justin101

I am curious about the legality of this. I guess I assumed that doing this type of thing would technically a DCMA type breech? So this makes me wonder if my assumption wrong? How does this work legally?

The serverless name is unhelpful. What these companies really mean by serverless is:

"your code that handles HTTP requests must be able to startup, run, and shutdown effectively instantly"

aka "serve your HTTP without bloated long running processes."

aka `cgi-bin` scripts.

GCP's max instance count is helpful to a certain extent, but this doesn't completely protect you unless from DDOS attacks. If you have 3 nodes that can all handle 1000 requests per second, and those requests are doing something expensive the max instance limit doesn't help you.

Although I guess if you have 3 nodes that can only handle 100 requests each the damage of a DDOS would be much more limited.

I enjoyed Google's GCP for quite a long time until they removed the ability to cap expenses with a budget limit. (It used to be that if you hit your budget limit you can make your site error out). Now everyone on GCP is one DDOS away from a nightmare cloud bill. I'd rather use a traditional server and be able to sleep at night. I moved all my sites and client sites off GCP.

The most annoying part is that Googles infrastructure for cloud computing is so much better than the others if you're willing to work within their ecosystem. Simple deployments, version management, rollbacks, etc... There is nothing quite like it. (Im not saying there aren't competitors, just that Google seems easiest to use)

Youtube has a sense of humor and hardcodes this video about "videos that have 301 views" to have 301 views.

I doubt that applies if they have a court order or request from the FBI to block certain domain names or links.

If you had a court order or "request for cooperation" from the FBI to block that domain name, would you do it?

Irrespective of this is right or wrong, the concern of the lawyers at google would not be "If Google _should_ be held accountable for the private activity of users", the concern of the lawyers will always be "what _could_ they be held accountable for."

I am as horrified as you probably are, but Google is quite possibly not allowed (by law) to share certain links. Even if technically allowed, their lawyers would likely not let them participate or facilitate sharing links to sites that would be deemed "facilitating illegal activity".

People are starting to learn why all their s*t should not be up in the cloud.

Not being from the US, this is probably a stupid question. But why can't people in the US sell willingly and freely sell things (legitimate or otherwise) to other willing buyers without government interference/participation?

I guess I used to think the US was the "land of the free" I guess I understood that people used this phrase in a literal way. Im wondering, when American's use the phrase "land of the free" perhaps I am misunderstanding, and it's really generally used in an ironic way?

Can someone please explain?

Where does one even go about finding 12Gb of pure latin text?

Yes, but no one can say that. Managers need to go off on project management, team management, and all sorts of other scenic hotel retreats to learn how to use JIRA better because of course the fault is JIRA and the underlings.

There are a number of reasons this could be that are not necessarily nefarious. It's odd to jump straight to "something evil is going on"

Tell me this, does Twitter have some kind of "play nice" code that slows down inbound clicks through to a site so it doesn't DDOS other sites? I can easily imagine a scenario where anti DDOS caode would allow small sites to pass through quickly, yet sites under heavy "click through" load are being slightly throttled.