I don't understand how Cloudflare's bottom line benefits:
Some here say they gain Astro users, that Cloudflare will become part of the default deployment. But given Cloudflare's current scale, how much are Astro's users worth? Is it even worth the distraction for Cloudflare? Companies lose energy to lots of small, low-value operations.
Most acquisitions begin with announcments that nothing will change, in order to retain customers and employees. They say '<acquistion> is so great, we don't want to interfere, and we're keeping existing management and letting them run things'. After the transition period - often 1 year - the old managers leave and the big changes happen, sometimes including shutting down the product because it was an acqui-hire all along or an IP acquisition.
It seems like Cloudflare must perceive some profit beyond what is announced.
Why does Vercel provide Next.js? Aside from talent & tightly coupling Astro to their services, their North Star might be similar to Weekly Number of New Domains Hosted On Cloudflare. Sponsoring a framework that helps ship performant websites feeds into that metric.
Yeah I see the benefit right off the bat, this is a direct head to Vercel and NextJS.
With that said, I have no idea on the market share or profitability of any of that or Cloudflare vs Vercel.
Also perhaps the rails that will be put in place for seamless 1 click Astro deploy will continue to push them forward with other technologies as well, so it's not just about Astro.
I do feel that fear as well, is this an unnecessary distraction for CloudFlare? Time will tell.
They can say whatever they want, and then do whatever they want. They have no contractual or legal obligation.
Almost every (it seems) acquisition begins with saying, 'nothing will change and the former management will stay on'. A year later, the former managment leaves and things change dramatically.
> sticking stuff in the dryer for ~5 minutes on the lowest possible setting before putting it on a hanger is fine to help fluff out any wrinkles
Just hang it without wrinkles and it will be perfect when it's dry. When air drying, I don't hang shirts by their shoulders or pants by the belt end, I fold them over the hanger (or drying rack bar) at their midpoints. Adjust a little to get out most wrinkles, and they are beautiful and unwrinkled when dry.
Agreed. Among multiple organizations that large and complex, the buck can be passed infinitely. There's the lowly worker who installed the flawed part - the safest target, of course - who can pass it to the worker who made it, who can pass it to engineer, to their manager, back to the engineer who the manager relied on after all, the CAD software developer, to the materials supplier, to the machine tool manufacturer, the HVAC contractor who made the manufacturing facility too humid ...
For almost any act, we rely on other people. That doesn't absolve us of our personal responsibility.
Some are forgetting how risk in technology works: No technology is designed or operated without flaws; that's an absurd approach and impossible to implement.
To reduce negative outcomes, we use risk management: assessing the likely lifetime cost of the flaw, and taking cost-effective measures to reduce the risk to an acceptable level. As a familiar example, redundant mass storage drives are much more cost-effective than high-reliability mass storage drives.
The DC-10 and MD-11 are both McDonnell Douglas. They merged into Boeing, but instead of Boeing’s safety and innovation oriented culture, McDonnell‘s finance bros won with their cost and corner cutting measures.
Aviation rules are written by blood, you either follow them or you add a few more lines with your own blood.
> Aviation rules are written by blood, you either follow them or you add a few more lines with your own blood.
Please, what fool subjects their own blood to the absence of regulation? If you've got blood on your hands, much better for it to be a customer that has already paid you.
Sure, but the problem is, Boeing is a company that has a proven record of lying about the flaws of their products. There's a huge difference between "shit, nobody thought this part would crack in this way" and "we knew someone would eventually die, but we realized that paying the damages in case this happens is cheaper than preventing the disaster in the first place".
> "we knew someone would eventually die, but we realized that paying the damages in case this happens is cheaper than preventing the disaster in the first place".
The fundamental reality is, we can always spend more to prevent another death; and we must draw the line somewhere.
People don't like it, but your latter example is the risk management I'm talking about, and it's unavoidable. Nobody can make airplanes that have no risk of killing people - the only answer would be no airplanes at all (which would result in more automobile deaths, more deaths because life-saving resources are unavailable, etc.). The calculation of cost per death prevented is a real one, and is done by manufacturers of planes, cars, etc.
The problem with your wording is the criteria of paying damages, rather than the industry-standard value for human life. Again, that is awful to think about but there's no way around it.
Edit: And I'm not saying, at all, that Boeing made the right decision here. I don't know enough to say, and Boeing's safety reputation is poor.
There is some nuance to risk management here. Yes, no one can make something that has genuinely zero risk, but we can and must eliminate particular known risks. A fix being too expensive is not a valid excuse. There are plenty of things we don't do because there is no economical way to do them safely.
Boeing sacrifices 346 people in order to avoid plane recertification. Just so that we don't forget the context of the specific risk management strategies we're talking about.
reply