It's an interesting theory, for sure. Continuing down the rabbit hole... I guess you could ask about "company promises" versus "regulatory prohibition". But then one might argue that similarly rests on the population's perception of the efficacy of government regulation, which is certainly also somewhat low...
Seems like it's mostly AWS' answer to Cloudflare D2, but using Postgres as the frame of reference instead of sqlite. (I'm not really sure what to call Postgres in this situation since it's so limited it's clearly not any full version of Postgres in any respect. Postgres-ish)
Oh my goodness, I had the exact same experience with Home Depot. But then they responded to the chargeback and said it was delivered and no going back and forth with American Express would get them to help. I closed my AmEx card and am deeply skeptical of doing business with Home Depot.
Haha, same here. A package was never delivered (though the tracking number said that it was). Home depot representative couldn't resolve the issue, and recommended to make a charge back. After I made a chargeback, HD contacted the bank with a supporting package (receipt, tracking number, etc) and reversed the charge back. At this point I decided not to waste any more time for $50 item and moved on.
What actions would you propose when Twitter has turned off their API access and basically ignored all requests by developers, users and the media for an explanation?
I have a similar desire, I'm considering trying out AWS' RDS Aurora Serverless v2. (ugh, that's a mouthful) Full Postgres/MySQL but extremely quick scale up and down so as long as you have small use, it shouldn't cost a ton.
I'm also super interested in Cloudflare D1, looking to get my hands on it and try it out.
Check out PlanetScale [0] (MySQL). It's free for hobby projects and then a flat $30/mo (+usage if you go over their very high limits). You can run your dev/qa/prod environment all on one "database" using their branches and you also get zero-downtime schema changes which is pretty sweet. I've been very happy with them so far.
I migrated from RDS Aurora Serverless V1 after being frustrated with the high prices (V2 is even worse) and the annoyance of sleeping DBs (for my dev/qa environments, I couldn't afford $45x3/mo). Now I get all 3 for only $30/mo and safe/easy schema migrations. It's been a joy to work with and their support has been very responsive. This week is a "launch week" for them so you'll probably see a few posts about it this week and I encourage you check them out if you are looking for scalable managed MySQL DBs.
V2 is a garbage fire and that was before I knew it didn't scale to zero.
It doubles the cost of V1 and they have the gall to say:
> most Aurora Serverless customers can lower costs by moving to v2 due to a lower starting capacity of 0.5 ACU (vs. 1 ACU in v1)
Oh, why thank you AWS, how kind of you. I can go to 0.5? That doesn't matter at all, the price is the save as 1 ACU on V1.
D1 is interesting but if you want Serverless MySQL then check out PlanetScale [0]. It's free for hobby projects (it will turn off if you go 1 week with no activity) and then it's a flat $30/mo and you can have 2 production branches and 5 development branches. I've been very happy with them so far. The usage-based pricing is a little scary (I know I don't think in rows read/written) but the limits are super high and so far my usage has been barely a blip.
Speaking as a foster parent: my agency like many have rules against posting foster kids to social media. Usually intended to help protect kid's privacy. I think the motivation comes from a handful of places, protecting kids from being exploited for likes, keeping kids privacy, but a big one in foster circles is so that people don't know you're a foster kid unless you say so. Most adults in the system take great care to not acknowledge kids if they run into them in public to avoid situations where kids have to explain to their friends, "Who is that?" and then having an awkward situation where they have to say something like, "That's my caseworker/therapist/whatever".
Some of these make sense (not that I agree with them), but don't seem peculiar to foster children. But what does this one mean?
> so that people don't know you're a foster kid unless you say so.
If you post a photo of your family and none of the children have emoji faces, why would anyone conclude that the foster child is a foster child? Because he looks different? Seems to me that emoji:ing out one child would do the opposite, draw attention to him.
EDIT: It seems we are talking about temporary arrangements, then things become clearer. Still very weird photos.
I was referring generally to the general desire for "the system" to preserve the privacy of kids in care. I think you have to look at it holistically and not just social media. We also signed agreements that we would be very careful with the information we received about our placements, they don't deserve their story being blasted around (even to close friends and family) unless it is needed for the benefit of the child, and even then only to the degree necessary.
I've been in doctor's appointments where the nurse is quizzing me on my family medical history and I've had to stop them with, "We're not biologically related and I don't know the biological history". No need for them to know the whole story.
I feel privacy for kids is really important, for a number of different reasons. (preventing kids from being exploited for likes by foster parents, preservation and ownership for them to tell their story in their way when they are ready for it, privacy, sometimes protection from relatives that don't have their best interests at heart, and probably a dozen other reasons I have never thought of.) The best default is really to keep everything private in my opinion, but obviously not every agency or foster parent will agree to all the same specifics as me.
Not all foster kids come from the same ethnic backgrounds. So for example if you're Caucasian and post a picture of your family with a foster child who is Asian, or African-American etc, it can bring unwanted attention.
Not saying you're wrong at all, I have zero insight into foster care. Just trying to understand.
But why is it a problem if someone sees a family photo and notices that one kid looks different? He could just be adopted, or a friend or something. Is it something like witness protection, the children might have abusive parents that shouldn't be able to find them?
If it's a matter of not standing out, they will stand out just as much when you meet them anyway, right?
The number of people you meet in person is limited by geography. The number of people who might view a photo online is 7+ billion.
Foster kids might have abusive parents as you surmised. They might have been removed from an unsafe home, or have relatives that were denied custody and might act on a photo.
Musana, it’s a small but really really effective organization providing education and health care to people in Uganda. What makes it great is that it is all about using donations from the US to provide infrastructure to build sustainable businesses that empower local people. Website is http://Musana.org. (Disclaimer: been involved/giving/traveling there for 10 years, and am on the board of directors)
> Every person that generates their own electricity stops paying their fair share of maintaining the grid
This isn't true, at least not in Colorado. I pay a number of fees for maintaining the grid and these aren't going away when I have my net meter installed later this week. (hopefully)
