> If an individual site took on the infra challenges themselves, would they achieve better? I don’t think so.
That's a wrong way of looking at it though. For 99.99% individual sites, I wouldn't care if they were down for weeks. Even if I use this site, there are very few sites that I need to use daily. For the rest of them, if one of them randomly goes down I probably would never know or notice, because I didn't need it then. However, when single-point-of-failure provider, like Cloudflare, goes down, you bet I notice. I must notice, because my work would be affected, my CI/CD pipelines will start failing, my newsfeeds will stop, I will notice it in dozens of places - because everybody uses it. The aggregated fails-per-unit-of-time may be less but the impact of each fail is way, way more, and the probability of it impacting me is approaching certainty.
So for me, as an average internet user, it would be much better if all the world wouldn't go down at once, even if the instances of particular things going down would be more frequent - provided they are randomly distributed in time and not concentrated. If just one thing goes down, I could do another thing. If everything goes down, I can only sit and twiddle my thumbs until it's back up.
I am the least likely guy to defend communists, but come on. It's not even clear he is a communist, and if you need to dunk on communists, you could find much, much better targets. His personality has nothing to do with his political views, and there are a lot of smooth talking and suave communists. It's just a cheap shot, which doesn't do good to anyone.
I don't have much time to expand, but this is not at all a cheap shot.
It's how I see him now that I am more cognizant about the world. Since I first learned about him when I got interested in Linux back in the late 90s, the only thing he has done is complain about others needing to share their work for free.
This is basically the whole communist shtick.
It is a well-informed opinion, drawing from personal experience, economics courses, readings on psychology, as well as historical research.
Here is a paste of a previous reply.
I strongly disagree.
I don't know whether he would identify himself as a communist politically, but it doesn't matter. Furthermore, I am entitled to analyze his ideas and classify them as I please.
And as far as I'm concerned, he is arguing about fruits of labor being free in the typical “comrade” idealization from communism.
If at least he was actually doing what he preaches, one could be charitable. But actually he is just a goddamn activist, endlessly arguing about why the work of others should be free while he does zero work of value himself.
Every far-left friend I have had, who always touts some form of communism or sharing of resources, has been the one who systematically shares the least.
And that is true both from a material point of view and effort/labor perspective as well.
Hence my conclusion that they are assholes.
It seems to have hurt the sensibilities of his followers, but that was expected, and since they are assholes, you cannot expect them to be truthful.
By the way, political ideology is identifiable in genetics, so yes, it is absolutely certain that your political ideas correlate with how you interact with peoples.
I know somebody who smoked a lived to be 90 years old, therefore all that they speak about harms of smoking are lies.
You realize people are different, and your knowledge of tiny number of data points tells you very little about people who aren't those people you know?
I totally get it. If I were famous I probably would do that all the time (fortunately I am not). I don't hate people, I just don't need to always talk to them. Sometimes I just don't want to talk to people, especially ones I don't know. I'd rather... well, do anything else, but by myself. Sometimes I am OK to talk to other people, but it's my choice, not one of a random person. Email is much better because you can choose when you send the mail, when you read the mail, and you don't have to perform on demand (for an introvert, social interaction is hard work).
I wish that'd happen, but instead what we have is that everybody is making terrible new content, and getting any of the old content is a nightmare too because there are 28 or so subscriptions needed, which are constantly increasing prices (yeah, they are supposed to be competing, but somehow...) and constantly shuffling their lists, so you can just lose access to a series in the middle of a rewatch. I hope eventually it will organize into something resembling normalcy, but it's not happening so far... There's of course other solution (ahoy, matey!) but I'd rather just pay reasonable sum for a subscription. I know Netflix buying everything is not a solution either, but so far it's only getting worse.
Or they are performant now. But once people start writing CSS code the same way the write JS code, they stop to be. You can still write super-tight code in ASM (or eve C) and it will be blazing fast. Almost nobody does it, because it's too hard. Once people start writing CSS the same way, it'll become slow and bloated too.
> The fact is that our most intimate interactions with others are now governed by the expectation of surveillance and punishment from an online public
It's a horrible way to live your life. But it doesn't have to be this way. This has to be this way only for terminally online people. If you don't go to twitter, there's no importance to anything anybody on twitter thinks about you. Of course, for certain people, like actors, politicians, top-level entertainers and so on, there's no other way to achieve anything now, but for most people it's entirely optional. You don't need to be on twitter (substitute any social media here) to be a good teacher, farmer, programmer, designer, builder, gardener, nurse or car mechanic. It's still completely voluntary so far.
That's a wrong way of looking at it though. For 99.99% individual sites, I wouldn't care if they were down for weeks. Even if I use this site, there are very few sites that I need to use daily. For the rest of them, if one of them randomly goes down I probably would never know or notice, because I didn't need it then. However, when single-point-of-failure provider, like Cloudflare, goes down, you bet I notice. I must notice, because my work would be affected, my CI/CD pipelines will start failing, my newsfeeds will stop, I will notice it in dozens of places - because everybody uses it. The aggregated fails-per-unit-of-time may be less but the impact of each fail is way, way more, and the probability of it impacting me is approaching certainty.
So for me, as an average internet user, it would be much better if all the world wouldn't go down at once, even if the instances of particular things going down would be more frequent - provided they are randomly distributed in time and not concentrated. If just one thing goes down, I could do another thing. If everything goes down, I can only sit and twiddle my thumbs until it's back up.
reply