It looks like a reserved instance is 35% off sticker price? Add probably a discount and you'd be around 40% off.
1,298 karma · joined February 11, 2020
It looks like a reserved instance is 35% off sticker price? Add probably a discount and you'd be around 40% off.
You can peer two vpc's and as long as you are transferring within the same (real) AZ, it's free: https://aws.amazon.com/about-aws/whats-new/2021/05/amazon-vp...
Even peered VPC's only pay "normal" prices: https://aws.amazon.com/ec2/pricing/on-demand/#Data_Transfer
"Data transferred "in" to and "out" from Amazon EC2, Amazon RDS, Amazon Redshift, Amazon DynamoDB Accelerator (DAX), and Amazon ElastiCache instances, Elastic Network Interfaces or VPC Peering connections across Availability Zones in the same AWS Region is charged at $0.01/GB in each direction."
It allows you to wrap it all in a transaction. If you separate a database update and insertion into a queue, whichever happens second may fail, while the first succeeds.
Same with the super market. It's _very_ reasonable to download an ad for one store. Even for multiples.
My argument is "It would likely only download what you look at and now the store knows what you looked.", IS one way to do it, but it does not have to be the way that it's done. If your argument is that you need 100% perfect privacy, and therefore need to download all the data in the world all the time, then that doesn't seem realistic.
Too low == bad query plan. Oddly, too high == bad query plan.
You already are giving "someone" that information when you look up a bus schedule on the web. But, downloading a bus schedule for an entire state doesn't seem unreasonable, and only locates you down to a state.
I don't think the supermarket needs to know where your eyes wandered. An app can have information in it about all the products in the store and handle it on-device. There's no need to transmit real-time eye tracking to the store just for this purpose.
I'm sure that stores would _love_ this information, but it's not needed for the experiences mentioned. I don't think you'd need any more information than you'd already provide by searching the web.
Also, though I don't necessarily think Apple is altruistic in everything, if I'm guessing today, I think Apple would go a similar direction to iCloud Private Relay, and Meta would go the direction that you're worried about.
It's meant to do exactly what you want. I've had mixed results.
> Ultimately we would like to formalize this schema and a protocol to extract or expose it from apps. This which would allow Trogon to build TUIs for any CLI app, regardless of how it was built. If you are familiar with Swagger, think Swagger for CLIs.
It seems more likely that they would mandate age verification. This would be one way the government could support to do that. There's no reason PornHub couldn't support this, or other methods (or just one or the other). I think the law would say "a site has to verify the age of the user", not "everyone who wants to look at porn has to have age verification via a smart phone".
Some information: https://www.ul.com/sites/g/files/qbfpbp251/files/2021-08/mDL...
I've never tried it, but there's an implementation here: https://github.com/walt-id/waltid-identity/tree/main/waltid-...
From: https://walt.id
I don't think Apple did anything magical here, and from what I can tell there's no lock in. You could load your ID to any number of places for this verification, it's not just locked to Apple.
Keys and IDs in Wallet get expanded support. Users can use their ID in Wallet for apps requiring identity and age verification. To ensure a private and secure experience, only the necessary information required for the transaction will be provided to the app, and the user can review and consent to share it using Face ID or Touch ID.
Just as an example, one young man I spent a lot of time with had a family that wanted him to come home, but who wouldn't let him smoke weed in the house. I wouldn't have called him an addict by any stretch, but it was something he was unwilling to give up. He was a strong, able bodied guy that could have gotten a job. Despite all of this, he decided he'd rather live on the streets and do what he wants. (Could he have had severe mental problems and be making all of this up? Sure, but I don't believe that he did).
It's actually the biggest reason I stopped volunteering. Over the years that I volunteered, I noticed a steady shift from people who really need and/or want help to a large number of people like the young man I described. When helping out the homeless people you can't pick or choose or make judgements, so you treat everyone equally. But it became very hard to hand out things like sleeping bags to folks like that young man and then see people who really did have nothing unable to get one.
But, yes, in your example if you offer anyone a free million dollar house they will take it over living on the streets, but I don't think that's a very realistic comparison.
Also, to be clear, I'm just some dude. I don't have any realistic answers to fix the problem.
I encountered so many different types of folks. Some were people down on their luck that needed help. Some had mental problems that (I'm guessing) can never really be fixed. Some had addictions. Some simply enjoyed being homeless.
I think addressing the problem would need to address varying underlying causes. For instance, "just give them jobs" will work for some of these folks, but not for a lot of them.
I would literally have no idea if gmail went down from 1-2 am any day of the week. Hell. I wouldn't notice if it was down everyday from 1-2am.