mikeyla85

It was 6 months. Three of them was really my bad. The other three...well, some shit was going down.

Yep, which is what makes "creates a copy" in this warning seem like "copy and delete". Because just creating a copy and not deleting the original is nothing at all like editing storage class.

I was an evangelist for the company. I posted regularly about how good of a solution S3 was for filmmakers and was offering to help friends back up their 10-20 terabytes to the cloud. Not anymore.

Damn, that's insane.

Would it be so hard for them to redesign AWS to tell you what something's going to cost before you do it?

Not really in S3...

It seems that some "move" operations are "copy" operations, which is the context in which I understood this warning:

https://forums.aws.amazon.com/thread.jspa?messageID=455101#j...

OP here. Thanks to some of the helpful comments, it seems that the creation of a copy when I chose "Edit storage class" may have been the culprit.

I didn't suspect that because in all my correspondence with Amazon, they always said the issue was incomplete multipart uploads.

So I assumed, based on the dialog box called "Edit storage class", that the net result of this action would be the same files but with a different storage class. This led me to read the warning as "We will create a copy of your objects and delete the old one, so please be aware you will be charged for the cost of the copy" rather than "We will create a copy of your objects and two versions of them will exist forever."

So it does seem like Amazon tried to warn people. But why on earth would a dialog box labeled "Edit storage class" not do anything of the sort? Are there actual legitimate reasons someone would want to have two versions of their objects sitting around?

Say what you will about my billing awareness (and you are saying it. Feeling the hate, all, thanks) but this is not good UX.

If there's any legitimate reason to duplicate objects in the name of changing the storage class, I'd love to hear it.

According to support, the issue was incomplete multipart uploads, not the creation of a copy, though. So I don't think that warning relates to the overcharge.

Ah that's interesting. In my support conversations with Amazon they never brought up copies of objects as a reason billing could be high, so I didn't look into it. They told me the issue was incomplete multipart uploads, so I just believed that.

My assumption when reading that message was that it would appear to update the storage class, but actually create a copy of objects with a different storage class and delete the old objects. It doesn't make sense that it would just duplicate my objects, and I still can't really imagine anyone wanting that. Why would a box called "Edit storage class" create a copy and then not destroy it? Why not make a dialog box that just...edited the storage class?

So maybe I had a previous version of all my files sitting in regular S3, with the current version sitting in Deep Glacier, and I may have just happened to delete previous versions of objects when I created the lifecycle rule.

To answer your question -- I don't think we're following any of the pillars of well architected frameworks. I'm a filmmaker who knows Javascript and PHP and not system architecture, and I was looking for a cheap way to not lose our movie to the ravages of time. I'm definitely not the only one.

OP here. It's a film company and a lot of those 100 people are artists and contractors. I put a lot of my own money into the company and took out a PPP loan to keep us afloat. So no, we didn't have the money to hire cloud support.

It claims that the operation will make a copy instead of transition the objects, which as far as I understood it would have then deleted the original objects and accomplished something relatively similar but with an extra copy step.

As far as I understand it, the operation creates a copy and deletes the original, which should succeed in reducing costs. What it doesn't do is delete incomplete multipart uploads and it may not operate recursively.

OP here. The warning doesn't actually have to do with what resulted in the additional charge, unless I'm missing something big.

After 8 months and many messages, they didn't waive a single dollar.

Creating a copy was not what resulted in the extra charge. It's a warning about a completely different thing.

It says that it will make a copy of the object. However, that was not what caused the charges.

The charges were caused because (a) selecting all does not select incomplete multipart uploads, which are hidden in the interface, and (b) I believe the operation is not recursive.

If it created a copy of the object as described, the charges would go away.

Awesome, thank you, I appreciate it very much!

You encouraged me to create a Medium account :)

How's this? https://mikemorgenstern.medium.com/awss-faulty-ux-cost-our-b...

A picture is worth, like, 100 words

Whoo! Medal is great!

afaik that's not how it works in the 2006 Pasaat, you have to actually shut the mirror door or it stays on, even if the car is off. The service rep said this was fixed in later models.

The last time I used them was earlier this year, around February. I opened the visor before and after the trip (but not slid out the visor lights), to put a garage clicker on it. The light was definitely not open.

Can't respond to your first point as I don't really know, but I've only used those lights about three times in the lifetime of the car, so wear and tear is a hard thing to state. Proving anything is anyone's fault is an issue whenever insurance is involved, and generally comes down to trusting someone's word.

I definitely would take the car to another shop to get fixed, and the FlightCar rep knew this. The disagreement was not over price, it was over whether they'd cover repair at all.

Agreed, the car's radiator was definitely not happy. FlightCar's policies are that they don't check or guarantee the condition of cars, which is a bit ridiculous. Kind of like AirBnb but for a hunk of metal that can go 100mph.

For reference, it's a 10-year-old Pasaat with 65k miles on it. I expect big repairs every once in a while, but some of this was actual damage.

It was the thermostat and radiator, and I wasn't expecting / never asked for compensation for that. But the shop they took it to was going to charge $200 more than I ended up paying because they wanted to do things in a way that didn't really make sense / was easier for FlightCar.

Looks like it'd cost you $650 for that, San Francisco retail price. Agreed.

For those asking, here's the breakdown of the costs:

Sun visor (x2): 238.78 + 78 service Coin drawer: 215.43 + 195 service New key: 272.60 Key programming: 97.50 Sales tax: 85

Total: 1499.19

Of course, this is an official VW dealer and this repair could probably be done more cheaply elsewhere, which I'd be happy to do. But the issue with FlightCar hasn't been about price, it's been about whether they are willing to cover these things at all.

Here's a post I wrote that encapuslates a lot of these responses: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-morgenstern/ello-isnt-...