R2 also doesn't have all the features that S3 does - including an equivalent of S3 Glacier, which is cheaper storage than R2. R2 also doesn't have object tagging, object-level permissions, or object locking. Sure, you could build your own layer in front of R2 that gives you these features, but are you necessarily saving money over just using S3?
Anyone know why the rule against perpetuities wouldn’t apply? Also, is there anyone who could meaningfully enforce this covenant? I appreciate that you wouldn’t necessarily want to risk it anyway, but just to ensure I understand the issue here.
The rule against perpetuities places some limitations on the creation of future interests in land. The kind of covenant in this case doesn't create a future interest.
Presumably someone has a claim for damages if the covenant is violated, in which case they have a future interest in it. If no-one can enforce the covenant, well, it might as well not exist.
The point is that once they are no longer compatible, people would standardize on the one that they're familiar with which is most likely the one that's running on their machine.
But currently, people are equally comfortable with both; the CLI commands are exactly identical between the two, save for the name of the binary itself. In any org where both are in use, if people are forced to choose at some point, they will have to balance many other factors besides familiarity, such as features and confidence in the platform.
The high-voltage transmission grid is operated by National Grid, which is a British company. Distribution to end-users is operated at a regional level by one of six* Distribution Network Operators [1], three of which are British-owned.
Consumers can purchase electricity from any electricity supplier that is willing to sell to them. Naturally, since it all goes into one grid, suppliers are responsible for ensuring that they purchase from generators and sell to consumers an equal amount of electricity. EDF is one of several suppliers in the market. (There were many more until energy prices rose following the Russian invasion of Ukraine and many suppliers collapsed.)
The gas distribution system works similarly, but I'm not familiar with the details.
* It's slightly more complicated, but it rounds to six.
Do you have a link to Matt Levine's article? I've just skimmed his emails that have "Texas Two-Step" and don't see any defense thereof (mostly just explanations around J&J), but could well have missed it/before I started subscribing.
* "User-friendly interface" - that's the minimum bar! you don't need to mention it.
* "Enhance productivity" - again, I should hope so.
* "Fair usage policy" - oh good, you'll cut me off just when I need you most.
Also:
* How are potential customers finding out about you? Online ads? You being a sales team and reaching out?
* How do I know that your product is worth me paying money for? There's no trial or similar.
* Who's your customer?
1. Individuals? If so, how likely are they to need to constantly scan PDFs that $5/month makes sense each and every month? Consider doing a usage-based pricing model instead.
2. Businesses? Who are you - i.e. what's the legal entity they're dealing with? Do you have APIs that they can use? Why you instead of a proven competitor?
I won't lie to you, I totally agree on your critiques of the pricing page. It "feels" like I need to say "you're getting a whole lot of value" in words that sound nice. If I saw this, I would roll my eyes, but a lot of people don't seem to. And, importantly, it doesn't seem to detract (but I'm open to rebuttal here).
Regarding fair usage, this is because I need some way to tell people who sign up that I'm not going to let them abuse it. I could have a different pricing model where you pay per page or something, but, quite frankly, I think I get better margins like this.
The reason for this post is that I'm not sure how to get potential customers to find me :)
My own customer is an individual who started using it when it was free and emailed me that he was looking forward to when it "came out of beta" and was more than willing to pay. So I brought it out of beta and he started paying. I acquired him through twitter (no personal connection). You ask good questions from the perspective of my customers, though. Thanks!
R2 also doesn't have all the features that S3 does - including an equivalent of S3 Glacier, which is cheaper storage than R2. R2 also doesn't have object tagging, object-level permissions, or object locking. Sure, you could build your own layer in front of R2 that gives you these features, but are you necessarily saving money over just using S3?