Now that network effects and data lock-in have taken root, downtime is not as big of a concern as it was in the 2000s

What does this even mean? Because people have locked in their data, they’re ok with downtime? I can’t imagine a world where this is true.

It costs a lot of money to move, you don't know if the alternative will be any better, and if it affects a lot of companies then it's nobody's fault. "Nobody ever got fired for buying Cloudflare/AWS" as they say.

It's just that customers are more understanding when they see their Netflix not working either otherwise they just think you're less professional. Try talking to customers after an outage and you will see.

it's not just that, it's the creation of a sorta status symbol, or at least of symbol of normality.

there was a point (maybe still) where not having a netflix subscription was seen as 'strange'.

if that's the case in your social circles -- and these kind of social things bother you -- you're not going to cancel the subscription due to bad service until it becomes a socially accepted norm.

except, yknow, where peoples lives and livelihoods depend on access to information/being able to do things on exact time. aws and cloudflare are disqualifying themselves from hospitals and military and whatnot.

For example, Cloudflare employees make money on promises to mitigate such attacks, but then can’t guarantee they will, and take all their customers down at once. It’s a shared pain model.

Any solution that starts with "if we can all..." is no solution at all

Two big leaps in your answer: 1. that the person paying more is rich and 2. that the person paying more likely doesn't care about the band

The way I see it, it is also highly likely that the person paying more is of average income and just convinced themselves to pay more because they are superfans

ah, I tried to avoid that leap with the "it doesn't matter" but probably didn't come across properly.

The point I'm making is that market value reduces the problem to just money which is being taunted as a magic solution, which might work in some cases but market value doesn't exist in a vacuum and it has side effects. As the topic being discussed is culture it introduces a lot of biases into society that I would find problematic.

Also, if we want to talk in pure capitalist terms, Ticketmaster is already a monopoly of sorts in the music buisiness, there's no "market value" if there's no pressure to lower prices, they can make the experience as bad as possible without repercussions other than people not going to concerts anymore which as a society would suck

Those repercussions are essentially just a form of market feedback through demand contraction, i.e. it is the inevitable result of human action under conditions of scarcity and subjective preference, a natural outcome. The market would correct itself. If no one goes to Ticketmaster, someone else could (and if there is demand (among other things), most likely will) take its place, and they will no longer be a monopoly, simply put.

Thanks for the comment. Couldn't have said it better. Also, good point about Ticketmaster. One seller, incomparable goods.

I'm also black and growing up I had the impression that "woke" referred to left-leaning conspiracy theorists and activists. 9/11 truthers and gay rights activists were the main woke groups of the Bush era

Going to guess you're pretty young? Seems odd to have not heard it differently elsewhere first.

What you are talking of is only possible in companies where the founder didn't take VC investment. Once you take VC money, you get on the treadmill of infinite growth to satisfy investors. That makes companies do strange things in pursuit of this impossible goal. Like hiring for the sake of showing growth in headcount, hiring people to branch into unrelated verticals, hiring people with big resumes just to say you have them on the team etc

One thing I've come to realize is that the larger your social circle, the more prone you are to comparisons and hence lifestyle creep. You can see this where the careers that involve a lot of socializing (sales, entertainment, law, finance etc) are known for having flashy people. And the careers that you can do as a loner (programming, quant, researcher etc) are known for having miserly folk

And it's also bad for business. I think people on either side of the aisle underestimate just how tilted the other side can get when you go against them

You're on it right now. HN is a very old site with old users and old mods that links to other old sites

The reality is that people constantly vote for well-intentioned, empathetic interventions that have adverse economic effects in the long run

They were great until they put fast downloads behind a paywall. It's like they're going out of their way to throttle download speeds nowadays