px1999

The irony in paying cash instead of using your card is that you're likely training their model to be more likely to flag transactions as fraudulent.

This sort of stuff is why explainable AI is IMO important. Assuming the CSR could see _why_ the original domain was flagged by the model as fraud, they could respond in a meaningful way, other than just requiring the OP to go and find someone with more authority than the machine to override the decision.

Unfortunately in these types of situations, getting a satisfying explanation of why something happened is incredibly rare - my understanding is that it's usually at best an educated guess.

Why do you use RIs and not sign orgs up for savings plans?

I know RIs are still supported though I'd heard they're intended to be deprecated by SPs (my source could be wrong)

Oops, I need to learn to read more closely -- the RIs are no upfront so it's a slightly less good deal.

I'd assume they have volume discounts or negotiated rates with Amazon that bring that point forward.

There's an entire sub industry of billing partners who are profitable enough just offering eg 8% off retail prices.

In my experience Amazon can be difficult to negotiate with directly if you're not willing to commit to YoY spend growth. It's easier to deal with billing partners.

Why orgs wouldn't go to Amazon directly via retail is the 3 year commitment that comes with RIs.

20% over the discounts is a bit steep imo but I'm sure there's a market for RIs as a service (particularly if the RI pricing they charge is the 100% upfront covered by their own internal funds)

https://vimeo.com/488141017 there's a Gotham demo at around 43 minutes (which is probably the most interesting looking product they have)

This is unfortunate because a couple of attempts get _so close_.

You've got public docker repositories, terraform, aws service catalog (or cloudformation), all of which could fill this gap directly or via their own services if they had a slightly more beginner-accessible workflow...

This is a widespread problem. A close friend went through a similar experience collaborating at another supposedly reputable Canadian university.

He reported the academic dishonesty (copies of figures from another paper presented as new experimental results), and the university went to great lengths to keep the whole thing quiet.

5 years later, the lead researcher who faked the results still works at the university, the paper has not been retracted, and my friend left what became a pretty hostile lab (and AFAIK is still under NDA)

At that point, what is left aside from trying to publicly remove your own name from a paper you know is fraudulent?

You can be threatened or sued for pretty much anything - if they care, are bought by someone who cares (ie Disney) or in the future start caring then you might be sued. Whether it goes anywhere or whether you win is a different matter.

Trademarks are based on a class of product or thing however (see eg the goods and services listing on https://trademarks.justia.com/875/27/iron-87527652.html - one of a bunch of iron man trademarks), so if there's no confusion/it's not a category that they have trademarked, then your odds are better.

There are plenty of service limits which you need to request to have lifted. This is a common enough use case that there's an entire console section for requesting increases.

SES has a sandbox mode which you need to explicitly disable.

Metering works perfectly fine for the free tier across a gamut of the most popular products.

Beyond this, the platform captures the necessary information in near enough to realtime to provide an accurate picture of spend.

Yet with all of these capabilities, there is no coherent way to constrain identities or accounts to a certain $ spend on even predictable services.

This has been the case for so long that it must clearly be by design. AWS has the guard rails available but only really wants to use them to stop things that would cause them pain (eg SES, bucket limits).

They totally should and could have the ability to manually _reduce_ service limits.

They totally should and could direct users to a way to restrict regions and services users can use without needing to set things up through IAM.

They could and should have service specific guardrails where they make sense - eg for ec2 provide a sandbox where they limit eg instance types, base hourly spend, use of cpu credits. If they wanted to get crazy they could provide per-service actions to take when thresholds are exceeded (though this might be a bit niche).

They could have a _simple_ billing alarm interface (and enable it by default during provisioning) and they could eat the cost of sending smses or emails when those thresholds are met.

Yet they choose to do none of those things, even when they provide defaults for convenience (eg encryption keys)

While my org has a somewhat nuanced understanding of aws and can set things up to provide this certainty both on our/our clients' environments and to our developers, I have a team of people whose literal job it is to do stuff with AWS, we have had training, certs and other access that beginners do not and cannot have.

IMO it doesnt need to be a tap that people can turn off at $500 a month or whatever, it just needs to be a bit more of a "if you select these default options on these basic services, there's no way that you'll acrue 10k in charges overnight"

The fourth stage doesn't even involve owning your own infrastructure.

We pay a 3rd party for our AWS (and Azure) usage to get better rates than AWS would give us (and without a commitment to increased spend like AWS reps have tried to push for Amazon's available programs).

I wouldn't be surprised if they just used volume discounts / negotiated pricing and reservations at their end to make it massively profitable for them.

That's certainly one way to get the expertise that they need in house to remain competitive (and to ensure their own supply) - certainly if rumors about their current capabilities being less than stellar are correct.

It'll be an interesting move if it comes through to fruition. TBH this would ironically probably be a good thing for Taiwan and may be a good thing for TSMC.

It is somewhat amusing that they're picking up AMD's scraps.

Looks like they bought and sold the safemoon defi token (bought really low, sold [comparatively] high)

I'd personally be in favor of some sort of travel bubble within the pacific with other countries who share our low/zero local transmission (or at least to have a more lightweight quarantine process involved).

That said, my point was that opening NZ up to Australia (and vice versa) is a very different scenario to opening up to eg the US, France or the UK.

FWIW, Australia had 23 local cases in the last month (an outbreak which resulted in a major city going into a snap lockdown).

Australia and NZ's risk profiles are different from pretty much anywhere else in the world right now. On that level, it's not a particularly reckless move.

That said, I understand the hesitation that a lot of people, particularly from NZ have. Our positions (both NZ and Australia's) have been hard earned, and one major slip up could make it all count for nothing.

Never seeing A is IMO a bit of a red flag.

A+C is probably the most common where I'm at (enterprise SaaS), though its usually with management's knowledge/understanding. We wind up rushing something out to meet the client's direct need to hit their deadline, then figure out generalisation afterwards (which admittedly does drag out and has its own issues).

As a genuine question, is this approach abnormal or bad?

I'm on the technical management side of the whole thing - am I screwing my staff by encouraging this?

We want to shorten that generalisation process but that (internal) pressure to just close it out seems like the lesser of two evils when compared to the sorts of pressure that clients paying significant $$$ apply

You convince them in the same way you'd convince them of anything they're unsure of or against.

Give them a reason that they care enough about and make it painless enough and they may follow. Listen to their concerns and try to find ways to address them or to find workable compromises. Remember that you are placing an additional imposition on them. Asking them to switch services for you is asking them a favour. Each person (or social group) has their own motivations, perspective and other attributes which means that the tactic to win over each person (/group) should be different.

I'd caution against a hardline stance, I've lost friends (acquaintances?) who went down that path to what I'd consider a paranoid extent (going sms or email or "obscure" services only). It just became too hard to keep them in the loop when organising eg group events, so they started to get excluded. Their behavior just didn't make sense considering their (presumably low) threat profile, and they'd made the barriers to contact too high in comparison to the social value they brought.

In my case, these people were socially inept (selfish?) and felt that how we communicated was solely their choice, which is kind of true in a way, but the other person has the choice of whether they continue to try to engage.

I'm not saying that you need to entirely embrace these services as a necessary evil, but it's not a binary choice either. You can be easier to reach on the services that you want to use, and only rarely catch up on whatsapp from a sandbox machine. You can encourage people and help set them up on the services that you want to use. You can advocate for privacy awareness within the groups you're in. You can refuse to share more secret things like passwords on the less privacy-aware networks. All of these things will contribute to avoiding less privacy-oriented services.

It's a transition, and a social process.

As an interviewer and decision maker around hiring engineers, there is zero legitimate reason to make the candidate feel like an idiot for not knowing something. It's easy enough to clarify what they're saying, and if there's a miss to just say "ok cool" and to ask the next question.

Do your users consent to contact before you send them reminders or coupons? If not, you've earned your bounce rate.

It's about priorities. I wouldn't necessarily make all the same choices I made in the past or recommend it. I've sacrificed some health, aged more than I would've otherwise, missed out on social events, lost relationships and damaged others in the name of professional proficiency. I just put that first and didn't let anything else get in the way.

A far better way to achieve the same thing is to lead others (making 5 people 25% more productive is much much easier than doubling your efficiency), though that's less of a personal productivity hack.

Bit annoying if your uploads get killed for going over 5 min though.

Maybe it could show "Canada - Wikipedia" like the page authors intended as a title. Maybe if the page authors want to have links between languages, they could code that in a standard markup language themselves.

These aren't decisions for a useragent to make, and there aren't enough browsers out there that people have a reasonable choice.

Bastardising the url isn't a solution to anything, it's a step towards something that Google, not users, want (in making AMP "trivial").

This may be true while searching for product market fit, but once you hit a certain (small but stable) size, your ability to identify what your existing and future customers currently want, and will in the near to mid future want goes up.

There's a difference between future proofing to be able to deliver a roadmap or using your market research to get the next X customers and trying to guess at what some as yet unknown market might one day want.

What community though? There are three groups that use the site - employers, employees who want to vent and job seekers.

The first are captive, the second only allowed to post once per year, and the third is ideally a very temporary situation.

It's hardly comparable to a social network, or even other review sites (which can cater for enthusiasts)

Everything about Glassdoor is a bit bizarre to me.

I'm really surprised that it took 800 people and $200m to build.

I'm even more amazed that someone's willing to part with $1.2B for what is effectively a digital BBB clone with less reliable reviews...

Particularly in what seems like a bad time to be buying anything consumer facing with a major European presence W/ GDPR around the corner. It looks like they paid a premium though.

I wonder if their monetization strategy will follow the same path, squeeze companies for cash (likely to remove reviews)?

They'll probably fight that as much as they can, because it's not in _their_ best interests. Raw data will likely make what happened appear easy to stop, particularly if they were capturing LIDAR at the time and (assuming no negligence), at best will make Uber look incompetent.

People won't accept the nature of how image recognition tends to fail - ie seemingly randomly and catastrophically. Assuming a driver-less future, we'll definitely see more of these random tragedies.

I'm an Australian who lived in Canada for a while. Banking was one of the huge surprises there - I'd get paid with cheques, and to move large sums of money between accounts with different institutions quickly needed to go to a branch, get a cashier's cheque and physically walk it down to the other bank. They'd call the first bank and confirm that it was actually issued in order to speed up processing (even then it wasn't instant).

It was all a bit bizarre, considering how much time both banks needed to spend on a routine transaction...

It's a shame that people don't see glassdoor for what it probably is - just another shakedown racket (like yelp, tripadvisor, BBB etc).

The biggest single problem is that businesses accept data as identity, but then are allowed place the consequences of that (improperly confirmed) identity on individuals. Currently they get the best of both worlds (all of the benefits of trusting random strangers with almost none of the consequences). This gives them no incentive to properly verify their customers are who they say that they are.

The "rework" to the system would be minimal if the impact of identity theft was a business' responsibility to handle. Businesses would reshape their processes based on the risk that they'd be willing to accept. Instead, we have a system that's broken, where individuals are punished for companies' (deliberate) incompetence.

This is just an ad for workiva, right?

How would you be able to tell what the balance on the stick is without power?

How would you be able to calculate the current value in fiat, if you had power but no internet?

For that matter, how could you verify that someone hadn't transferred the balance in a transaction that didn't exist in your (now offline) ledger (if they had internet and you didn't)?

At some point, if you're being practical rather than ideological, isnt cash the clear winner in these situations? YMMV if your currency isn't as stable as USD though