Quota for what? In my experience the GCP service quotas are pretty sensible and if you’re running up against them you’re either dealing with unusual levels of traffic or (more often) you’re just using that service incorrectly.
Regardless, dropping all quotas to 0 effectively killed our GCP account.
Why would they intentionally lose money on your private commercial activity without even that?
According to who?
> no promises were made in writing
Most big businesses won't promise anything. That doesn't make their actions reasonable.
> Why would they intentionally lose money
You made this up.
Also if they were losing money on some feature, they could change the quota for just that feature.
Clearly I was not asking for random role play on how another HN user may answer a direct question.
From what I can see there is no possible way your opinions could have some extra weight, above and beyond the median HN user.
(And in either case, you still seem confused for trying to initially hide behind some weird pretense reply)
It's not an opinion-based claim. Maybe I missed something that would make me incorrect, but whether you made up details that make OP look bad is a factual matter. It's true or it isn't.
Also I said nothing about my opinion "outweighing" anyone else. Where did you get that from?
> hide behind some weird pretense
I'm sorry if it came off that way. I wasn't going for any weird pretense, and don't think most people would read the comment that way.
This sentence is literally an opinion.
Take your nonsense elsewhere, it’s totally derailling the thread.
I could disagree but it doesn't matter. I said a particular thing was not an opinion. You pointing at something else I said and calling it an opinion doesn't affect my claims at all.
What matters is my claim that you made up stuff about _drg9's situation. That claim is objectively true or false, not an opinion. And the evidence I see all says the claim is true.
> Take your nonsense elsewhere, it’s totally derailling the thread.
Derailing what? Nobody else has posted in this part of the comments in days.
I cant think of anyone who cares if you classify your own opinions differently. 100% of your comments still are.
If you mean just me in this conversation, some of my sentences are opinions and some aren't.
Github and (parts of) AWS will give you a small discount at 0.1% downtime, a bigger discount at 1% downtime, and AWS will refund the whole month for 5% downtime. But beyond that they don't care. If a particular customer gets no service at all then their entire $0 gets refunded and that's it.
Sure, I'm interested too.
> In my experience the GCP service quotas are pretty sensible and if you’re running up against them you’re either dealing with unusual levels of traffic or (more often) you’re just using that service incorrectly.
Well 0 is not sensible, and who cares if it's weird if they got detailed approval and they're paying for it.
I see a bunch of threads on reddit about startups accidentally going way over budget and then asking for credits back.
This doesn't at all mean the startups have bad intent, but things happen and Google doesn't want to deal with a huge collection issue.
If someone rolled up to your gas station and wanted to pump 10,000 gallons of gas but only pay you next month - would you allow it?
https://docs.cloud.google.com/apis/docs/capping-api-usage
Or you can do it programmatically.
https://docs.cloud.google.com/billing/docs/how-to/disable-bi...
[1] https://www.agwa.name/blog/post/accessing_your_customers_goo...
Having the customer grant permission to a single master service account is vulnerable to confused deputy attacks.
In any case, why should I have to pursue "other solutions" to something that's in their documentation?