sol_remmy

I say unlimited because concurrent reads were basically a non-issue for Snowflake. You could have as many users reading from the same table as you wanted.

Meanwhile "Redshift enforces a query concurrency limit of 15 on a cluster." http://blog.blazeclan.com/what-is-amazon-redshift-11-key-poi...

If I remember correctly, Redshift became more cost-effective over Snowflake the larger your compute got.

Snowflake would just run an EC2 instance in the background for compute, and the very largest EC2 instances were more expensive to run than a Redshift cluster of similar power.

Amazon Redshift has some architectural problems in an enterprise environment that Snowflake solves. Redshift does not scale up well - everything has to fit on one cluster and eventually you hit limits.

When a Redshift cluster gets too big: 1. Takes forever to take backups, create read-replicas, modify anything 2. Redshift clusters can still only handle X concurrent queries, no matter how big the cluster is 3. Also Redshift is dragging their feet on adding new features i.e. Active Directory support.

Snowflake clusters allow a theoretically unlimited amount of users to query the same tables in a database - so it scales up forever.

And each team can create their own "compute cluster" which allows teams to track and divide costs much more easily then trying to associate this-batch-user on Redshift with this-team/line-of-business.

Snowflake is well-designed for an enterprise environment where line-of-businesses need to share/access each others data but still have separate infrastructure. Redshift does not make it easy go between Redshift clusters.

Also Snowflake as a company is still hungry and is willing to add features if you pay enough

EDIT: However Snowflake is more expensive than Redshift

EDIT: Splitting data between two Redshift clusters was not efficient for us and trying to have the same table in multiple Redshift clusters requires you creating your own tooling and the data might not stay in sync so the only real option was keeping everything in one massive cluster

Most economics agree that cutting the corporate tax cut would have a good economic effect.

If you doubt that it does, realize that you are in the academic minority.

$15 is indefensible. Why is the answer "screw the poor"?

Why screw the middle class? Is paying 15$ every time you drive somewhere sustainable for you? If it is, then your not middle class - your rich

Sometimes new immigrants get tax breaks though

> I don't think my fellow Philadelphians should have to pay to bring a company here that's just going to hire people who are not currently residents, while increasing their expenses and utilizing the public services that their taxes have paid for, while receiving little to no tax revenue or services in return.

If you applied these views at the federal level than you'd be anti-immigration.

It amazes me how people can be so protectionist towards their local communities for the above reasons and have totally different views at the national level

Theres little-to-no traffic and land is cheap, public transit isn't needed.

The population density is probably higher on average in New Jersey than in metro Raleigh..

Mass transit is NOT needed. Flat land without rivers blocking flow of traffic is all thats needed

"a strong existing tech workforce and universities"

Hate to say it, but Northern Virginia and Raleigh have Toronto beat on this

If people are victimized then why does the money from the fine go to the government?

I would prefer receiving a $50 check in the mail from a class action lawsuit. All this does is add more money to gov't coffers

Our current financial system does require end-users like you and me to trust each other either.

It only requires us to trust the legal system

Mexico is really not that dysfunctional. Mexico is not even third world.

We just hear a disproportionate of news from Mexico because of how close it is.

> Also what visa allows immigrants to skip university enrolment and be directly employed in a small town small business?

The student visa allows one to be in the country for an indetermine amount of time (until their degree is done) and that person is free to obtain employment while enrolled in university

This is good news. At the moment, universities are the primary gatekeepers to becoming a citizen in the U.S. Right now universities are capturing nearly 100% of the "citizenship cost" that immigrants pay start their path to becoming citizens. That is disgusting and greedy.

With 100K in loans paid to the university, anyone can come to the U.S. on a student visa, make contacts with companies, and eventually become a U.S. citizen. A U.S. graduate degree serves as the primary "citizenship cost" for a lot of immigrants.

Instead of New England universities shaking down immigrants, I would like to see midwestern small towns, red states, small business all get a piece of the small fortune that immigrants spend to come to the United States.

> They even made costs rise when more people were insured because of ACA. In what world does that make sense?

I'm surprised you don't remember the reason because it was in the news 24/7. It's because insurance costs 10X for sick people (because they also draw 10X in insurance), those sick people could not afford their insurance, and the ACA gave those uninsured sick people deeply subsidized insurance, raising the average cost to insurance companies of each insured person

Maybe you should focus on not falling too far behind Finland, the Netherlands and Sweden first. I don't think I've ever heard of a Danish tech company. Even tiny Iceland has EVE Online.

Everything you look at was built by engineers, don't be so quickly to dismiss your own people

> Congrats! The world still needs plenty of professions where the pay sucks and college is required (teachers, civil engineers, LPNs), that are arguably far more useful/noble/whatever you want to call real value.

Shame on you for working in tech and not a more noble profession. I recommend that you resign from your job next week and become a high school math teacher.

(I got a job in tech because I feel it adds the most value to the world so I'm not a hypocrite)

> Doctors are part of a guild. They artificially limit the number of doctors available by capping the number of medical schools

>> They do not. You may be confusing the AMA (which less than 25% of doctors even belong to) with the AAMC.

Actually the AMA is the problem. They lobby to uphold the incredibly strict licensing requirements that doctors use to maintain the exclusivity of their job.

Doctor licensure requirements are stricter in America than most of Europe. For instance, why do doctors NEED to do a 4-year undergrad degree before medical school? Why do they NEED to go to a 2+ year residency after medical school? In Europe, students can go straight to medical school from high school.

Each additional licensure requirement to become a doctor decreases the supply of new doctors, increases the salary of current doctors, and increases the cost to consumers.

https://mises.org/library/how-government-helped-create-comin...

Two things you get wrong:

1. It's actually an EXTRA $100 billion per year - "Because our doctors are paid, on average, more than $250,000 a year (even after malpractice insurance and other expenses), and more than 900,000 doctors in the country" - the TOTAL we spend is about ~$240 billion dollars

2. That is SALARY ONLY. You aren't including the fully loaded cost of doctors: many get large Christmas bonuses, company stock, health care - that could easily be an average of 75k more per doctor

"They'll have to dig themselves out of a pretty deep hole, reputation-wise."

Yet none of these subs are any worse than the New York Times comment section

"Venezuela also respects private property, just to a somewhat lesser extent than other countries. "

Your flat out wrong. Easy example: The government nationalized a GM vehicle factory within the country and then a few weeks later GM officially withdrew.

Does that sound like Venezuela respects private property to you? A nationalization like that would never happen in Western Europe

Fantastic news. I dropped Uber because of how they organize their business. My experience with Lyft in US cities has been fantastic.

Uber could use some competition in Canada as well (outside of our generally terrible taxis).

If you unplugged the government's board (or given decision-making apparatus) and plugged in a (currently nonexistent) AI with the parameter "Maximize Power of Government," would you see a different result? I think not.

-----

My point is that you are implying government is the alternative ("they will govern morally! academics will keep them in check! journalists will keep them in check!") then you need to rethink your conclusions

With that kind of thinking, why are you even posting here? Why do you allow yourself any leisure time when people in the world are starving?

I like how you think comrade!

Actually Texas has cheap, well-funded state schools. It is financially a well-managed state.

Maybe you should switch to saying "That's Illinois" or "That's Chicago", they're the dysfunctional state now.

Huh so my great-grandparents that were farming in the middle of the country side are to blame for this? They didn't even receive newspapers.

The only way they could have protested the government back then was refusing to pay taxes. And that would have gotten them killed.

But here's an even better model: 1. Do a good job 2. Consumers use your service & rely on you 3. Wait for the government to try to shut you down 4. Consumers will back you 5. Government backs down & lets you do what you want