I actually would like to see a study about this. I am starting to think that the stereotype of lethargic potheads chilling on a couch comes mostly from portrayals in movies. Anecdotally, I encounter many people casually using cannabis while engaged in varying levels of physical activity, ranging from just hanging out in the city, to going on hikes, to outright partying or dancing late into the night. I even heard a couple folks use it as a "pre-workout" for long runs or lifting.
I'm sure it depends on the dosage, but the relationship between usage and physical activity seems to be more nuanced than is generally understood.
It's shockingly accurate. Sure people get high and do other stuff but the amount of people just sitting on couches passing weed around for hours is huge.
This poses a confirmation bias issue though, no? People obviously taking marijuana and sitting around: something you look for because of the stereotype/expectation, and relatively obvious if you’re around them. People doing activities not stereotypically associated with marijuana: less obvious.
Unless they are publicly consuming it (which I suspect is a bit rarer due to restrictions on and stigma about consumption in public), how would you count people who aren’t engaging in expected stoner behavior?
I don’t have a dog in this fight or suspected conclusion. Just seems like it might be harder than you think to truthfully assert “everyone knows most people who take pot just sit around”.
Which is interesting to me because, ironically, I use sativa strains to (very successfully) overcome ASD-related social anxiety so that I can go rock climbing in a gym. I use sedating indicas for the evening wind-down and sleep.
The real serverless horror isn't the occasional mistake that leads to a single huge bill, it's the monthly creep. It's so easy to spin up a resource and leave it running. It's just a few bucks, right?
I worked for a small venture-funded "cloud-first" company and our AWS bill was a sawtooth waveform. Every month the bill would creep up by a thousand bucks or so, until it hit $20k at which point the COO would notice and then it would be all hands on deck until we got the bill under $10k or so. Rinse and repeat but over a few years I'm sure we wasted more money than many of the examples on serverlesshorrors.com, just a few $k at a time instead of one lump.
this is really the AWS business model - you can call it the "planet fitness" model if you prefer. Really easy to sign up and spend money, hard to conveniently stop paying the money.
Sounds like your organization isn’t learning from these periods of high bill. What lead to the bill creeping up, and what mechanisms could be put in place to prevent them in the first place?
At only 20k a month, the work put into reducing the bill back down probably costs more in man hours than the saving, time which would presumably be better spent building profitable features that more than make up for the incremental cloud cost. Assuming of course the low hanging fruit of things like oversized instances, unconstrained cloudwatch logs and unterminated volumes have all been taken care of.
> what mechanisms could be put in place to prevent them in the first place?
Those mechanisms would lead to a large reduction in their "engineering" staff and the loss of potential future bragging rights in how modern and "cloud-native" their infrastructure is, so nobody wants to implement them.
With that model, your cost doesn't change, though. When/if you find you need more resources, you can (if you haven't been doing so) audit existing applications to clear out cruft before you purchase more hardware.
The cost of going through that list often outweighs the cost of the hardware, by a lot.
And in a lot of cases it's hard to find out if a production application can be switched off. Since the cost is typically small for an unused application, I don't know if there are many people willing to risk being wrong
People always say stuff like this, and I just don’t buy it. It’s not that hard to analyze network traffic to see what does and doesn’t have active connections. When you’re relatively certain, shut it off for a week. If no one screams, delete it. If a month later someone is screaming, it’s their own damn fault for having no docs on something idle 90% of the time.
I've done many things that got new data ingested on a monthly basis. So say 29 days out of every month they would be idle.
Is it worth starting and stopping those kind of things? Probably not?
If you turn off a VM running something like that, because you didn't see any traffic for a day. Are you going to explain how you just shut it down to save a few dollars a month? I would very much like to see how that unfolds
I recently received an AI-slop bug report for a small open source project (PureLB) that I maintain, and the slop was generated by DeepWiki. It was very incorrect, but I didn't know what "DeepWiki" was so I wasted about an hour. If DeepWiki is causing garbage bug reports even on tiny projects like mine, I can't imagine how much maintainer time it's wasting over all.
I use Firefox but donate to Ladybird and Servo. Mozilla Corp is too far gone but hopefully the next generation of browsers will have less corporate baggage.
I'm curious about the pros and cons of Cloudflare pages versus GitHub pages. Given that you're using GH as a repo, would it be simpler to also use it to serve pages?
> GitHub Pages is not intended for or allowed to be used as a free web-hosting service to run your online business, e-commerce site, or any other website that is primarily directed at either facilitating commercial transactions or providing commercial software as a service (SaaS).
Not finding a similar mention for Cloudflare... commercial sites are fine there?
The way I understand this is not that Github Pages can't be used for commercial purposes, but that it's not OK for something like ecommerce with many users every minute which generates a lot of load?
So a small company could host a static landing page with generic info and "contact us" etc., and that would be fine, I think?
It also mentions that breaking the rules will result in getting a "polite email suggesting ways to reduce load on Github".
So a personal website with a personal blog is ok then.
Curious though how it handles a surge in requests, like from being on the front-page of HN. But many open source projects host their doc pages with Github pages and some of those get a lot of traffic so I'm sure that it's not an issue
The "front page of HN" has not scaled like the rest of the computing hardware has scaled. The smallest VM you can get serving static content will yawn at the full power of an HN surge. Unless you have a very 200x-era bandwidth limit, or you're trying to be on the front page of HN with a 250MB web page (which does happen), it's not anything to be concerned about anymore.
I already have several other projects and DNS managed in Cloudflare, so it made sense to keep everything in one place. GitHub Pages would definitely work too.
I connect the custom domain in the Cloudflare Pages dashboard. Once the site is deployed, you can assign a domain under Pages > Custom Domains, and since I already manage DNS in Cloudflare, it's just a couple of clicks to route it.
If you're using cloudflare already then it makes sense, closer to the edge and all that, plus there's integration to make that all very seamless from gh.
You responded with an ad-hominem attack. If you can offer a rebuttal of the facts then please do, otherwise try to refrain from personal attacks.
reply