trying. The fact that they're still tolerating iOS doesn't disprove the existence of the former ecosystem. iOS is said to have maybe 20% market share in China.
I find this highly optimistic. It will take years, maybe decades for EU to replace US clouds and tech. And if they're going to do it with LLMs, then it will take billions of euros in devs and tokens (again, all going to US tech companies).
Meanwhile, USA continues to strategically re-home TSMC to Arizona whilst simultaneously make huge investments to invigorate Intel and Micron.
Over the last decade USA and China have doubled-down on massive investments to out-compete each other while the EU seems like it's struggling to understand where to even begin.
Oh don't worry, Trump's already kneecapped both of those for a decade to come from 2025's actions alone. Y'all got time to catch up.
China, much scarier. But we all kinda let that happen over 30 years. Too late to complain now. I'd say we work together but uhh... I think we both understand (or rather, fail to understand) modern US policy these days.
But what’s funny is that Claude Code is from US company so can’t be used in a boycott scenario
As a compute engine its SQL capabilities are worse than the slowest pretend timeseries db like Elasticsearch.
As far as S3, are you trying to ingest a lot of small files or one large file? Again Redshift is optimized for bulk imports.
Clickhouse, even chdb inmemory magic has better S3 consumer than Redshift. It sucks up those Kinesis files like nothing.
Its a mess.
Not to mention none of its Column optimizations work and the data footprint of gapless timestamp columns is not basically 0 as it is in any serious OLAP but it is massive, so the way to improve performance is to Just align everything on the same timeline so its computation engine does not beed to figure out how to join stuff that is Actually time Aligned
I really can’t figure out how anyone can do seriously big computations with Redshift. Maybe people like waiting hours for their SQL to execute and think software is just that slow.
https://docs.aws.amazon.com/athena/latest/ug/ctas.html
I have a sneaking suspicion that you are trying to use Redshift as a traditional OLTP database. Are you also normalizing your table like an OLTP database instead of like an OLAP
https://fiveonefour.com/blog/OLAP-on-Tap-The-Art-of-Letting-...
And if you are using any OLAP database for OLTP, you’re doing it wrong. It’s also a simple “process” to move data back and forth between Aurora MySQL or Postgres by federating your OlTP database with Athena (handwavy because I haven’t done it) or the way I have done it is use one Select statement to export to S3 and another to export into your OLTP database.
And before you say you shouldn’t have to do this, you have always needed some process to take data from your normalized data to un normalized form for reporting and analytics.
Source: doing boring enterprise stuff including databases since 1996 and been working for 8 years with AWS services outside AWS (startups and consulting companies) and inside AWS (Professional Services no longer there)
Why are you doing this manually? There is a built in way of doing Kinesis Data Streams to Redshift
https://docs.aws.amazon.com/streams/latest/dev/using-other-s...
Also by default, while you can through Glue Catalog have S3 directly as a destination for Redshift, by default it definitely doesn’t use S3.
There is no need for Athena, Redshift ingestion is a simple query that reads from S3. I dont want to copy 10TB of data just to have it in 1 file. And yes, default storage is a bit better than S3 but for an OLAP database there seems to be no proper column compression and data footprint is too big resulting in slow reads if one is not careful.
I mentioned clickhouse, data is obviously not OLTP schemed.
I don’t have normalized data. As I mentioned, Clickhouse consumer goes through 10TB of blobs and ends up having 15GB of postprocessed data in like 5-10 minutes, slowest part is downloading from S3.
I am not willing to pay 10k+ a month for something that absolutely sucks compared to a proper OLAP db.
Redshift is just made for some very specific, bloated, throw as much software pipelines as you can, pay as much money as you can, workflows that I just don’t find valuable. Its compute engine and data repr is just laughably slow, yeah, it can be as fast as you want by throwing parallel units but it’s a complete waste of money.
I think these systems are optimized for something else, probably organizational scale, predictable low value workloads, large teams that just throw their shit at it and it works on a daily basis, and of course, it costs a lot.
My experience after renting a $1k EC2 instance and slurping all of S3 onto it in a few hours, and Redshift being unable to do the same, made me not consider these systems reliable for anything other than ritualistic performative low value work.
I need fast consumers, I need good materialized views.
I am not treating anything like OLTP databases, my opinion on OLTP is even harsher. They can’t even handle the data from S3 without insane amounts of work.
I do not even think in terms of OLTP OLAP or whatever. I am thinking in terms of what queries over what data I want to do and how to do it with the feature set available.
If necessary, I will align all postgresql tables on a timeline of discrete timestamps instead of storing things as intervals, to allow faster sequential processing.
I am saying that these systems as a whole are incapable of many things Ive tried them to do. I have managed to use other systems and did many more valuable things because they are actually capable.
It is laughable that the task of loading data from S3 into whatever schema you want is better done by tech outside of the aws universe.
I can paste this whole conversation into an LLM unprompted and I don’t really see anything I am missing.
The only part I am surely missing are nontechnical considerations, which I do not care about at all outside of business context.
I know things are nuanced and there’s companies with PBs of data doing something with Redshift, but people do random stuff with Oracle as well.
Did you research how you should structure your tables fir optimum performance for OLAP databases? Did you research the pros and cons of using a column based storage engine like Redshift to a standard row based storage engine in an traditional RDMS? Not to mention depending on your use case you might need ElssticSearch.
This if completely a you problem for not doing your research and using the worse possible tool for your use case. Seriously, reach out to an SA at AWS and they can give you some free advice, you are literally doing everything wrong.
That sounds harsh. But it’s true.
I can change sort order, same as in Redshift with its sort keys, to improve compression and compute. Redshift does not really exploit this sort-key config as much as it could.
My own assessment is that I'm extremely skilled at making any kind of DB system yield to my will and get it to its limits.
I have never used Redshift, Clickhouse or Snowflake with 1 by 1 inserts. I have mentioned S3 consumers (a library or a service, optimized to work well with autoscaling done by S3, respecting SlowDown -- something Redshift itself is incapable of respecting -- and achieving enormous download rates -- some of the consumers I've used completely saturate the 200Gbps limits of some EC2 machines at AWS). These consumers cannot be used in a 1-by-1 setting, the whole point is to have an insanely fast pipelining system with batched processing, interleaving network downloads with CPU compute, so that in the end, any kind of data repackaging and compression is negligible compared to download, so you can just predict how long the system will take to ingest by knowing what your peak download speed is, because the actual compute is fully optimized and pipelined.
Now, it might just be Redshift has bugs and I should report them, but I did not have the experience of AWS reacting quickly to any of the reports I've made.
I disagree, it's not a me problem. I am a bit surprised after all I've written that you're still implying I want OLTP, am using the wrong tool for the job. There are just some tools I would never pick, because they just don't work as advertised, Redshift is one of them. There are much better in-memory compute engines that work directly with S3, and you can create any kind of trash low-value pipelines with them, if you reach mem limits of your compute system, there are much better compute engine + storage combos than Redshift. My belief is that Redshift is purely a nontechnical choice.
Now, to steelman you, if you're saying:
* data warehouse as managed service,
* cost efficiency via guardrails,
* scale by policy, not by expertise,
* optimize for nontechnical teams,
* hide the machinery,
* use AWS-native bloated, slow or expensive glue (Glue, Athena, Kinesis, DMS),
* predictable monthly bill,
* preventing S3 abuse,
* preventing runaway parallelism,
* avoiding noisy-neighbor incidents (either by protecting me or protecting AWS infra),
* intentionally constrained to satisfy all of the above,
then yes, I agree, I am definitely using the wrong tool but as I said, if the value proposition is nontechnical, I do not really care about that.
Yes an according to my assessment I’m also very good in bed and extremely handsome.
But there is an existence proof seeing that you are running into issues yet millions of people use AWS services and know how to use the right tool for the job
I’m not defending Redshift for your use case, I’m saying you didn’t do your research and you did absolutely everything wrong. From my cursory research of Clickhouse, I probably would have chosen that too for use case
Your assessment of me is flawed. You haven't really shown any kind of low-level expertise on how actually these systems work, you've just name dropped OLTP OLAP as if that means anything at all. What is Timescale (now TigerData), OLTPOLAPBLAPBLAP? If someone tells you to use Timescale, you have to figure out how to use it and make the system yield to your will. If system sucks, it yields harder, if system is well designed, it's absolutely beautiful. For example, I would never use Timescale as well, yet you can go on their page and see unicorns using it. I have no idea why, but let them have their fun. There's successful companies using Elasticsearch for IoT telemetry, so who am I to argue I wouldn't do that as well.
There's nothing wrong with using PostgreSQL for timeseries data, you just need to know how to use it. At some point, scaling wise, it will fail, but you're deciding on tradeoffs.
So yes, my assessments have a good track record, not only of myself, but of others as well. I am extremely open to any kind of precise criticism and have been wrong bazillion times and I take part in these kinds of passionate discussions on the internet because I am aware I can absolutely be convinced of the other side. Otherwise, I would have quit a long time ago.
If the government switched away from Microsft and refused to accept MS document formats for any legal reason - then things might shift.
Most businesses just don't care, they want they easy button.
A law firm does not want to screw around, they just click 'buy' on Word, Outlook, Teams.
There's a deep psychology to it.
I remember a developer telling me that Oracle 'was the only real database'.
It's not so much propaganda, just the propagandistic power of incumbency. People who only know one thing are hard pressed to believe there could be something else.
This is more than 50% brand, narrative etc.
We techies tend to underestimate the power of perception, even when it's of our own creation etc. i.e. people fighting over Linux and it's various distros.
but any companies which have their brand closely tied to the US image (e.g. Coca Cola) will most likely have bug issues
and if people have a choice between a product from a company they now is EU or better local and one where they don't know about it the choice will be influenced by it
and maybe we can finally take tear down some of the absurd misinformation companies and corruption originating from MS and similar. (E.g. systematic malicious misinformation often supplemented with non fair competition/subsidization and outright bribery (no joke, MS has (through middle mans) wide spread bribed public, research and school organizations in Germany, like actual bribes, not just things which should count as bribes but do not(1)))
(1): I knew some people which had been involved in it. But any case where legal actions where taken ended without relevant outcome because all the blame always feel to the sales middle man AFIK and supposedly MS didn't know. Also the bribes mostly ended up as additional founding for the research institute and only in small parts in personal pockets from what I have heard. At the same time politics have caused so massive issues due to incompetently made laws and regulations for many public organizations that accepting this bribes and using them as additional founds often looked as a necessary evil... :sob: (yes I know there are not emotes on HN)
I for one seriously doubt they assume such a thing. They are most likely given something in return that they think somehow makes such a trade worth it. Whether it's access to some fancy US intel/survelliance tech, "discounts" on US defense purchases or what have you, until you get transparency or clarity on the very specific items included in all these deals it's hard to determine the scale of their stupidity. It's either that or personal bribes, blackmail, and kickbacks to key EU politicians depending on the EU country in question.
If there was a "false assumption" above all others it was most likely the assumption that the post-WWII US foreign policy towards Europe would continue to the end of their lifetimes.
Assuming the person burns the money they would've spent on Cola in the first place. But they aren't, they'll probably just redirect that money to an alternative soft drink, probably a more local one.
Virtually one will stop buying Coke. Virtually no one will stop wanting an iPhone. So on and so forth. They will gladly criticize the US while continuing to indulge in the biggest brand names.
Today, yes. Once US troops start forcefully occupying European territory, eh...
Jim Beam (the bourbon distillery) said before Trump 10% of their sales were to Canada, and that has gone to nearly zero.
or by most people agreeing Cola isn't healthy, so it's becomes a Luxus product they just sometimes drink and then going for a slightly more "interesting" alternative brand which fit's more the "fancy treat" vibe is pretty common (we already have been seeing this in part of Germany, where it's not rare that restaurants serve Fritz or Afro Cola over Coca Cola as the Brands "seem" more fancy while Coca Cola feels more like the cheaper non fancy choice. By being relative cheap Coca Cola might have opened created the perfect basis for it being replaced in the "fancy" context. And by it not being cheap enough it get replaced in the "people with no money" context. This leads the "in between" context (which would still be a majority in Germany) and all the US food chains etc. but only if the people don't have a personal reason to switch. Most people in Germany drink Cola only from time to time.
many alternative Colas don't try to imitate Coca Cola but give Cola their own twist, and IMHO multiple of them taste noticeable better then Coca Cola
and for people with little money getting cheaper knock-off is pretty common and people get used to it
at the same time Coca Colas brand isn't seen as "fancy"/"high quality"/"well regarded" enough anymore. So many restaurants for which cola isn't just a "default fallback they don't care about" but a drink commonly combined with their meals, started serving other Cola brand like e.g. Fritz Cola, Mio Mio Cola or Afri Cola. Also some of the more beer/alk. focused companies have started to branch out to soft drinks as Alkohole consume is going down with some surprise successes (e.g. Paulana Spezi) but also with existing distribution contracts with Restaurants and Food Chains, so their stuff is popping up increasingly more often.
And I mean we are still speaking about the kind of soft drink with the most dominant brand control (Cola/Coca Cola), for all other soft drinks the US companies have a far less strong hold on them.
And sure some pople like I guess you will insist on drinking Coca Cola.
But also if the US continues to paint themself as the new big evil (while Russia looks increasingly weak, and China is clever enough to move mostly behind the scene) then it's just a matter of time until people will start ostracizing people for buying (unnecessary) products which are "well known US" and haven't somehow separated their company image from the US. Like seriously how did the US became so incompetent in politics that you find people all over the EU which think joining with China against the US would be a good idea and long term better for their quality of live... like wtf.
The main drawback of them is that due to them operating on a (way) smaller scale and need to have a factor to differentiate themself, so most of them are more expensive. (but there are cheap no-brand clones, too).
A much bigger problem is that Nestle and co. try to either buy up any new innovative successful German food/drink companies. Sure after being bought up they tend to continue operate like before so technically they aren't dependent on the US, but they have been bought up anyway.
well I guess that is good news?? maybe?
Or, now that someone's reverse-engineered the Coca-Cola formula and everyone's saying we need to stop pandering to USA IP rights, governments have the opportunity to do the funniest thing ever. I think Russia already did.
In the niche perfumes hobby, you have small brands doing that or people paying for gcms analysis on perfumes, i guess that companies have already done that on coke for decades
Their real genius was always marketing, associating sugar water with freedom, free time, summer AND christmas, ... Not to look down on them, good marketing is both very hard and very powerfull.