That will cause a total loss of EU-money ever being spent on US digital goods for a generation.

Who "they"?

The problem here is that Trump believes that the Norwegian government has any say in what a private organisation is doing, and - to be frank - just shows that Trump is a tyrant who wants everyone to use illegal force to please him.

It gives good insight into how trump thinks of his own power in the US.

“I do whatever the fuck I want. I say jump, people ask how high. People do what I say”

He expects the same of other leaders in other countries.

They would be The Norwegian Nobel Committee, who at this point should realize what a disaster their prize has been, and not only last year. It was inherently poorly conceived, and shouldn't be awarded to the living, who can and do go on to wage war, agitate social instability, and act against the interests of peace.

The brink of world war 3 over fucking goodhart’s law.

We are not a serious species.

When combined with the Peter principle, it doesn’t make for great progress, no.

> isn’t a good look for Nobel, and shows that we’ve now moved so far from the original intention of the prize that the peace component really should be scrapped.

I don't follow. Are you saying the committee should have known that Trump would literally wage a military war if he isn't awarded the peace prize? Are you saying if they changed their mind now and allowed Venezuelan politician Machado to gift her prize to Trump, that Trump would no longer have a desire to own Greenland? I'm honestly trying to understand but maybe I missed an important story.

Well it should be apparent that Greenland is the sovereign territory of another NATO member, Denmark. Coming along like a transactional narcissist and claiming you “need it or else” and breaking nato over it OR you get the Nobel peace prize for not capturing it.

The thing is, they don't "need" to do anything.

This is the prize.

If people find it irrelevant it will become irrelevant.

The committee didn't ask for the US president to put so much relevance into it.

He got the FIFA peace prize. It would be better if he valued that prize higher.

You have to ask yourself. Why is it important for you that they change?

> Right! Either scrap it, or award it only to (A) those recently deceased who have devoted their lives to making peace, or (B) defunct organizations who have completed their mission and had operated in the interests of peace.

The legal trust for all the Nobel Prizes state (AIUI) that they can only be awarded to living persons.

The only option would be to not award it (like happened in 1948).

Jens-Frederik Nielsen is the PM of Greenland, while all the things you mention are from Denmark.

As if such a pesky geographic detail ever stopped USA from invading Afghanistan when fifteen Saudi, two UAE, and one Lebanese nationals attacked them in 2001.

Or so they say, judging by the passports that survived the carnage and inferno

Can we please not kid ourselves with thoughts about how this being good from certain perspectives, when the development is _clearly_ bad for consumers?

I do agree with the negatives, but at the same time, I do see some upside. I live in a cycling city, and need to rent a car maybe once a year. why then should I bother myself with the annoyances of vehicle ownership?

Let me be clear here: I do not own a car and I live in a city that doesn't require car ownership.

There is a difference between choosing not to own something because it is personally more efficient or reasonable to do so, and being priced out of owning something. I don't own a car because I don't need it, I rent because I cannot afford a home.

Done charitably, I think the mainframe model of shared compute does meet most person's needs where they don't need to care about latency. It would allow us to take advantage of economies of scale. The problem, imo, is that no one has an incentive to do this as a service, so it would turn into rent-seeking.

Sure, a shared model does make sense in many ways. We could share within a family, neighbour cooperatives, and similar scales. With the users co-owning the means of processing.

But the current model is that we all rent from organisations that use their position of power to restrict and dictate what we can do with those machines.

But I do care about latency . . . and I want things to still work when the wifi is dodgy. I already find things like Office 360 deeply frustrating (only use it for work).

You do, but most people don't. So not enough people will complain that it will make any difference. And the people who don't complain will just keep forking out money because they're addicted.

Most don't? Streaming isn't large enough to say that yet I don't think. Google Stadia wasn't a big hit

The problem is benchmarking on the 96 vcpu server, because at that point the author seems to miss the point of Kafka. That's just a waste of money for that performance.

And if the OP hadn't done that, someone here would complain, why couldn't the OP use a larger CPU and test if Postgres performs better? Really, there is no way the OP can win here, can they?

I'm glad the OP benchmarked on the 96 vCPU server. So now I know how well Postgres performs on a large CPU. Not very well. But if the OP had done their benchmark on a low CPU, I wouldn't have learned this.

you're missing the point. Postgres performs well on large CPU. Postgres as-used by OP does not and is a waste of money. It's great that he benchmarked for a larger CPU, that's not what people are disputing, they are disputing the ridiculous conclusion.

I remember doing 900k writes/s (non-replicated) already back on kafka 0.8 with a random physical server with an old fusionio drive (says something about how long ago this was :D).

It's a fair point that if you already have a pgsql setup, and only need a few messages here and there, then pg is fine. But yeah, the 96 vcpu setup is absurd.

I think they can be a helpful hint about how things are positioned relative to each other.

There was one this Sunday, but it wasn't even mentioned in the news.

So it has begun

Then they lose their 11 years of history

But they said their instance would be deactivated which is what I'm asking about.

Does it stay active w/ the ability to continue to use it minus the features of the paid account or is it shut down completely.

Probably worth it and possibly a great lesson for others.

Back in 2006 everything was self hosted, and chat was - everyone sharing each others AIM accounts around the room. Everything should probably go back to self hosting, including our servers.

The data and searchability is slacks main selling point. A lot of people don't get that.

I've been using slack for years, since they didn't have video chat or any of that.

There are countless chat apps, including IRC. Slack's offering is that I can find messages or files on some subject from years ago with little effort in a matter of seconds. The history is the product IMO. The free 90 day version is worthless IMO, and barely better than IRC etc.

Slack's name is supposedly derived from "Searchable Log of All Conversation and Knowledge".

> The free 90 day version is worthless IMO

I strongly disagree. The company I work at (sub-50 people) has never paid for Slack over our entire history (founded in 2009).

It's chat and it works fine. That's all it needs to be for us. We don't need to switch to IRC or one of the other countless chat apps.

We're never going to need to be indignant that Slack is suddenly asking us for more money and then rush to migrate. When they shut down the free tier, we'll take our ephemeral chat somewhere else.

I think the lesson is more to not to pay for ephemeral chat. If Slack will let you chat for free with 90 days history, don't get sucked into the paid version if you can at all avoid it.

Yeah this. Do not pay for something that is absolutely integral to your operations, when viable alternatives exist.

This is very well explained in the linked post.

Can you quote it? From what I can gather the linked post doesn't mention Zulip

Zulip no (which has its own issues from what I read) but they are migrating to mattermost:

> Anyway, we’re moving to Mattermost. This experience has taught us that owning your data is incredibly important, and if you’re a small business especially, then I’d advise you move away too.