halfteatree

True, it doesn’t protect you from DDOS. But how is it different from having 3 regular hosts?

Did you actually use all the cloud vendors before making this comment?

GCP lets you set a max instant count in Cloud Run. It’s in the first screen of setting up a service. It really doesn’t get much simpler than that.

Uh, it's not? Please don't spread misinformation.

> I don't want to be unreasonable, but Google used to at least generally support the idea of the open web.

This is a Machine Learning product, I don't think anyone at Google, at least as part of this team, is trying to "get you" or destroy the open web or something. This isn't even a case of Google using something non-standard -- WebComponents is part of the standard, you can even see it in Mozilla's MDN [0]. Firefox, Safari, Edge, et al simply haven't implemented it yet (or landed in stable). Is that somehow also Chrome's fault?

Filing a bug report is good, but ranting on HN about how this is a sign of Google trying to steal the open Internet is at best unnecessary, and absolutely unreasonable.

Coincidently, I'm working on an application that uses complicated SVG with CSS animations, and I've spent a ton of time optimizing it. I've never tested it outside of Chrome before today. To my surprise, while everything works fast in Chrome, in Safari it's bearable, but in FF it's simply too laggy to use. Now, I probably won't ever get to fix the performance issues in FF and Safari, simply because I don't have the time. Am I also out there trying to destroy the open web? Maybe I'm just bad, not evil.

[0]: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/Web_Components

As usual, this is a baseless conspiracy theory that doesn't even make sense.

"If we let them have what they want and do not intervene, they will just stop." -- England and France, a few years before WWII.

If you look at the list of homes listed, I wouldn't say they are above hotel price at all.

I mean, embedding data into html looks bad, but is it really worse than loading a script separately? This is basically the "bundling" on the HTML layer, i.e., what HTTP/2 should offer.

For a website like Airbnb, 1.9M for total asset size doesn't seem bad...

It is one layer above IPv6, but what difference does that make? It's an improvement over an existing protocol to solve real problems.

I don't think anyone can really know the OSI model. I know I frequently use HTTP as a Transport Layer protocol myself, so you got me there. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

> First AMP and now QUIC.

Um, pretty sure QUIC was in the pipeline a few years longer than AMP. Besides, it's literally a protocol in the network stack -- would you say IPv6 is an enemy of the web and underlying internet?

Please stop the needless fear mongering.

>a centralized server connected to the internet does all your application, storage and processing

You can have more than one server in your AWS account.

>someone who believes in things I don't agree on is either working on some hysterical dime or delusional

That went pretty well in venezuela.

Not believing in basic human rights isn't exactly what I would call a "humble" opinion. Words have meanings.

How is this charity? Isn't "the poorest among us have some basic level of livelihood" exactly justice, and exactly the job of a government?

Please don't use this kind of argument to turn HN into reddit.

Proof by analogy is fraud. You should know better.

If you really want to go down this path -- a broken clock is correct twice, as two discrete points in a continuous time space. The act of looking at the clock is analogous to sampling one discrete point in the time space. The possibility of sampling those two points at any given time is zero.

So no, a broken clock is not correct twice a day. Also, please stop proving anything with analogy.

The fact that something not like what the Internet is "supposed to be" can be working is exactly why the Internet is powerful.

> users are idiots

Please, for the last time, stop using this rhetoric. How would you like to be called an idiot? As a developer and a user, I'm deeply offended by this condescending attitude.

I really don't know what people like -- apparently opt-out is bad, so now we're using opt-in. Still, "opt-in" is bad because it's becoming a toilet? How do you expect _any_ platform to work? Self-host everything?

I'm not a citizen. I come here legally. I pay my taxes. I pay for my insurance. This is not the minority case by the way, all your H1b colleagues as well as F1/J1 students are like this. Should we still die because we're not American citizens?

I'm amazed sometimes the things people say here.

>Although I would prefer to concentrate on the 10s of millions of non-citizens and illegal aliens who receive tax payer funded health care.

I feel like I should remind you here that many non-citizens are actually tax-payers. Taxes are paid in many different ways, but let's forget about that here for a second and realize that many non-citizens actually come here legally to work.

A blanket statement like that really doesn't mean anything. Same arguments were given about dreamers using tax-payer money, without realizing many of them actually are tax-payers as well.

3 has been an issue for me recently. I was referred to ER for some chest discomfort, which, unfortunately, the school clinic I was studying at cannot do the blood tests to see if it's a blood clot. I was given scary words like "you could die from this if untreated".

For that reason, I visited ER twice that week, and was diagnosed with some mild stomach issue and stress. Every single test they ran gave negative result. It's a huge waste of time for me, and I feel very guilty for wasting ER resources (especially as an immigrant). There has got to be a better way.

Edit: I was very lucky to be covered under school-mandated health insurance, and I don't think you could live comfortably in the U.S. without having one.

>magically appearing artificial islands

>solid legal ground

one of those things has to be false.

Are you sure this is not a German thing? /s

But SQL injection isn't a thing unique to the web right? Like, SQL injection is totally a thing with c/c++ as well. Maybe focus on one problem at a time.

FreeBSD can be built with gcc, although it's built with clang by default: https://wiki.freebsd.org/BuildingFreeBSDWithClang

The patches to make it work for icc is simple enough that this is almost a non-issue: https://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arch/2003-Novemb... (albeit old)

How does Snowden have anything to do with a collaboration between Google and Hashicorp?

You say this is not tinfoilism, but the tinfoil in this one is strong.

Tinfoilism does not help anything.

This is a genuine collaboration effort by two of the players whose services many people are already using together, and they are making that experience better for their users.

The kind of dismissiveness and hyperbole in your comment is why we can't have nice things.

Note that we're not talking about the specific details about the licenses. We're talking about "companies setting a precedent".

> > This point is irrelevant even granting the assumption that it does. You're inspecting the wording of the patent grant and gauging whether it is theoretically effective in deterring patent litigation and thereby conferring some kind of benefit to users of the software is (correct?).

You are also talking about the irrelevant stuff here.

I have no doubt Apache is a better license. But what Facebook is doing is by no means something new.

But I indeed talked about your “fundamental rejection” here: as I explained in the first half of my comment, no special treatment is given for Facebook, at all.

The fact that they happen to be a “evil megacorp” should not change this at all.

You gave an impressively long comment, but here are my two cents:

There’s no precedent to set here. There’s already a license for BSD+PATENT, and it’s called Apache license. Is Apache setting a bad precedent as well?

Additionally, it’s not like companies licensing open source work under customized license is uncommon — tons of software do that, and Facebook is by no means the first. For example, OpenJDK customized GPL by adding a classpath exemption.

Why then, do you need to give Facebook special treatment, and make this look like a dangerous slippery slope? Oh yeah, because Facebook is a evil megacorp that’s “hostile to the open web”. How is this, as part of a discussion about the license, “completely and utterly pointless”?

This whole argument could be summarized into we want GPL, react’s license is not GPL (“In WP we take no exceptions to GPL compliance”). That’s it. Instead, you have to point to supposedly evil motives behind putting the PATENT file there, and yes, I’ll say it, using not-so-true arguments to spread FUD and perform a character assassination. It’s ridiculous.